Talk:X-Men (film series)/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

"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 Wikipedia:CRYSTAL, it states that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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^TW 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^TW 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^TW 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^TW 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^TW 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 Wikipedia 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^TW 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 ^talktome 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^TW 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 Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia: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^TW 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 Wikipedia 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^TW 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^TW 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^TW 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^TW 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^TW 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 Wikipedia: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^TW 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^TW 11:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

it is against Wikipedia: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^TW 11:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Unlike you I don't use my own thoughts and post them in the article. That is against Wikipedia. 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^TW 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^TW 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^TW 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 Wikipedia 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^TW 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^TW 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 Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. However, this does not fall under categories such as rumors speculation, and "future history" that are covered under Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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^TW 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)

A lot of "Tenebrae and me", "Tenebrae and me" in posts at the top of this argument. Do you two act as a team, or what? Just because you two agree, doesn't mean that your opinion is the correct one. The elitist behavior needs to end. For this reason, have I brought this up here, and here. The behavior on this talk page has become very volatile and completely unconstructive. Without some sort of intervention from an admin, anyone who agrees with either of you two is deemed to be invalid, and incorrect on every single topic. It's completely against multiple guidelines by Wikipedia.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is acting as a team — I haven't even been on WIkipedia for, like, three days.

Just as with all those Trump supporters who think "elitist" is an insult when "elitist" means well-educated, smart, mature people who have done something with their lives, your continuing refrain of "elitist" here is clearly meant to be an uncivil personal insult. Yet after everything I've seen of your editing, of your canvassing at an RfC that ultimately went against you once normal, un-canvassed editors weighed in, and of the fact your arguments here aren't convincing anybody, I'd suggest that perhaps you might change the term "elitist behavior" (and by the way, it would be less wordy to just say "elitism") to "experienced, veteran editors who understand WIkipedia policies, guidelines and protocols and from whom I could learn." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

And "has yet to be announced" is clearly WP:CRYSTAL. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I haven't read all of this lengthy back-and-forth, so excuse me if I'm missing something obvious. Isn't the "has yet to be announced" part more in reference to the film being released in the future? It's not speculating that certain characters will appear, but acknowledging the current state of the film - that is, one with an incomplete cast list. Without it, dark grey cells only indicate characters that don't appear in a film. Which itself is maybe a little speculative because we don't know who will or won't appear in future films other than who has been announced. So if future films are a part of the table, surely it's necessary for the wording to be something like "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." And if that statement falls under WP:CRYSTAL, then shouldn't the future films being referred to here also fall under it?

There's plenty of precedent in other similar wikipedia lists for this statement as well, as List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors#Phase Three, List of DC Extended Universe cast members, List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors and List of Arrowverse cast members all use it phrased as "A dark grey cell indicates the character was not in the film, or that the character's presence in the film has not yet been announced". Tenebrae, I'm curious as to why you think this is WP:CRYSTAL clear. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You're definitely haven't missed anything obviously, because exactly, yes! That's what I mean right to the fullstop. Well put. -- Alex^TW 15:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, ProfessorKilroy. To answer your question: My interpretation is that a role or actor "yet to be announced" WP:CRYSTAL since there is nothing concrete or encyclopedic until something is officially announced. The X-Men movies in particular have had numerous instances where we may expect that a certain character will be in the film but then the character is not — cut for time, or a deal couldn't be negotiated with the actor, or in the cast of the Star Trek franchise because an actor died. So, yes, even saying "Role: Chekhov — actor yet to be announced" before the most recent ST film would have been WP:CRYSTAL. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I would argue that that line is what makes it not crystal ball. Without it, the article is making a statement that certain characters are not in upcoming movies. We generally can't know that without a crystal ball to tell us. This line makes it clear the characters may not be listed because they are either not in the movie or because "there is nothing concrete or encyclopedic until something is officially announced" regarding their appearance so they cannot be listed. It's not making any predictions or trying to state the future, just the accurate present state of things. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been following this discussion, so correct me if I am wrong, but this debate is about saying "An 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." Because I feel the "has yet to be announced" part of that is what keeps the statement from violating WP:CRYSTAL. If we just stated "An empty dark grey cell indicates that the character was not in the film" for a film that has not come out yet, then we are making a prediction of the future that we can't back up, so the "has yet to be announced" is just a disclaimer saying "in the case of future films, we don't actually definitively no what will happen yet". I don't see what the problem with doing that is. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I would say, with respect, that there is no way of knowing whether a particular bit of information will ever be announced.

