Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:01, 11 May 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the X-Men (film series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	X-Men (film series) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 3, 2007 Good article nominee Listed September 11, 2008 Good topic candidate Not promoted January 2, 2009 Good topic candidate Promoted September 30, 2009 Good topic removal candidate Kept January 9, 2010 Good topic removal candidate Demoted Current status: Good article

Film: British / Comic book / American GA‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the British cinema task force. This article is supported by the Comic book films task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Comics: Marvel / Films GA‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Related work groups: /  This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group. This article is supported by Comic book films work group.

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Booker, M. Keith (2007). "The X-Men Film Franchise". May Contain Graphic Material: Comic Books, Graphic Novels, and Film. Praeger. ISBN 0275993868.
• Gardner, Eriq (2010-11-29). "Fox Sues to Stop Film and TV Script Leaks". The Hollywood Reporter.
• http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/bryan_singer_says_x-men_first_class_sequel_could_be_set_during_vietnam/
• http://screenrant.com/xmen-first-class-sequel-ideas-schrad-117120/
• http://splashpage.mtv.com/2011/05/27/x-men-first-class-sequel-cast/
• http://collider.com/james-mcavoy-x-men-first-class-sequel/94462/
• Zeitchik, Steve (2011-06-07). "Bryan Singer: An 'X-Men: First Class' sequel could be set in Vietnam, or amid the civil rights movement". Los Angeles Times.

Sorting the films in different categories?

So it looks like an editor made me a drastic change in the article, which he or she sent as a "minor" edit. That was a minor edit at all! Categorizing the films into "X-Men", " Wolverine" and "Deadpool". These are all X-Men films and mind you, there was no actual X-Men team in First Class, so that questions the film itself being a "X-Men" film - if we really have to categorize each film. Sort them by the order of release like we've been doing for many years now. This change just messes up the article in my opinion.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

And please, keep all the films under development stage/pre-production stage in films in development. And please stop labelling sections with "future". I thought there was already a consensus that "future" isn't an appropriate name for a section.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with order of release. Brocicle (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheVeryHotWikipedian and Brocicle. I didn't make the edit but I am wondering whether it would be worthwhile to categorise the films into "original trilogy", "prequel trilogy", "Wolverine trilogy" and "Deadpool film". I think that there is significant similarities within the categories and significant differences between the categories.. in terms of story, cast, crew, etc.. and Fox, Singer, Mangold, Reese&Wernick categorise the films when they talk about them. The Star Trek, Star Wars and American Pie articles categories their films so it's not that unusual. What are you thoughts about doing it with this article? Thanks, New9374 (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)¥

it is easier to read and follow if they are listed by the time of release, unlike if we divide them in different sections/categories.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it makes it harder to follow if they are listed by the time of release. Take a look at the three most recent films: "X-Men: Apocalypse", "Deadpool" and "Logan". The plot and development of "X-Men: Apocalypse" is unrelated to "Deadpool", and the plot and development of "Deadpool" is unrelated to "Logan". If we divide them into different categorises, then it'd be easier to follow because, for example, the plot and development of "X-Men: Days of Future Past" is related to "X-Men: Apocalypse" (just read the plot and development.. "Set after X-Men: Days of Future Past", "a sequel to X-Men: Days of Future Past", "complete a trilogy that began with X-Men: First Class"). What do you think? Thanks, New9374 (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Its not hard to follow. The Wolverine films are set in different time periods and yet you want them in the same sections? Stick with this one.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It should be order of release, easier to follow. Brocicle (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Recurring Characters

So I've brought this up before, but is there really nothing we can do about the recurring characters table on this page? It's only getting bigger and bigger, and it is quite hard to read at this point. Plus the same information can also be found on List of X-Men films cast members. 2001:982:4947:1:7885:E851:38D0:5A7D (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

well I removed the cast members that weren't officially confirmed to appear in New Mutants and Dark phoenix.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

That removes unsourced information, but that doesn't actually affect the readability of the table itself though. It might be worth looking into something like this at the very least. (If the current table will keep being expanded that is.)

Otherwise the table will just keep getting pushed further off the page. Right now when you get to Dark Phoenix you can't see the character names on the left anymore either, and that will only get worse as more movies get added. 2001:982:4947:1:8857:B376:8AC3:2A9A (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You can scroll leftside and right side. There isnt really a solution as there's just too much films. Unless you want to remove the box, and do a tally, then mention one by one which films they appeared in.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's gotten to a point where it should become a separate page. Brocicle (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well we do already have a separate page with List of X-Men films cast members. So maybe we should clean that page up and only have a basic overview on this page? 2001:982:4947:1:2D51:E8F1:C3C0:7BFA (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason as to why not. Any editors oppose cleaning up the cast members page and removing the table but still linking to appropriate article? Brocicle (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I reformatted the section and only features characters and not including the actors that portrayed the characters in the films. Since the title only mentioned "recurring characters" and not cast members. Its best to save the cast members for List of X-Men films cast members. Now the section looks tidy!TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Totally disagree. The table as previously formatted matches many other character tables for many other franchises. The new table, although perhaps "cleaner", doesn't easily relay the same information. MUCH prefer the previous version!Rcarter555 (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Section states recurring characters only. It doesn't matter if it doesn't match the other articles if benefits this article! Again there's a separate article for the cast members! Keep those cast tables in that section!TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Singer, Bryan (December 18, 2012). "I would officially like to welcome @RealHughJackman to the cast of #Xmen Days of Future Past. Very excited! More to come..." Twitter. Archived from the original on March 12, 2013. Retrieved March 25, 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
2. Collis, Clark (February 24, 2017). "Patrick Stewart is Retiring from the X-Men franchise". Retrieved April 25, 2017.

