Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alex 21 (talk | contribs) at 12:55, 10 May 2017 (→Certain users). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Deletion of RfCs (multiple) review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So now that that mess of an RfC has been closed, what's the next move? All editors and users are welcome to comment given this is not an RfC.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Deciding/agreeing on a title for it to possibly be changed to before opening that discussion again Brocicle (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. Perhaps if we call in 'all' editors who had any comments on it before, we can come to a more defined RfC.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm still against changing it BUT if it comes to a decision to indeed change the title I'd be most happy with X-Men (Fox franchise) Brocicle (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed on X-Men (Fox franchise). -- Alex 05:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Also agreed on X-Men (Fox franchise). Freemanukem (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah X-Men (Fox franchise) would be acceptable. On the other hand X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise) actually wouldn't work since Legion for example is on FX. FX is still Fox though. 193.173.216.106 (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Well then it's settled: X-Men (Fox franchise) is what we all mostly agree would the most appropriate title for a rename. Let the following RfC be about this. Impending IP (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm changing my support to Anythingspossibleforapossible's suggestion of X-Men in film

This comment above is not me, I do not know who it is. Whoever it is, do not pretend to be another user of Misplaced Pages. That is very mcuh frowned upon. Impending IP (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Name change to X-Men (Fox franchise)

X-Men (film series) → X-Men (Fox franchise)

– This discussion was begun by Impending IP on 31 March 2017, and should have been concluded on 6 April 2017, if not for the actions of User Tenebrae removing the infobox. As The People below have Supported a Move to X-Men (Fox franchise); I am adding a new infobox which I hope shall not be removed again until such a time at this page can be moved. The discussion will conclude seven days from now on 14 April 2017 @ 19:46.

Nurseline247 (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Why does User:Tenebrae think it's okay to delete the RfC infobox, when it was nearing a consensus? We all were following an admin's suggestion about how to resolve the issue, and yet they still feel they have the authority to direct the conversation and lead it into whatever it is he is trying to do. So backwards. Another case of WP:NOTHERE.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Support

Current Number of Supporters: 13

• Alex
• Freemanukem (talk)
• 193.173.216.106 (talk)
  • Note: Adding himself to this list is the only edit the above IP has made. This IP has not discussed the issue below and has never contributed to the article. I find this a highly suspicious "vote". --Tenebrae (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• Impending IP (talk)
• RodgerTheDodger (talk)
• DisneyMetalhead (talk)
• Mike210381 (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Total-Truth-Teller-24 (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2017 (ROI)
• Nurseline247 (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
• 50.232.205.246 (talk)
• Anythinspossibleforapossible (talk)
• 2001:982:4947:1:319D:101A:2A16:7C00 (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: Adding himself to this list is the only edit the above IP has made. This IP has not discussed the issue below and has never contributed to the article. I find this a highly suspicious "vote". --Tenebrae (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: You do understand how dynamic IPs work, right? -- Alex 10:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand perfectly. I also under how sock-puppetry and WP:VOTESTACK work. --Tenebrae (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Then open a sock report with your proof. Go ahead, we'll wait for you. -- Alex 10:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that these possible IP socks could be anyone here and that it's completely impractical to open individual sock investigations into a string of different editors trying to find out who it is. But admins have been around long enough to know suspicious editing when they see it. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

So, you have no proof, other than your own conspiracy theories. Cheers. -- Alex 11:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Nice try. You've already distinguished yourself as an uncivil editor with your blatant name-calling in the previous, closed discussion. Now you're doing it again, taking legitimate concerns that any experienced editor would have and trying to demean and belittle such an editor by labeling him "conspiracy theorist." Don't bother to address the fact that editors who have never added a single comment to the discussion are suddenly "voting." No, better to attack the messenger. Cheers to you. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

If it was a legitiment concern, you would do something to fix it. Instead, you decide that their opinions are worthless. Uncivil? Hah! (Did Bush do 9/11?) -- Alex 11:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you're using derisive laughter and comparing me to 9/11 conspiracy theorists? More incivility. But that's what what we can expect from you. And, yes, It's a "legitiment" concern, as you put it. I'm sorry that someone who sees conspiracy theories whenever someone doesn't agree with him won't accept the simple truth that it's impractical to open multiple sock investigations when anon IPs make a single edit and could be anyone in the support list. You either don't understand that, or you understand it very well and are choosing to WP:IDONTHEARYOU. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