@AnonWikiEditor: Your statement "Without it, the article is making a statement that certain characters are not in upcoming movies" is a classic logical fallacy. There are thousands of X-Men characters who might not be in the upcoming movies. We can't prove that every one of those thousands won't be. All we can say is what characters have been announced. Anything else is crystal-balling.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That's true, but in the table, for instance, we would be stating that Magneto will not be in Deadpool 2. That violates WP:CRYSTAL because we do not know that. In prose we would of course not write "Magneto will not be in Deadpool 2", we would just leave any mention of Magneto out all together. But we can't do that in the table because he is already there for other films, so we are stuck in a situation where we must mention him, but we don't know if he will be in the film or not. In that case, we need some sort of disclaimer so people don't think that we know what will happen. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Good point, and that made me take a closer look at the table. First of all, it goes horizontally past the right border, which isn't optimal. But more importantly — and this may help solve the "yet to be announced" issue entirely — why does the table list films that haven't been released? As evidenced, that creates problems. I think it would be more encyclopedic to have tables only list what we know and not try to get into future claims. Because as you note, tables aren't designed to handle the nuances of prose. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The table width is definitely an issue, and we could discuss the future films thing. This was also an issue raised a while back at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, but I can't remember exactly why we decided to keep the future films in then. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

adamstom.97 explained it well already, but I just saw the replies now. The table isn't for every possible character ever. It has defined parameters for inclusion, which are that the characters must have at least two confirmed film appearances to even be listed. So we're not dealing with every possible character ever, but only characters who have been a part of the franchise already. And there the issues, as he said, with regards to showing info in table vs. in a paragraph. Anyway as to other points made, perhaps we should start a new discussion about whether to include future films or if it should be it's own article as have both been suggested. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

So, now that the protection is lifted, and returning to the original conversation - is the [citation needed] flag necessary or not? If t is, why? What needs a citation, and why do other such tables not need it? If not, then I recommend we remove it. -- Alex^TW 01:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Not only is that cite request needed, but the line "has yet to be announced" needs to be removed. It is WP:CRYSTAL since there is no way of knowing if a particular character ever will be announced for a future film. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought that it was sufficiently explained to you, given that it's not a prose listing of all characters that might appear, but a case of characters who have already appeared in previous films, that need some sort of case for the table for future films. Do you intend to remove the line from all examples given where it is used? -- Alex^TW 02:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It has indeed been sufficiently explained. First off, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and we're only talking about this article; other articles will be gotten to eventually, since there's WP:NODEADLINE. I find a logic error in the suggestion that because a character appears in a film that they will appear in some future film; that's just not true. Anything that is "yet to be announced" is by definition WP:CRYSTAL. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is barely a sufficient argument when I'm talking about identical content. So, what do you propose be done to characters of past films, for entries of future films? Rows of a table span the entire table, nothing can be done about that. Unless you feel that the best option is to break the table layout and not include a cell for past characters in future films at all? -- Alex^TW 02:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible compromise solution that also addresses the WP:DATED issue of "yet": Perhaps the line can read: "As of May 2017, the studio has not announced whether the character will appear". That certainly isn't my preference since it still skirts WP:CRYSTAL, but I offer it in the spirit of a middle ground we might all be able to live with. (And to answer your question, what I would prefer is no table at all, since we have a separate article that covers all this, making this chart redundant.)--Tenebrae (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

So, to combine it into the current line, it would read as such? "A empty dark grey cell indicates that the character was not in the film, or that the character's presence in the film has not been announced." -- Alex^TW 02:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused, I thought I already explained why the line avoids CRYSTAL and not the other way around. As long as the table suggests that characters will not be appearing when we do not know that, we have to say something to clarify to readers. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused, I thought I already explained why the line avoids CRYSTAL and not the other way around. Exactly, that's why I restarted the thread, because I thought that all the involved editors understood this. Apparently I was wrong, and the discussion went back to the very start. -- Alex^TW 11:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

So. Any further discussion on this, or is it agreed that it's not a crystal violation? -- Alex^TW 23:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to how "yet to be announced" is not WP:CRYSTAL. I offered a compromise solution that tries to mitigate it by at least removing the WP:DATED issue. But I still believe it's a CRYSTAL vio, and that's the nature of compromise — something that addresses everyone's concerns while not being perfect in everyone's eyes. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

So did I, and yet there was no replied for days. It was explained in detail how it was not crystal. -- Alex^TW 15:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Like I said before, "yet to be announced" is what stops the sentence from violating CRYSTAL, because without it we are making a statement of fact that actors will not be appearing in films, which we do not know for sure. The only difference the proposed "compromise" would make is adding a specific date, which just sounds like unnecessary maintenance to me (especially for an article that, honestly, is not that well maintained). - adamstom97 (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're on the same page. Let me ask: "Yet to be announced" says that something will be announced. Are we in agreement on that? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. It's stating that it has not been announced, but there's the possibility of it being announced, as we are not allowed to say that the announcement will not be happening. After all, cast and characters can be announced anytime between the announcement of the film, and the release of the film; that's entirely up to the people who make the film. It does seem that we have different ideas on what the meaning of "yet" means in this situation. Stating that the characters will not be appearing is the issue, as we've no source for that. -- Alex^TW 14:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, that's the logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative. No on is stating that a character will not appear in a film. There are thousands of Marvel character who will not appear in a film.

But after sleeping on it, I think I may have a wording that works even better than my compromise suggestion, since it addresses the WP:CRYSTAL issue head-on and only adds one word ("possible"). I also fixed some grammar and removed unnecessary / redundant words ("that"; "in the film").