It isn't about preference, it's about keeping the page at legibility. The table is far too big for the article and will only get bigger with more films being added. For legibility reasons it should be downsized significantly or removed completely and moved to a separate article. Brocicle (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

That is pretty much my main concern as well. Hence my suggestion for sticking with List of X-Men films cast members for this type of content. However it might also be an option to (for example) group certain movies together if we at least want to be able to communicate the main actors and characters appearing in the series. A very rudimentary example below.

However I'm not sure that would be the best solution and even if something like that were to be done, I think the focus should be on List of X-Men films cast members anyway. What do you guys think about this? Is it still relevant to display some of this info on this page, or would it be better if this page simply just pointed readers to List of X-Men films cast members, and not have any tables about cast members on this page at all? 2001:982:4947:1:EC7C:7097:4A3E:954B (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I really like this one as it is concise and to-the-point. The page is getting WAY too huge, which is also why I suggested a title change months ago (it's no longer solely X-Men films). There was also a format a while ago that was abbreviated titles. That did away with the scrolling illegible issue, and also looked tidey without changing the format too drastically. However, I think a 'chronology' summary of "1, 2, 3, 4, 5,...." instead of "X, X2, X:TLS, X:OW,...." for titles makes more sense.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

There's a couple of problems with this format. First, we are placing the films in categories that we are making up ourselves ("Original Trilogy" and "Beginnings Trilogy" exist no where in nature), thus it is original research. And secondly (and more importantly), even if we did this, the problem occurs when a character has appeared in one or two of the films under a certain category, but not all of them. If I put a character and actor under "Original Trilogy", but they are not in all three films that encompass that description, then we are putting forth false and misleading information.Rcarter555 (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Similar concept

How about something like this, which is similar to the version above and following what the MCU does. This example is not 100% correct since I quickly did it (the characters are not all in alpha order and some of the cameo tags are missing). With more francises (Gambit, X-Force, X-23, etc.) inevitable in this film series, it only makes sense to group the films together for the recurring cast table. - Brojam (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

List indicator(s)

• This table only shows characters that have appeared in three or more films in the series.
• A dark grey cell indicates the character was not in the franchise, or that the character's presence in a film of the franchise has not yet been announced.
• An indicates a role as an older version of the character.
• A indicates a cameo role.
• A indicates a voice-only role

References

1. "Cast of X-Men Origins: Wolverine". Yahoo! Movies. Retrieved May 8, 2009.
2. ^ Wigler, Josh (June 23, 2014). "How 'X-Men: Days Of Future Past' Made One Of Its Top-Secret Cameos Possible". Retrieved April 25, 2017.
3. Weintraub, Steve. "Famke Janssen Talks The Wolverine, Taken 3 and More". Retrieved April 25, 2017.
4. Singer, Bryan (March 4, 2013). "Twitter / BryanSinger: Couldn't be more excited that #HalleBerry has joined the cast of #XMen #DaysofFuturePast. Hopefully she can improve the weather in Montreal". Retrieved April 25, 2017.
5. ^ Keyes, Rob (January 26, 2013). "Iceman, Kitty Pryde & Rogue Return For 'X-Men: Days of Future Past'". Screenrant.
6. ^ "Deadpool 2: Ryan Reynolds And Colossus Actor React To Cable Casting, Confirm X-Force". Retrieved April 25, 2017.
7. Singer, Bryan (March 15, 2013). "3 #Oscars, 6 #GoldenGlobes, 1 #BAFTA, 2 #Emmys, 2 #Tonys, 5 #Oliviers, 1 #Ceaser – Now let's blow s**t up! #XMEN". Twitter. Archived from the original on April 25, 2017. Retrieved March 15, 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
8. Chitwood, Adam. "Kelsey Grammer Talks Appearing in X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST". Retrieved April 25, 2017.

The problem with grouping the films together is twofold. One, it requires someone to decide which category each film would fall under. Granted, up until now it's fairly clear, but there's no guarantee that it will stay that way. Secondly, and more importantly, it is confusing as to which actors or characters appeared in which films. In your example, for instance, you have Tim Pocock listed as appearing as Cyclops in the "Wolverine films." But he only appeared in X-Men Origins: Wolverine and did NOT appear in The Wolverine or Logan. So essentially you're presenting incorrect information. And that's just one example of something that would get out of control. Rcarter555 (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can see what you mean about it being somewhat misleading, however this is also done on the MCU table. For example, Tom Holland does not appear in all Captain America films, only Civil War. But you can clearly understand based on that table that he has appeared in a Captain America film in addition to his own francise and Avengers films. With the grouping of the films, it allows the reader to tell the recurring characters & actors across the different francises. This table should only be a summary since the specifics of each character and actor for every single film already has its own article. If it really bothers people, we can always add abbreviation tags of the films next to an actors names if they have not appeared in all the films in the francise. So Tim Pocock would have . - Brojam (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that this was the template for the table at the MCU page, but I have to say, I think it's wrong there too. The purpose of doing this way is to make the table more readable, but it actually makes the information more confusing. You say that you can clearly understand in the MCU table that Tom Holland appeared in at least one Captain America film, but when I just looked at it, if I didn't know better, I would say that he appeared in all the Captain America movies. What is there to tell me differently? I understand that with these ever expanding franchises, it can get cluttered on these pages. But I think being a bit cluttered is much preferred to being confusing, of worse, incorrect.Rcarter555 (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks awful and completely inaccurate. X-Men: First Class didn't even feature the X-Men, and its under X-Men films? No.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 08:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with the fact that a table like this might not be the best option (even if I basically also suggested the same thing), but yes X-Men: First Class is absolutely without a doubt an X-Men movie. I would like to see some more suggestions for the table though. What do you guys have in mind? :) 2001:982:4947:1:4C4:858F:935:3774 (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

my suggestion below, with the yes and no table looks better. × TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I like this format, except for it being organized by film in alphabetical order. I think it should be chronologically organized with Original Trilogy, Beginnings Trilogy, Wolverine trilogy (we know it is given it was the farewell to the character), and Deadpool series. Lowercase 't' and 's'es given it's not an official title from the studio.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Better formatting for recurring characters section