OH. MY BAD. I MADE A TYPO. Look how puny that is to point out. Thanks, Bush. -- Alex 11:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

And now you're screaming. Cheers. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I blame Bush for that. Jet fuel can't melt my voice. -- Alex 11:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Now you're off-topic. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Obama. -- Alex 11:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Now you're just being WP:DISRUPTIVE. Talk pages are for discussion of improving the article. They're not for heaping off-topic sarcasm on other editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

When Trump shuts down open access to the internet, will it matter? -- Alex 11:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I can see you're going to continue to be disruptive. I'm sorry you think that's proper behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Ditto, brah. -- Alex 11:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I've stayed on-topic and haven't insulted or name-called. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

haven't insulted or name-called I thought this was a talk page? Not a place for stand-up comedy. -- Alex[[User

I am the editor in question and yes I have a dynamic IP. If you look back on the talk page and editing history for this page you should be able to find similar looking IP adresses going way back. I've been following this page since forever. I have no idea what you are trying to do here by pointing at me as being 'suspicious'. I said it during the last RfC and I will say it again. Stuff like this is why I stay far away from becoming a registered user on Misplaced Pages. This is absolutely ridiculous.

Edit: Actually I've really had enough of this. I will probably refrain from using this talk page or editing the article in the future. You have spend ages during the last RfC talking about how this whole thing is not about votes, yet you are spending an aweful lot of time trying to invalidate people who do not agree with you. That's not how a discussion works and frankly it is really bad form. 2001:982:4947:1:51EB:8242:44AE:B70D (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You add a support "vote" without taking part in any discussion or giving any reason. Anyone who's been around here long enough knows what that's most likely about. It's so easy for IPs to try to stack the deck. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae, you do not take precedence over what other users have said... stop putting your comments before other users. You should have placed this^ below my comment from yesterday. Also stop accusing simply to cause doubt on other users. Whether they are registered or not, all users are valuable contributors to the discussion.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2001:982:4947:1:51EB:8242:44AE:B70D, your comments are valued by the rest of Misplaced Pages users, outside of User:Tenebrae's circle of elitism. Despite that user's comments, all users are valued regardless of how long they have been an editor. For all he knows you've been an editor longer than he. Even though he's been an editor for 12 years as he likes to brandish within his comments, extremely out-of-line behavior to constantly be casting doubt on other editors. Not right. Any editor can see his actions throughout these comments.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae you did this on the previous discussion. The reasoning behind your suspicions are uncalled for, as RfCs are uploaded to a list.... those users very well could have simply gone there and read about the RfC. The name change is a discussion open to any and all editors. Any editor can voice their opinion. Just because it is no the same as yours, doesn't mean it's suspicious....--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC) <-Ohp, look I'm an unregistered editor. Call the admins :O, quick!

• Schmeater (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2017

Oppose

Current Number of Opposers: 3

• it should be moved to X-Men in film. So obvious oppose here! - TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose X-Men films deserve their own article. So do X-Men TV shows. So do the X-Men videogames. This attempt at shoehorning OR / synth "continuity" is fancruft. This is an encyclopedia. Create fan pages somewhere else. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Tenebrae, and based on the fact that the proposed title is not at all intuitive. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments

There was the Fox Kids cartoon, and then the Fox Generation X TV film. It should just be renamed to X-Men in film. Batman in film and Superman in film cover different series and they do just fine. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Good point! Brocicle (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Better suggestion indeed! Let's move it to X-Men in film now!TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No, let's not move it now. You have no consensus. Sheesh. -- Alex 19:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that that still doesn't clarify the continuity issue at hand. That's the current problem. The Fox produced TV show Generation X is long-forgotten and not a part of anything. A page of X-Men in film, could be helpful similar to Batman in film etc, but the move here is to create a page specifically about the X-Men (Fox franchise) as that is what this page is already about.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Generation X was simply being overlooked in favour of the films that were done theatrically. This page should have always included that and been called X-Men in film. The bigger picture here is what kind of universe is this? The series is first and foremost, X-Men. By putting anything into brackets, you automatically make it look like it's purely covering X-Men on its own, defeating the purpose of every person who needs this to reference the fact that this is some X-Men Cinematic Universe, but it's not called that. It's not called anything. It's made up of X-Men films, then Wolverine films, who's already established as an X-Men character, then Deadpool's just on his own. Even with X-Force, can this really be connected as a series? It will just be an "Deadpool and X-Force" universe with little ties to X-Men. Finally, there's the Legion series that has gone on record that it has no ties. It's just some confused series based on the main character's mind. All I see is an unclear universe set up by Fox and some others involved. It'd be even worse if they did that FF crossover. If you want to be clear call it X-Men (theatrical film franchise). Otherwise it should just be the same as Batman in film, Superman in film, and Spider-Man in film. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright, both titles risk including or excluding content where it would be inappropriate. X-Men in film would leave out any potentially related TV shows, and given the hinted connections between the films and Legion (and potentially Gifted), it would be appropriate to think proactively and allow room for potential non-filmic works to be included in the same article if and when the need should arise. It also would include X-Men films that are NOT a part of this continuity, should they ever be made. Meanwhile, as User:Anythingspossibleforapossible points out, X-Men (Fox franchise) risks including any works based on X-Men comics, which would cover the TV film and animated series from the 90s. As an alternative, with a very minor change that I think could remedy all of the above discrepancies, how about X-Men (2000s Fox Franchise), making it clear that anything that came before the 2000 X-Men movie is not being covered on the page and anything connected to that film in any way (be it a sequel, prequel, spin-off, TV show, etc.) can be included. -RM (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Anythingspossibleforapossible take a look at the extensive references I mentioned previously in this conversation here which goes on record multiple times from multiple sources from the creative team that has made all the movies, and now Legion and The Gifted. The studio has very loose continuity from film to film - but so does James Bond. The films and two TV series discussion are all part of the same 'franchise'. There are multiple uses of the word "franchise" as also discussed in this section. If you're going for one title vs the other, I would draw your attention to Batman in film. It covers every single Batman interpretation, but there is still the DC Extended Universe page which is specific to the franchise's continuity. I would say that the X-Men could and should do a similar thing. First and foremost the discussion is "What do we call this continuity franchise?" -- then I think a larger page that covers other interpretations (i.e.: Generation X, the animated series, animated films etc.) similar to the pages you have pointed out, would be productive and helpful.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@RM X-Men in film wouldn't leave out any potential in film, maybe the problem is that, it would be too vague, which apparently X-Men (film series) is. If describing a title by just using the films then Marvel Cinematic Universe would confuse people into thinking it only covers movies, when it covers a majority of media. So this leads into what I have to say to DisneyMetalhead and RM, as well, that I think if we need a title to cover the fact that where this franchise starts and what it could cover without it being misleading into only one type of media would be X-Men (2000's Fox franchise). It doesn't really sound like a fan name, instead sounding neat and tidy without trying to compensate for an official title we don't have. Of course, there are films after that decade, but it still serves the same function. My other options are X-Men (Bryan Singer series) or X-Men (Singer/Kinberg series). The former makes it explicit in every way, since Singer's been a part of both trilogies and the Gifted series. And if Singer's comment is anything to go by that Legion would connect to the movies, then that makes his role even bigger. Without a doubt, he's had one of, if not the biggest, role in the series. He's been there since the beginning and he's now still a part of it. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I can appreciate what you are trying to do and say. I really do. The issue is that Bryan Singer, though he has been involved in the films - is not the creative mind of the projects in development. He has been a part of the trilogy films, but the Deadpool, Gambit, X-Force, and New Mutants titles he has no connection with. That's not to say that he may or may not return in the future. The real proposition would be to make this page have a title that fits it, and yet is not too constricting. With Legion "connecting to future films", and the show's creator/writer/producer/director Noah Hawley stating that the series will continue to explore film connections -- that also puts a stint in the Bryan Singer idea. I like your idea for a X-Men in film page. That would be similar to Spider-Man in film, or Batman in film, or Superman in film -- but what is distinct about each of those pages is that it also has a link to pages specific to continuity (i.e.: DC Extended Universe, and Marvel Cinematic Universe). Since we do not have an official title from 20th Century Fox yet, the discussion is as basic as "what do we call this franchise that clarifies the continuity, but also doesn't sound fan-made or limit its future?". It's a tough decision which is why this discussion is so long and such a huge debate with all the editors. X-Men (Fox franchise) is specific, as it includes 20th Century Fox, FX, and Fox TV installments -- all under the parent company 21st Century Fox; and can specify in the introduction paragraph that it is a film and television franchise which began with X-Men (the movie). That clarifies confussion regarding Fox produced cartoons and Generation X. Now once that's completed, I would fully support a second page that is "X-Men in film" which covers every interpretation of the characters. It'd be insightful, a history lesson to readers, and interesting as well. But the current page needs a re-title which fits the "film franchise" itself (the word 'film' being used loosely non-exclusive to movies, but also to TV shows as well). --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that editors can't decide if Generation X (or perhaps even Mutant X, since there was a Marvel comic) should be included illustrates how OR / synth this whole proposal is. Editors previously debated on this page whether the the film Deadpool belonged, since one editor spotted background posters or some such advertising X-Men movies. This attempt at shoehorning OR / synth "continuity" is fancruft. This is an encyclopedia. Create fan pages somewhere else. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact remains that Generation X is not a part of the film series. Let's be real - that is not what Anythingspossibleforapossible stating. What the editor was clearly saying is that the title of X-Men (Fox franchise) could be misconstrued to include the cartoons and that one-off show from the 90s. The purpose of this discussion is not 'fancruft' as you keep saying. What's being stated is that the current title is inaccurate as there is more than just X-Men movies, (i.e.: Wolverine and Deadpool....and upcoming Gambit and X-Force and New Mutants), as well as the TV shows. If you're going for completely accurate encyclopedia - it is outdated. Strictly speaking no producers have ever called the series X-Men....so the title is wrong there too. A title which includes all of the above until there is an official title is what we're aiming for. The Legendary studios' produced MonsterVerse used to be listed on here as the Godzilla-Kong series...which is not an official title, but a classification for reading purposes. No fan-paging here. Just constructive purpose.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: It's not that we're deciding whether to include Generation X. We're trying to ensure that whatever title we suggest will cover only those works which are a part of this continuity. "Continuity," by the way, is not "fancruft." Everything is naming itself "universe." (MCU, DCEU, Arrowverse, Monsterverse, etc.), but that's not what we're suggesting. No one is suggesting anything with the word universe. A continuity is simply the existence of something over time, a continuous story told across several different series of different types of work. May I also point out that, while you are welcome to make accusations (and accusations and accusations and accusations) of fancruft, we're not suggesting a major change in content to this article, only its title. "The term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality, or original research." (from WP:Fancruft) You don't seem to have a problem with the article itself, though, and everything in the article is verified, cited, neutral, etc. So I'm not really sure how naming the article X-Men (Fox franchise) or any slight variations thereon could be considered fancruft. We are taking very conscious efforts to avoid titling the article with anything that may sound unencyclopedic or fannish, and although that title is not sourced, neither is X-Men (film series). -RM (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The X-Men movies are "films", and If you go to a dictionary and look up the word "series", you'll see its primary meaning is "a number of things or events of the same class coming one after another in spatial or temporal succession." That doesn't say they have to be thematically the same, or have the same director or producer or anything else. The "class" in this case is "films starring the X-Men", so any bunch of X-Men films is a "film series". That said, the synonym "X-Men in film" certainly works. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Mutant X is not an X-Men show. Tenebrae, please stick to on topic. Generation X uses X-Men characters, that's why I've bought it up for the reasons I already bought up. This is utterly ridiculous. You can take that as a fact, not an opinion. I know there's people that probably think this is a necessary discussion, and in some reasons I agree with them, but X-Men (film series) still says it all to me. This page is nothing more to me than a list to me anyway. There's nothing that really says this is a universe page, outside of the fact we're listing films. And, personally, this whole Legion and Deadpool debate is ridiculous as well, as they're are weak connections. Yeah, Xavier is mentioned in Legion and Deadpool makes references to the X-Men, but outside of that what's really connectiong. Simon Kinberg sketchy connections? -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say Mutant X was an X-Men show. Read what I said carefully, please: "The fact that editors can't decide if Generation X (or perhaps even Mutant X, since there was a Marvel comic) should be included illustrates how OR / synth this whole proposal is." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Well said, Anythingspossibleforapossible. Glad we're staying on-topic. However, the title of X-Men (film series) has never been an official title, and is out-of-date. Something that can be confirmed by all sources is the fact that each of the installments (titles - whatever you want to call them) are a part of the same 'continuity'/franchise as a whole. With Nathan Summers/Cable's introduction in Deadpool 2 - there will be another connection to the X-Men trilogy movies. Regardless of how tonally different Deadpool is, it still is the same franchise. That's the issue at hand, and again if you read the extensive references I provided earlier on this page - you can see plainly that Legion is as well. It shouldn't even be a debate. RM awesome points for debunking the whole 'fancruft' nonsense.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey everyone, 50.232.205.246 has a pretty good thought I hadn't thought about. Let's look outside of this page and the whole argument that X-Men (Fox franchise) isn't an official title. The MonsterVerse DID used to be titled Godzilla-Kong (series) or franchise or something to that effect. That was definitely not an official title, as it is really quite short-hand looking, even. Another example would be the Universal Monsters (2017 film series) page -- again not an official title, and arguably a very poor title for the page, but that's besides the point -- what I'm saying is that the debate on whether the page should wait for an official title for the franchise or not just got shot down. Misplaced Pages has 'unofficial' titles all the time. It's done simply for sorting, organizational, and reading purposes. That's it.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Just wondering: the general consensus at the moment seems to be to move this page to X-Men (Fox franchise). When exactly would the page be moved? How many people do we need to agree upon a move? Also, @DisneyMetalhead: Ditto. Couldn't have said it better myself.Impending IP (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