What do you both think of: "An empty, dark-grey cell indicates the character was not in the film, or that the character's possible presence has not been announced as of May 2017," with the month changing as necessary. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Realistically, I guess we're going for the lesser of two evils here, as we would never make this sort of addition in the prose, but we've got a table where we need to consider future cases. Just as Adam said, The only difference the proposed "compromise" would make is adding a specific date, which just sounds like unnecessary maintenance to me; I'd be fine with that wording, but I also find the date is unnecessary. -- Alex^TW 14:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we're making progress. And that's the nature of compromise: I don't believe the table belongs here at all when there's a whole article we should just "main article" to. (The date addresses a completely different issue than CRYSTAL, which is WP:DATED.)

adamstom97, what do you say? If all three of the editors still here discussing it agree, then we can end this successfully and move on with our lives!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

After thinking on this, I think I support adding this new wording while we discuss an alternative solution to the table. The table is honestly just really messy how it is, but there doesn't seem to be enough sub-franchises, as such, for us to change over to the format currently used at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. I feel that the best thing to do is replace the table with a main article link and then perhaps a brief prose summary of the main actors for the series. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm all for that on both counts, and in the spirit of collegiality, I'll add the compromise wording now and then, yes, I'm all for discussing a long-range solution. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Break 2

It's only going to increase in size as more films are announced. It should be removed and the information stated in a separate article. Brocicle (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

There already is a separate article for it, at List of X-Men films cast members. This is just supposed to be a quick and easy overview/summary/preview, since the recurring cast is a good thing to note in a series article like this. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, supposed to be but with the amount it's growing and how fast it's growing it's almost outgrown the article. :/ Brocicle (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Finally, the very point I was trying to get across got recognized! We're not adding "X is to be announced in future film Y" as a statement, we're covering the case in the table for character X who has appeared in a previous film Z, who has had no announcement for future film Y. Glad that was covered. So, there is consensus to restore that line? That was the main point of the discussion. As for the table, I disagree with removing it entirely, but something different could be done in relation to future films. -- Alex^TW 05:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: Do you understand and recognize this discussion, what it details, and its consensus? -- Alex^TW 07:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what "restore the line" means. The table currently states "yet to be announced" and we're still debating the WP:CRYSTAL issue.

Also, if we already List of X-Men films cast members, there's no reason to include this table, which as we can see has caused nothing but argument and contention and already is breaking past the right border. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The cast members should not even be mentioned as the section is for "recurring characters". Not " recurring cast members" and the table already listed actors who only appeared in 1 to 2 films only.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, it has been cleared that it is not CRYSTAL, per Adam's example and explanation of using Magneto being (or rather, not being) in Deadpool 2. When I say "restore the line", I mean to restore it to its previous version - that is, without the unnecessary and baseless [citation needed] flag. -- Alex^TW 22:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

So, if we don't need this table here, then why are characters listed instead of just the cast names at the other article, Hotwiki? Look at it: on this article, you state the cast names shouldn't be there. So why are there characters names in that table? And why is the line of "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." acceptable on that article, but not this one? Seems a bit hypocritical. -- Alex^TW 22:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

While I'll agree I also don't think the table should have a place in the article, as a compromise may I suggest a table style more like that of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. That way the table becomes condensed, does not outgrow the article width wise and actually gets the information across in an appropriate fashion. Brocicle (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Which MCU table are you referring to specifically? The recurring characters table, for example, does it by Films / Television / Short Films / Digital Series - which doesn't work for a solely film series article (though with the addition of two connected TV series, that brings up a question about their addition - but that discussion would best be done in its own section) -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be exactly the same layout. I just don't see the need to list all movies in the table when they can be grouped together. Like the wolverine movies, original trilogy etc. Brocicle (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Drafts

I've just discovered that there are a few draft articles in the works for upcoming films that I may want to be involved in, namely Draft:Deadpool 2 and Draft:X-Men: Dark Phoenix, and was wondering if editors here know of anymore out there. Having a list of them somewhere could be helpful as well, so interested editors can find them and contribute. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi adamstom97, I've stumbled upon this draft - Draft:New Mutants (film). All the best, New9374 (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

To all those interested, I've added a section to the top of this talk page that shouldn't get archived, listing all the drafts for these films that I have found. If there are any others, or any others are created, they can be added there so anyone interested can find them and help out. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of film-related drafts under Category:Drafts about media and drama. Not sure if you saw that? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't, thanks Erik! - adamstom97 (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Labeling different set of movies

Hi I was thinking about grouping of x-men movies into different groups (i.e X-Men movies, Wolverine trilogy,deadpool movies and new mutants). Would that be fine? Thanks Kind of like following

• X-Men Series
  • X-Men (2000)
  • X2 (2003)
  • X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
  • X-Men: First Class (2011)
  • X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)
  • X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)
• Wolverine Trilogy
  • X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)
  • The Wolverine (2013)
  • Logan (2017)
• Deadpool Series
  • Deadpool (2016)

Order is determined by date of release. Please remember to sign your comments. Brocicle (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

So would it be fine if I group them? Thanks Shoxee1214 (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No, its not fine. The other editors have discussed this before.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Some other sort of classifiers in the chart need to be arranged as the chart is far too crowded. What the solution is, is not yet decided however.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)