Tidy, less crowded and stays true to the section title which is "recurring characters". Save the cast members for it's own separate article which already exists.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. This formatting makes it much more difficult to, at a glance, tell which characters appeared in a certain film. It also eliminates the ease of seeing films that the characters WEREN'T in. I believe it should stay the way that it is. Rcarter555 (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

No its not. Again there's a separate article for the cast members. The older table looks like a mess and doesn't stay true to the title of the section which is recurring characters.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, I don't know if certain editors are unaware but this section just got complaints for being crowded and uneasy to read. With 1 editor stating to just remove the table. This is a quick solution without removing the whole table and making the table easier to follow.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Keyes, Rob (January 26, 2013). "Iceman, Kitty Pryde & Rogue Return For 'X-Men: Days of Future Past'". Screenrant.
2. Weintraub, Steve. "Famke Janssen Talks The Wolverine, Taken 3 and More". Retrieved April 25, 2017.
3. ^ Wigler, Josh (June 23, 2014). "HOW 'X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST' MADE ONE OF ITS TOP-SECRET CAMEOS POSSIBLE". Retrieved April 25, 2017.
4. Singer, Bryan (December 18, 2012). "I would officially like to welcome @RealHughJackman to the cast of #Xmen Days of Future Past. Very excited! More to come..." Twitter. Archived from the original on March 12, 2013. Retrieved March 25, 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
5. ^ Collis, Clark (February 24, 2017). "Patrick Stewart is Retiring from the X-Men franchise". Retrieved April 25, 2017.
6. Chitwood, Adam. "Kelsey Grammer Talks Appearing in X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST". Retrieved April 25, 2017.
7. Singer, Bryan (March 4, 2013). "Twitter / BryanSinger: Couldn't be more excited that #HalleBerry has joined the cast of #XMen #DaysofFuturePast. Hopefully she can improve the weather in Montreal". Retrieved April 25, 2017.
8. Singer, Bryan (March 15, 2013). "3 #Oscars, 6 #GoldenGlobes, 1 #BAFTA, 2 #Emmys, 2 #Tonys, 5 #Oliviers, 1 #Ceaser – Now let's blow s**t up! #XMEN". Twitter. Archived from the original on April 25, 2017. Retrieved March 15, 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
9. ^ "Deadpool 2: Ryan Reynolds And Colossus Actor React To Cable Casting, Confirm X-Force". Retrieved April 25, 2017.
10. Vary, Adam B. (November 27, 2012). "Ian McKellan, Patrick Stewart returning for 'X-Men: Days of Future Past'". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved April 25, 2017.

Hotwiki once again thinks their suggestion is the best. Your suggestion looks sloppy and fanboy-listing up the waz-zang. Seriously looks like something someone could write in their notebook counting their high school crushes. Big heck no to this format. Too much wording/too much info; too much everything.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Another table reformat proposal for Recurring characters section

Save the cast members to its separate article.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Keyes, Rob (January 26, 2013). "Iceman, Kitty Pryde & Rogue Return For 'X-Men: Days of Future Past'". Screenrant.
2. Weintraub, Steve. "Famke Janssen Talks The Wolverine, Taken 3 and More". Retrieved April 25, 2017.
3. ^ Wigler, Josh (June 23, 2014). "HOW 'X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST' MADE ONE OF ITS TOP-SECRET CAMEOS POSSIBLE". Retrieved April 25, 2017.
4. Singer, Bryan (December 18, 2012). "I would officially like to welcome @RealHughJackman to the cast of #Xmen Days of Future Past. Very excited! More to come..." Twitter. Archived from the original on March 12, 2013. Retrieved March 25, 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
5. ^ Collis, Clark (February 24, 2017). "Patrick Stewart is Retiring from the X-Men franchise". Retrieved April 25, 2017.
6. ^ Vary, Adam B. (November 27, 2012). "Ian McKellan, Patrick Stewart returning for 'X-Men: Days of Future Past'". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved April 25, 2017.
7. Chitwood, Adam. "Kelsey Grammer Talks Appearing in X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST". Retrieved April 25, 2017.
8. Singer, Bryan (March 4, 2013). "Twitter / BryanSinger: Couldn't be more excited that #HalleBerry has joined the cast of #XMen #DaysofFuturePast. Hopefully she can improve the weather in Montreal". Retrieved April 25, 2017.
9. Singer, Bryan (March 15, 2013). "3 #Oscars, 6 #GoldenGlobes, 1 #BAFTA, 2 #Emmys, 2 #Tonys, 5 #Oliviers, 1 #Ceaser – Now let's blow s**t up! #XMEN". Twitter. Archived from the original on April 25, 2017. Retrieved March 15, 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
10. ^ "Deadpool 2: Ryan Reynolds And Colossus Actor React To Cable Casting, Confirm X-Force". Retrieved April 25, 2017.