In general it seems about seven to ten days-ish...from what I've seen. In addition to the already stated film serieses that I've stated here are some others that have been given an unofficial name simply for organizational, sorting, and reading purposes: Has Fallen (film series) - yeah it's in the titles, but no official statement has been made by the studio; Robert Langdon (film series) - yeah he's the main character, but again simply titled that for sorting purposes. Still other film series don't even have a page (see: Blade Runner which includes Blade Runner, Soldier, and Blade Runner 2049). It's the incorrect title we are trying to fix, for reading purposes here. The X-Men is more than just a film series now, and has been since the first Wolverine movie.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Nothing gets moved unless we do a formal move request, which this is not. Go to WP:RM#CM to see the template that has to be used, etc. What's going on right now is an informal discussion and not binding. Indeed, I'm not sure why we're having it rather than getting straight to the formal move request.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

We are following the direction from the admin Black Kite to get a more defined viewpoint before the RfC starts. Whoever does start the RfC, they will definitely have to do so at the very bottom of all this mess.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like a fan comment, but while I haven't watched Legion, from what I've read, which is on Misplaced Pages, is that they have to earn it. Nothing to me has really been connected other than subtle (and I stress subtle) connections. It doesn't even seem they were going for an X-Men connected series when coming in. It's just something that has come later. Just because there are allusions, doesn't mean it's all connected. People are trying to connect Wolverine and the X-Men to Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes, simply because of what one of the people involved said, yet outside of that, there's no connections outside of the fact that some of the characters are voiced by the same actors. You can't dispute the evidence that Arrow and The Flash aren't connected. You can dispute the evidence that Legion isn't connected to any film because there isn't anything strongly connecting them. The timeline is also ambiguous from an interview I saw on Popcorn with Peter Travers. For all we know, the Xavier in Legion could be an entirely new version. Just call it X-Men (Fox franchise), it makes no sense to me calling it that, but if it brings and end to this, then so be it. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Anythingspossibleforapossible - just because I'm a fan of the franchise, doesn't negate the fact that all of these references here: Talk: X-Men (film series) #References stating that Legion and untitled X-Men TV series are a part of the shared continuity state plainly and simply that the series is in the same franchise. The reason season one was so vague (from what I've heard I haven't seen it completely myself) is that the character is an unreliable narrator with psychosis. This way if it was a success on its own - Fox could connect it to their films, if it was a dud, then they could abandon it and say it was its own series. Read those references and then tell me they aren't in the same continuity.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that anyone has to say, "Read those references and then tell me they aren't in the same continuity" demonstrates explicitly how subjective and POV this whole "continuity" notion is. And with anything where different editors can interpret things n different ways without reliable secondary sources as confirmation is WP:SYNTH, which is disallowed. Please look that up. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay. But I would like to add that the TV stuff is simply weaving in and out of the movieverse. This seems like a film series first, TV series second. Also, unreliable character narratives such as Deadpool and David Haller don't really mean anything to me, but I'm just going along with things now, mostly to bring some result to this. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the name X-Men (Fox Franchise) would be sufficient if the article explains that it pertains to properties that were created as a result of the franchise that was started with X-Men (2000). 92.111.179.110 (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed 92.111.179.110. The introductory paragraph should state that the franchise is a franchise of live-action feature films, and TV shows that began with X-Men, and is based on the Marvel Comics superhero team of the same name. Puts to rest the argument of whether Mutant X, Generation X, or animated productions could be misunderstood by the proposed title. Thanks for your insight.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