I see that you made the WP:BOLD edit to implement this table. However, give that you had no consensus yet to make such a major change to the table format, it was reverted; it is now up to you to discuss this change per WP:BRD and gain a consensus per the WP:CONSENSUS policy. As for the tables, I disagree with both of the formats listed above; one does not group by movie, and the other declares "No" for characters in future movies, whereas the current gray-shaded cell combines both the lack of an appearance and no confirmed appearance. -- Alex 11:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

stop you're using own assumption that more characters will be announced in the film. There's no confirmation as of now. So its fine to showcase it as a no. We use facts and official information here in Misplaced Pages, not your assumptions what will happen in the future.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Including a character with a "No" cell in the table is declaring them as certainly not appearing in the movie (the definition of the word "No" is a certainty) - that is the unsourced, unverified content that you have added into the article. Per the current version, "A dark grey cell indicates that the character was not in the film or that the character's presence in the film has yet to be announced." - that is, if the character has a dark grey cell, then we can list them as either not appearing (for past movies) or unconfirmed to appear (for future) movies. This prevents any early assumptions on what may or may not be happening. Even as you said: We use facts and official information here in Misplaced Pages, not your assumptions what will happen in the future. -- Alex 12:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: I have reverted you once more; if you continue, you will violate WP:3RR. You changed the table to declare that the shaded cell means that the character will not appear in the film - you are making unsourced declarations here, and have no confirmation for this. Therefore you are violating WP:CRYSTAL, which is why it needs to remain stating "that the character's presence in the film has yet to be announced", as that is correct - the characters have yet to be announced for the films. You need to discuss this if you believe it to be incorrect. -- Alex 12:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Once there's an official announcement or confirmation about a character appearance, then you could just change it to yes. Or just leave it blank. Easy solution.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. However, there is no official announcement or confirmation about any appearances yet, which means that it cannot be either yes or no. It should remain blank. Grey shaded blank, which means "the character's presence in the film has yet to be announced". As it has for years. I noticed your edit of an example to make the cells blank; that is exactly what the current table does, and the current table displays the differing cast members, whereas this table removes this vital information. -- Alex 12:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Kept it blank and removed the speculative description. Which I both did.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations. You have reverted the policy of WP:3RR, after not understanding the need to gain WP:CONSENSUS, another policy, for your disputed edits that go against what has been in the article for years. You were warned on this. -- Alex 12:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Completely against the use of this style of table for this particular purpose. Brocicle (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Brocicle, explain to me why we have to mention the cast members in the section? Its not recurring cast members and characters, the title of the section is just "recurring characters". There's already a separate article for the cast members. So keep the cast members there.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

We don't. If you read a bit further up I'm in favour of removing the table completely and just linking to the appropriate article for cast members, but its not just about my personal preference. Brocicle (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

So we don't need to include the cast members in the table and yet you oppose for the section to just mention the recurring characters? Okay.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Why do we need to mention it? Recurring characters are cast members. What you just said makes no sense. But it's not just my opinion that counts. If consensus is to have a table then that's all well and good, but I'm against this style of table if that's what happens. Brocicle (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between a recurring character and a recurring cast member. That's why we aren't including what cameo role Stan Lee had in the four X-Men films he appeared in.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Same thing, different way of putting it. Either way, I don't believe it has a place on the main article. It's almost trivial info. Brocicle (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

There are actors written in the wikitable that didn't even appear in more than 1 film, which makes them a non recurring cast member of this film series.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding things so I'll just leave you to it. Brocicle (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

To solve this debate, change the title of the section to "Recurring cast and characters".... not that difficult.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Names

Rogue was never called as Marie D'Ancanto in the films just Marie. Jean was never labelled by anyone in the actual films as Dark Phoenix. The codename Shadowcat wasn't mentioned in The films. So stop mentioning them in the article!TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Impending IP doesn't know how to listen and assumed Jean Grey is going to be called Dark Phoenix because of the title of an upcoming film. Again, per Misplaced Pages: CRYSTAL we don't need your assumptions. There's not even an official premise for the film. Also, I want to use this opportunity to say that, no need to mention if a film was already released or in development as it was already done above the recurring characters section. D'Ancanto isn't Rogue's surname in the four films that she appeared in. Use the same font size for all the film titles, there's absolutely no reason to decrease some of the words such as "X-Men". It just looks inconsistent and doesn't help the table. Wikia is not a good source for edits and Storm didn't appear in the wolverine, just her picture. I also updated the Rotten tomatoes score and box office numbers for Logan, why would your revert those? You are showing bad editing skills.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This debate is ridiculous. The film's writer Simon Kinberg has stated the film will deal with the Dark Phoenix, as did The Last Stand years before which he also wrote. The character VERY much appears in both films.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hotwiki is right. Even though the story is (loosely) based on The Dark Phoenix Saga, The Last Stand only referred to the character as Phoenix and credited Famke Janssen as such. Now it is fairly likely that the next movie (being called Dark Phoenix) will actually make the distinction between Phoenix and Dark Phoenix, but we can't treat that as a fact yet because it has not been confirmed. Case in point: Oscar Isaac's character was never called Apocalypse in the movie, but was actually credited as En Sabah Nur/Apocalypse. We'll just have to wait and see. The same is true for Rogue's surname D'Ancanto which was actually taken from the novalizations and was never mentioned in the movie, nor was she ever credited as such. 2001:982:4947:1:2591:7BEA:C37F:389D (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Also can we please get rid of Edie Lehnsherr? Third appearance was just archival footage, which I'd argue doesn't count, and just in general the character being listed there really doesn't seem necessary. Having Henryk Gurszky included as an alternate name also seems unnecessary. It's a fake name that the character used in one movie and the actor was also never credited as Henryk for obvious reasons. 2001:982:4947:1:2591:7BEA:C37F:389D (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Logan Noir

Is a black and white version of the film Logan. It is not an entirely new film and is just a black and white version of the film. So User:TotalTruthTeller24, save it to Logan (film). × TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Stop including Deadpool: No Good Deed

User:Nurseline247, stop including the cast of Deadpool: No Good Deed in the recurring characters section, as it was just a short film, not a full length featured film. User:Rcarter555 already removed it in the past, and you're still bringing it up here without a good explanation. Now be a good editor and not do it again. Thank you! TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that DP: No Good Deed has no place there, the 'now be a good editor and not do it again' part was quite unnecessary. 2001:982:4947:1:249B:A9CD:91F8:54C0 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hotwiki, what is your reason for talking 'down' to other editors like you're on some pedestal? Uncalled for. Totally agree that only feature-length films need to be included thereon, but you don't own the page nor will you ever. Be constructive and be civil. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"Has yet to be announced" is crystal ball info

By keeping that line, the article is implying more characters would be announced to appear in the upcoming films. Under Misplaced Pages:CRYSTAL, it states that Misplaced Pages does not predict the future even if the assumption is right. That's why we don't write TBA or write "the director has yet to be announced". Now, User:AlexTheWhovian, this is your opportunity to explain yourself regarding about this issue in the talk page instead of just reverting my edit, especially you're the only one against me removing that line. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: Actually, the edit has stood thus for years, meaning you are in violation of WP:CONSENSUS, and are meant to allow the previous version of the article to stand until you do gain consensus for your edits, so I would recommend restoring the article.

Firstly, you've changed it from "This table shows characters that will or have appeared in three or more films in the series" to "This table shows characters that have appeared (or will appear) in more than two films in the series" - where was your discussion to change it from three to two films?

Secondly, in concerns to "A dark grey cell indicates that the character was not in the film, or that the character's presence in the film has yet to be announced." Given that the next three films will not be released until next years, then character announcements can happen right up until the movie released, so declaring anything specific, such as "This table shows characters that have appeared (or will appear)" is indeed the CRYSTAL violation. You are declaring that they will appear. You have no source for this. So, there needs to be a case for if there has been no announcement on the character's involvement for this article.

As I have said before: Per the current version, "A dark grey cell indicates that the character was not in the film or that the character's presence in the film has yet to be announced." - that is, if the character has a dark grey cell, then we can list them as either not appearing (for past movies) or unconfirmed to appear (for future) movies. This prevents any early assumptions on what may or may not be happening. Even as you said: We use facts and official information here in Misplaced Pages, not your assumptions what will happen in the future.

I state again: This has stood for years, no other editor has had an issue with it, and you are WP:OWNing the article by forcing your new edits against the version of consensus with no consensus of your own. In regards to your edit summary of "you don't need a consensus", this only supports my statement of you owning this page. CRYSTAL is "has been announced" when it has not; it is not "has yet to be announced". -- Alex 07:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

just because it stayed for years, doesn't mean its not removable. Also, I merely changed the words, instead of "3 or more films", I changed it to "more than two films", not just two films. I didn't include Psylocke and those other characters that appeared in only two films. Didn't I? So I don't know what you're complaining about. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, if an actor is announced, it is a given that character WILL appear. Unless something changed, it would be removed or changed if it came to that.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it does not mean it is not removable, it does mean that you need to gain a consensus to remove it if the change to it is disputed, as per this very case. I recommend that you change it back immediately so that you conform to the policies of this website - you do not have any more privilege to force a certain version of any other editor per policy.

If an actor is announced, yes. However, between the time that the movie is announced and the movie is released, any actor can be announced for the movie at any time, any when the actor has not been announce between those two times, then we do not add anything declared or specific for the actor's entry. Hence, a dark grey empty cell for the character between now and then. When an editor or reader looks at the table, they now see grey shaded cells for future films, which means that they won't be appearing. This is wrong. You continue to fail to understand: with this new edit, you are declaring that the actor and/or character will not be appearing in the film - this is the CRYSTAL violation, as you are making some sort of prediction on future events with no source or verifiable reference to back up your information. This is the violation. -- Alex 08:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

If it makes you happy, I Changed "will" to "set to". That sounds more appropriate given your complaints. You could have done that change if you aren't just reverting edits and actually contributing to the article. Is there anything you want to do that needs a consensus? Like an article name change ?TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

No. What needs to happen is that you need to revert your most recent edit and gain a consensus for it. It's not what makes me "happy" or not, it is what confirms to discussion guideline and content policies. I would note that you are ignoring every single one of my discussion points proving that you are violating CRYSTAL and attempting to divert the discussion with your last question. If you do not intend to revert your edit to the last version of WP:CONSENSUS and restore the previous line in regards to the grey cell (given that you have now completely removed it, giving no reason now in the article as to what it means), if you do not discuss the issue in the correct manner, and continue to persist on being WP:OWN on this article, I will bring in administrator assistance to cease such actions by you. -- Alex 08:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You're in no position to demand a consensus as I've given good enough reasons to remove crystal ball wording. And go ahead bring in administrator assistance. Let's see if the admin will agree keeping sentences such "or has yet to be announced".TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