just to add, don't forget to make an own section for the comic books, tie in videogames, novelizations and the soundtracks, anything that features Fox's logo. You don't want to give the impression that it is just the movies and TV shows produced by Fox.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Good point, Hotwiki. Probably in a section titled 'In other media' or something to that effect, as done on other pages.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

No, not in other media. Again that would look like you are heavily emphasising on the live action movies and TV, I thought it's gonna be the entire "Fox franchise" and not just a selection of products, right?. See the article of Marvel Cinematic Universe, where soundtracks, tie in comics, books got their own section and not just a sub section under in other media.

You might as well renamethis to "X-Men in live action adaptations" if you aren't gonna do that. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I see your suggestion, and can appreciate that. If it is done similar to how the MCU has organized things, then there shouldn't be any issues.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Mutant X does not need to be in this discussion, because while it is inspired by X-Men, it has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Tenebrae was simply making a complicated discussion even worse. How many people actually think Mutant X is set within some kind of X-Men universe? -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Just so this doesn't go into an Mutant X discussion, I was being rhetorical. They're not even called mutants. Professor X, Magneto, or any other character from the X-Men comics, etc. was never going to appear in that show, because it's unrelated. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

No one does. That's what I got from DisneyMetalhead's comment. No one thinks those crummy TV fails, nor the cartoon are a part of the Fox franchise's continuity.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Didn't expect to see another RfC so soon after the last one, but I'll add my support for X-Men (Fox franchise). 2001:982:4947:1:319D:101A:2A16:7C00 (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Following the RfC review, and a much more concise argument, the new RfC can move forward.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Just here to put in my support for changing it to X-Men (Fox Franchise) or whatever following that template that was listed above. If I could say, though, in interviews, Kinberg, Singer and Donner all tend to say X-Men Universe, perhaps a rename to X-Men Universe (Cinematic) is a possibility? If not, I'm down with the other name, but a rename and restructuring is a good step. --Schmeater (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Two points RE Misplaced Pages guidelines / practices

Two points have been getting lost in this debate. One is natural disambiguation, which states we should use the simplest and most natural parenthetical term. "Fox franchise" would be natural only if there were multiple X-Men franchises, in order to differentiate the article from, say "Paramount franchise" or "Disney franchise".

But more important is readers first. I would suggest that the average reader wants to know about X-Men films or about X-Men TV shows or about X-Men comics or about X-Men videogames. Only hardcore comics fans want to see some grand, unified continuity such as "X-Men (Fox franchise)". Unless a reader is well-versed in studios and networks, he or she is not going to naturally look for X-Men (Fox franchise). He or she will look for "X-Men in film" or similar, "X-Men on TV" or similar, "X-Men videogames", X-cetera. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae you are making this way beyond complicated. The opening paragraph will clarify what the page is about. The 'average reader' who wants to know about the Alien movies probably isn't interested in all the other stuff and yet the page is titled as a franchise. This title-change move is to be more accurate than the page currently is. Once the studio releases an official name (if they choose to do so) then will the page have an 'official title'.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