As for the grey cell description, its not needed. If I restore the "did not appear in the film", that description would not go well with the films that have yet to be released. So just remove it altogether.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I am, given that I have given proof after proof that it is not a violation of CRYSTAL, and that what you are introducing is, in fact, a violation of CRYSTAL. And yet again, I have explained the grey cell situation: as per what it originally stated, "A dark grey cell indicates that the character was not in the film, or that the character's presence in the film has yet to be announced." It covers future films. I am constantly repeating this to you. Any editor is in a position to demand a consensus, as you have no consensus to continue to force your disputed edits. You are WP:OWNing this article, and that will not be tolerated. -- Alex 09:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead bring in administrator assistance, as its just the two of us debating about the description. And I am not owning this article, that is just your perception as I let other editors to edit.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You let other editors edit? Really? That is literally WP:OWN to its core. You literally just said you decide on whether you allow other editors the right to edit. So, you're not going to reply to "A dark grey cell indicates that the character was not in the film, or that the character's presence in the film has yet to be announced."? No? -- Alex 09:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

If I try to own this article, it would just be me editing everything and everything that isn't mine would be an instant revert. That's not the case here. Again its just your perception. Where is the administrative assistance you were saying?TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

And like I said, that bolded part is Crystal ball description. That's why I removed it in the first place. As the line is heading towards assumption/speculative territory which Misplaced Pages isn't. × TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I recommend reading WP:OWN and realizing that it not necessarily every edit, but your actions do most certainly come under it. The bolded part does not come under CRYSTAL! It's providing a reason for a gray shaded cell for a future movie, how do you not understand this? As the article stands, there is no reason given for a gray shaded cell for a future movie. As you said: If I restore the "did not appear in the film", that description would not go well with the films that have yet to be released. That's why it should not say "did not appear in the film", I agree, but rather it should say "the character's presence in the film has yet to be announced". Because it hasn't! The characters that have a grey cell in the future movies have not had their involvement announced! (I would also note that your edit-warring has prevented anyone from editing the article now. Cheers for that.) -- Alex 12:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

3O Response: Reading through WP:CRYSTAL, the policy states to avoid unverifiable speculation. If there are reliable sources stating a character's involvement in a film, than its inclusion does not violate CRYSTAL. Now, the edit that was listed at WP:3O was reverted due to WP:CONSENSUS. I feel that

1. The edit did not considerably change the article. Rather, it just reworded it.
2. CONSENSUS is a valid revert reason, but this edit may have been made boldly.
3. Although HotWiki may be WP:OWNing the article, consensus can be established for the change.

Therefore, I feel that Alex's edit was okay, so long as sources claim a person's involvement in the film. Best, ProgrammingGeek 14:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

All of the confirmed cast members are already in the table. So the lack of confirmation isn't the issue. Actually, I was the one who added sources in the section since it didn't have any. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, there you have it. My edit was acceptable. Meaning that for cast that aren't in a future movie, that were in a past movie, an empty cell is required to indicate this. Cheers. I'll be sure to have it implemented when the page protection is lifted. And it turns out Hotwiki was indeed WP:OWNing the article. -- Alex 23:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, the sentence " has yet to be announced" is crystal ball info. It is basically indicating that more cast members will be announced for the other films. When there are clearly no sources given in the article that that would be the case. So just remove the grey cell description altogether. If there are official cast members announcements, just include the cast member backed up by a reliable source.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

And no, I wasn't owning the thread, again you are throwing serious accusations and I don't appreciate it. Please read Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks and Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. As a long time editor you should know better and be a role model to newer editors. Instead of being malicious and vindictive towards editors like yours truly.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

An uninvolved editor commented that your behaviour is very WP:OWNing the article, I would take note of that if I were you and take a step back. Brocicle (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. If any of you actually contributed to the article instead of just revert this and revert that. It would look like someone else is actually contributing to the article. Who just added the sources when the section was tagged for having no sources? Me. Who removed the false codenames and surnames that are yet to be used in any of the films? Me. Who keeps reverting the edits when someone renames Dark Phoenix to X-Men: Dark Phoenix when the later isn't an official film title? Me. I had to clean up all those errors and in return, I get accused of owning the article. I suggest, you actually contribute something to the article instead of accusing editors in the talk page.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Also you are exaggerating with "very". He said I "may be". Stop putting words into his mouth, Brocicle. You do not speak for him or anyone else here. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

... Except that claiming that you're the editor who makes the most worthwhile edits to the page is textbook WP:OWN. You literally just supported the argument against you. Good job. Anyways, article talk pages are not the place for discussions on the behaviour of editors.

It is basically indicating that more cast members will be announced for the other films. Yes. This is true. Cast members can be announced anywhere between the announcement of the movie and the release day of the movie. This is a fact of life, and therefore the edit takes this into account. When there are clearly no sources given in the article that that would be the case. So just remove the grey cell description altogether. Nor are there sources that the characters represented in those rows will not appear in the film. Again, arguing against your own arguments. If there are official cast members announcements, just include the cast member backed up by a reliable source. And what do you do for characters that have existing rows but have not been announced for the future film? You give them an empty cell. -- Alex 09:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"if any of you actually contribute to the article", people try to contribute to the article but are shut down by YOU in the process. If you've interpreted as "may be he's doing this" that's okay but I'm assuming both Alex and myself intepreted their words as "he may be owning the article but consensus is available for change". That's not putting words in their mouth, just different interpretations of a key word. Also, instead of this "me me me" attitude, perhaps you should discuss options other editors have suggested rather than WP:BITEing everyone who disagrees with you. Brocicle (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Cool idea.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

We can't include anyone "yet to be announced" — that's textbook WP:CRYSTAL. Unless and until someone is announced, we can't make a claim they're in the movie. Characters in movie series that the public may expect to see don't always show up — an actor dies or decides not to return, or a script gets rewritten, etc. In the history of the X-Men movies, characters people expected to appear haven't always. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Finally, someone who gets it. Anyway, grey cell are common in Misplaced Pages table. I don't see the need for a description which contains crystal ball wording.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk)

Finally, someone else who doesn't get it at all, more like it. My edit was not making any claims. It was giving such characters an empty cell, as per standard procedure, because they have been in other films but have not been announced for future films. Just like characters who have appeared in a film, not appeared in several subsequent films, and then reappeared in a later film - empty cells in the middle for those several subsequent films. What would you rather us do? Break the table and not include a cell at all? Unless and until someone is announced, we can't make a claim they're in the movie. And yet, Hotwiki previously decided it'd be best to definitely include "No" cells for future characters/movies in the above table. Interesting. -- Alex 00:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Stop making this about me. As you can clearly see that I've changed my yes and no table proposal, and kept it blank for future films. Since when did you become this angry and vindictive editor? Still can't get over by me removing a crystal ball wording? Well get over it.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Telling someone to get over it? Great way to run a discussion. Keeping it blank for future films is exactly what the previous version was doing. -- Alex 13:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Reinstated it, given its support from WP:3O and no further arguments against it in the past week. -- Alex 23:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: Your decision to continue edit-warring against the previous version of consensus as soon as the protection was up has been noted. And your refusal to discuss. I am making zero assumptions. You are declaring that all characters have been announced, that there will be no more. Where is your source? Where? -- Alex 11:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Break

This is ridiculous^. It's revealing to see that repeatedly the same editors get in edit-wars regarding this page. That is telling and definitely shows WP:OWNing behaviors. I haven't commented for a while, but am pointing out the obvious. It is what it has always been, even back to when I moved for a page retitle. Interesting. Interesting, indeed.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If you're trying to say something that involves actual policy / guidelines or specific facts, then please say so. A post devoted entirely to vague and unsupported accusations about unnamed editors isn't helpful or constructive. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a very valid post, given that the offending editor has decided to start edit-warring over the same topic but in a different once again, even after the support of 3O was given here, and that same supported warned of OWN. Full page protection has been requested again. -- Alex 10:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

How about you actually contribute to this article, instead of asking for an article lock because you want a line "has yet to this be announced" which is borderline against Misplaced Pages:Crystalto be kept. Me and User:Tenebrae already questioned it and said that it should be removed, and you're still keeping that line. Who's knowing the article now? You. Go ahead, report this to Ani,as you're the one not assuming good faith to editors and resorting to personal attacks.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You have been told time and time again it is not. Even WP:3O stated this, and declared that you are continuing your WP:OWN edits. That's not from me. That was from someone completely uninvolved. I have posted on the talk pages of two relevant articles that use identical syntax, maintained by editors who are far more well-versed in guidelines and policies such as this. -- Alex 11:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Me and Tenebrae already went against your decision to keep that crystal ball line. That's enough for the line to be removed. That's two editors against your word. Now go ahead, take this to Ani, and let me know if keeping the crystal ball line is right.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Two editors against more, who have all called you out on your behaviour. Besides, it's not a vote per WP:NOTVOTE; you seem to be unaware of that. You two do not have a authoritarian rule, nor are you dictators of this article, hence the WP:CONSENSUS should stand. I recommend you self-revert. If you don't, it's only supporting the claims against you. I'll let you know when the editors who know their stuff drop by. Seems to be perfectly find included in those articles. -- Alex 11:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

it is against Misplaced Pages:CRYSTAL which is the first issue and second issue, the line is unsourced. There are no sources for those empty grey cells, if you didn't notice.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

As you have continuously said, and as you have continuously been told that is incorrect. You are declaring that no more cast is to be announced for those movies. You are stating that they won't be in those movies. Where is your source? Where? -- Alex 11:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Unlike you I don't use my own thoughts and post them in the article. That is against Misplaced Pages. No original research! Show me the existing line that I posted that no more cast members will appear. If I did do that well, I deleted it myself as it was both unsourced and against CRYSTAL. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You are avoiding the question. Declare your source stating that they won't be in those movies, that no more cast is to be announced for those movies. That is what you are indicating through your edits, through removing that anymore character won't be announced. -- Alex 11:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You're the one avoiding the issue. Stop making this about my edits. That issue is the CRYSTAL ball line which is also unsourced.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Your edits are the ones that are being discussed! They are against the WP:STATUSQUO and WP:CONSENSUS. It is not CRYSTAL. Yours are. You remove "yet to be announced", so you are stating that all characters in the table have been announced for future movies. Source! -- Alex 12:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Where is your source that the grey cell area indicates that all of those characters listed in the table are yet to be announced to appear in the upcoming films? That's why I removed the entire description in the first place. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not. That's why it says "that the character was not in the film, or that the character's presence in the film has yet to be announced". OR. It covered both cases. Given that future films have not yet been released, then they have not yet been announced (case 2). If they have not been announced by the time it's been released, then they did not appear (case 1). Did you even read what you were reverting? -- Alex 12:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The first line only covered for the films that were already released. The second line "presence has yet to be announced" indicates that there would be updates or announcements in the future which is fine if only that is backed up by a legit source,but there's none, thus making that line "original research". Even if there is a source, that's speculative information that this article doesn't need. Did you see the crew section and the other sections here? There's no "TBA" written, "has yet to be announced blah blah" wording. Those phrases aren't allowed in Misplaced Pages to my knowledge. So just like me and Tenebrae suggested, just remove that crystal ball line. You're just being stubborn trying to lock this article for the second time because you cannot get it your own way when two editors already disagreed with you with good reasons.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You cannot confirm that there will be no announcements in the future about the movies. There can be announcements right up until the release of the film. It seems we both have the same idea, just on opposing matters. You are declaring that there will be no more announcements, and therefore, they will not appear - this is classic WP:OR. And your personal accusations are not going to get you anywhere. An editor completely unrelated to this article and its discussion confirmed that its alright and even backed up the claims of OWN against you. I asked for the locking to cease your edit-warring against the STATUSQUO and CONSENSUS (you two do not have a authoritarian rule, nor are you dictators of this article (AGAIN)), which you seem to enjoy doing, and your OWN behaviour, which has been declared by a minimum of three editors. Three? Might want to check into that, Wiki. -- Alex 14:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, stop deflecting about the issue by making this about Hotwiki. That's all. × TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Is that not what you are doing by not answering a single issue that I have addressed? You have no intent to discuss this, do you? You just want your edits in the article. WP:OWN. Answer the questions, Wiki, the ones pertaining to the discussion. -- Alex 22:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