IJBall, the title is definitive enough for this movement. Also an introductory paragraph will summarize that the franchise is 'a series of live-action films and television adaptations, sharing continuity, based on the comics by Marvel'. Simple enough. If your argument is that the title doesn't cater to every reader -- explain to me why the Has Fallen (film series) and Robert Langdon film series have the names they do, and how they are intuitive? --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's a terrible choice for a disambiguator – totally non-intuitive: Tenebrae is correct on this. If the insistence is that all the various offshoots be kept in the same article (and I agree with Tenebrae on this that they should be split up into separate articles), then a far better choice would be X-Men (media franchise)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not the current issue. The issue is the page is about the continuity of films/TV shows that 21st Century Fox has made through its subsiduaries 20th Century Fox, Fox Television, and FX - and the current title doesn't reflect that. This page needs to have a better title for that purpose. If you want to make another page that breaks things down even further - titled X-Men in other media, or X-Men in film, or X-Men in television, etc - then do so. This has been done likewise with similar pages such as Batman in film, Superman in film, Spider-Man in film -- but each of these also has similar pages about a specific series therein.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly the issue I'm talking about: "the page is about the continuity of films/TV shows." General readers do not care about your OR/SYNTH "continuity". That is purely a fanboy concern. This is not a fan page, General readers want to know about X-Men movies or X-Men TV shows. Only hardcore comics fans and not the general public cares about your "continuity: theories. --Tenebrae (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae, you continue to demean other users who don't agree with you. That is a display of incivility. You accusing users of being 'fanboys' is irrelevant to the conversation. As the RfC survey points out there is plenty of the 'general public' that cares about classifying franchises and their continuity. Despite the declarative statements you make - without reference or research supporting your claims. No one here is trying to break rules. So stop claiming so in your messages to admins.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Re the comment that (Fox franchise) would only be natural if there were several X-Men franchises: Well there are. There is the comic book franchise that Marvel runs (with its own tie-ins etc.) and then there is this franchise. 80.57.35.149 (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow. You misinterpret the word "franchise" and much else. Comic books are a different medium that films. Videogames are a different medium than films. They're not different "franchises". --Tenebrae (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

There are two different companies making products based on the same set of characters and the X-Men IP, but that doesn't mean it's just one franchise. The entire point of this discussion is that the 'Fox franchise' isn't just limited to movies, but also incudes things like games, comics, novelizations and videogames. Similarly Marvel isn't limited to making X-Men comics. 80.57.35.149 (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, you're making my point. Rather than have an article about X-Men in film, and one about X-Men on TV, and one about X-Men in videogames, etc., you're trying to put films, TV and videogames all in one article and write OR / SYNTH about "continuity", as DisneyMetalhead puts it.--Tenebrae (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, you're only making a mountain out of a molehill. By creating friction within the comments sections, as can be seen throughout these discussions^, you are again violating rules yourself. Cease being so volatile to your fellow editors. Just because some of us don't register a username does not mean we are the NWO. Watch your rhetoric when you try to use others' comments against them. Admins will see your confrontations and see they are ill-ordered. For the record there are multiple companies producing X-Men material as editors have stated: Disney/Marvel, and Fox. There are also animated series/franchises, vs the live action franchise. There are indeed multiple franchises so that argument falls dead. If you find editors' comment suspicious then do something about it. User:IJBall was never a part of the discussion prior to mentioning you by name -- and I'm not suspicious at all, seeing as I know that RfCs are filed under lists for all users to edit and voice opinion.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: I have never before seen a move discussion in which editors played so fast and loose with protocol and guidelines. This informal discussion began March 31, with whatever local notification there may or may not have been. And then suddenly an editor who's only been here since September, with fewer than 500 edits, belatedly declares here that this existing conversation has really been a formal move request all along (and triggering an article-page bot here)! That is not how it is done. We've already had one discussion tainted by WP:VOTESTACK. Now we again have improprieties. I do not understand why the mostly new editors behind proposal are so hellbent on it that they consistently refuse to play by the rules. --Tenebrae (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae, there have been no 'rules' broken. Your attempts to paint that picture are fruitless. This RfC was done correctly and in good-faith. The page is out of date. That's the issue we are fixing. Not going to convince you that it's the right move (OBVIOUSLY), but it is what the rest of us are doing.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: This is a neutral notice to every registered editor on this article's page and this talk page within the last year. Normally this would go on the editor's talk page, but this editor has forbidden me from posting there. Nonetheless, what's right is right and I am pinging him to notify him here of this same message being given to others.: "A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week." --Tenebrae (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Man your 'notes' and new/added/renamed/sub-sections are all over the place. It's like you start five conversations all throughout one discussion. Pick a spot to talk about ONE topic, and stay there. Your structuring is a poor reflection of what twelve-years would and should teach. Oranization needs to be improved here, Tenebrae. Your behavior, your arguments, your lack of citing sources, your rhetoric with others, and your elitism is unruly, and precedes your reputation now to all editors involved. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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