So we we have "A empty dark grey cell indicates that the character was not in the film, or that the character's presence in the film has yet to be announced" which has been included in the article like that for years, which Hotwiki disagreed with, correct? Now there are two sides to this debate. One hand we can argue that "has yet to be announced" isn't exactly encyclopedic knowledge. It's something that could still happen in the future. So at first glance I understand the idea that someone could consider that violate Misplaced Pages:CRYSTAL. However, this does not fall under categories such as rumors speculation, and "future history" that are covered under Misplaced Pages:CRYSTAL. What it actually does is avoiding the presumption that a character will not appear in a movie if it has a dark grey cell. The thing is... as long we do not have an official studio announcement, that character is not 'set to appear in a movie' and 'will not appear' in it either as far as public information is concerned. Once the studio announces a character, it will then be covered by "will or have appeared". So while I don't see this as violating Misplaced Pages:CRYSTAL I also don't believe it is necessary to include it, and I would be fine with removing it. 2001:982:4947:1:2591:7BEA:C37F:389D (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying, once there are further official cast announcements for a recurring character, it would be quickly added to the table.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious as to which specific point of WP:CRYSTAL it's violating, since nobody has actually stated that at all. I'm repeating everything I've said here, but cast can be announced anywhere between the movie's announcement and its release. If you remove "or that the character's presence in the film has yet to be announced", and simply keep "A empty dark grey cell indicates that the character was not in the film", then you are declaring that all cast have been announced, and none of the previous cast will appear in the movie at all. This is CRYSTAL and WP:OR. This is exactly your quote of The thing is... as long we do not have an official studio announcement, that character is not 'set to appear in a movie' and 'will not appear' in it either as far as public information is concerned. And once there are further official cast announcements for a recurring character, it would be quickly added to the table. Yes. That is correct. However, if there has not been an announcement Mystique appearing in Dark Phoenix, then we cannot add that content, which means we add a grey cell, because there has not been any information concerning her - what we cannot say is that she is not appearing in the film, as we have nothing to back that up. It's interesting how it's included in multiple articles, and yet, it only seems to be an issue here. -- Alex 22:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I specifically said I didn't believe it to be WP:CRYSTAL. I am just trying to voice my opinion since this discussion keeps getting this page locked down, which is honestly still making me scratch my head, so I am just trying to make it move in any direction at this point. I didn't mean to suggest just keeping "A empty dark grey cell indicates that the character was not in the film" because was only refers to the movies that are out right now anyway, but I was suggesting to just get rid of the entire sentence. Yes it is used in some tables, but a lot of tables don't feel the need to have an indication for empty cells at all. To me leaving a dark grey cell without this sentence really just means that characters will or have appeared in the movie as per the information we have right now. I really don't see how anyone would read it like: "On 12-05-2017 Mystique wasn't listed under Dark Phoenix and thus she will not be in the movie at all." What is boils down though is not really that it's an issue for me personally. If this crazy and unncessary editing war wouldn't have happened then I probably wouldn't have commented on this issue in a million years. Bottom line: that sentence to me isn't valuable enough to keep getting this page locked down over and over again because I believe the information doesn't change with or without the sentence. 2001:982:4947:1:2591:7BEA:C37F:389D (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A lot of back and forth here and I feel like I wasted my time reading it since a lot was not constructive discussion. But after doing so I'm not really seeing the case for why the line is a violation of Crystal Ball policies. - AnonWikiEditor (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Certain users

Perhaps admins can ban specific editors from editing this page? I don't know a lot about the kind of restrictions they can place but given only certain editors desplay WP:OWN behaviors, and continue to be in violation of WP:CIVIL regulations, perhaps it'd be the solution to this page ENDLESSLY being changed, reversed, and everything else in between. Maybe that's wishing for a genie in a bottle on my part, but it'd sure solve a lot of problems.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd recommend posting this at WP:ANI, and see what you can from that. I mean, that page is loaded with admins who will see your post. Hopefully something can indeed be done. -- Alex 12:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 May 2017

It is requested that an edit be made to the fully protected article at X-Men (film series). (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately. Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.

I was going to add the two actresses who have been cast for the New Mutants film. Anya Taylor-Joy, and Maisie Williams have both officially been cast in the film now. You can read about that

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Media and drama good articles
• GA-Class film articles
• GA-Class British cinema articles
• British cinema task force articles
• GA-Class comic book films articles
• Comic book films task force articles
• GA-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• GA-Class Comics articles
• Low-importance Comics articles
• GA-Class Comics articles of Low-importance
• GA-Class Marvel Comics articles
• Marvel Comics work group articles
• WikiProject Comics articles
• Misplaced Pages fully protected edit requests
• Misplaced Pages edit requests possibly using incorrect templates