Talk:X-Men (film series)/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

Another table reformat proposal for Recurring characters section

Character	Film
	X-Men	X2	X-Men: The Last Stand	X-Men Origins: Wolverine	X-Men: First Class	The Wolverine	X-Men: Days of Future Past The Rogue Cut	Deadpool	X-Men: Apocalypse	Logan Noir	New Mutants	Deadpool 2	Dark Phoenix
John Allerdyce Pyro	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Raven Darkhölme Mystique	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
Bobby Drake Iceman	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No
Jean Grey Phoenix	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No
James "Logan" Howlett Wolverine / Weapon X	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Jubilation Lee Jubilee	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No
Erik Lehnsherr Magneto	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	YesYA	No
Moira MacTaggert	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No
Marie Rogue	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No
Henry "Hank" McCoy Beast	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
Ororo Munroe Storm	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
Kitty Pryde	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No
Piotr "Peter" Rasputin Colossus	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No		Yes
William Stryker	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No
Alexander "Alex" Summers Havok	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No
Scott Summers Cyclops	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
Wade Wilson Deadpool / Weapon XI	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	No		Yes
Charles Xavier Professor X	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes

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

References

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^TW 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, not your assumptions what will happen in the future. -- Alex^TW 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^TW 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^TW 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^TW 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)

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.)

Character
James "Logan" Howlett Wolverine / Weapon X

X-Men	X2	X-Men: The Last Stand	X-Men: Origins Wolverine	X-Men: First Class	The Wolverine	X-Men: Days of Future Past	Deadpool	X-Men: Apocalypse	Logan	New Mutants	Deadpool 2	X-Men: Dark Phoenix	Deadpool 3	Gambit	X-Force	X-23	Alpha Flight
Hugh Jackman			Hugh Jackman, Troye SivanY	Hugh JackmanUC	Hugh Jackman			Hugh JackmanUC	Hugh Jackman

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

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.

Character	Film Series
	Original Trilogy	Beginnings Trilogy	Wolverine Series	Deadpool Series
James "Logan" Howlett Wolverine Weapon X	Hugh Jackman		Hugh Jackman, Troye SivanY
Charles Xavier Professor X	Patrick Stewart	James McAvoy, Patrick StewartO, Laurence BelcherYA	Patrick StewartC

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)

Those two trilogy titles are actually on the printed blu-ray releases of both trilogies. It is also not misleading as by saying that Charles Xavier / Professor X appears in the original trilogy, we can assume/understand that he was in that trilogy of films at some point. Same goes for any other character. It is correct in stating such regardless of how many movies they were in or not. The only people who care about this section will be people who have seen the movies anyhow. They can put it together.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:25, 11 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 ^O indicates a role as an older version of the character.
• A ^C indicates a cameo role.
• A ^V indicates a voice-only role

Character	Deadpool films	New Mutants	Wolverine films	X-Men films (original timeline)	X-Men films (new timeline)
James "Logan" Howlett Wolverine Weapon X			Hugh Jackman
Charles Xavier Professor X			Patrick Stewart		James McAvoy Patrick StewartO
Erik Lehnsherr Magneto			Ian McKellen		Michael Fassbender Ian McKellenO
Scott Summers Cyclops			Tim Pocock	James Marsden	James MarsdenO Tye Sheridan
Jean Grey Phoenix Dark Phoenix			Famke Janssen		Famke JanssenO Sophie Turner
Ororo Munroe Storm				Halle Berry	Halle BerryO Alexandra Shipp
Raven Darkhölme Mystique				Rebecca Romijn	Jennifer Lawrence Rebecca RomijnO
Bobby Drake Iceman				Shawn Ashmore
Marie D'Ancanto Rogue				Anna Paquin
Piotr "Peter" Rasputin Colossus	Stefan KapičićV			Donald MackinnonC Daniel Cudmore	Daniel Cudmore
Kitty Pryde Shadowcat				Sumela KayC Katie StuartC Ellen Page	Ellen Page
John Allerdyce Pyro				Alexander BurtonC Aaron Stanford
Jubilation Lee Jubilee				Katrina FlorenceC Kea WongC	Lana Condor
Henry "Hank" McCoy Beast				Steve BacicC Kelsey Grammer	Nicholas Hoult Kelsey GrammerOC
William Stryker			Danny Huston	Brian Cox	Josh Helman
Moira MacTaggert				Olivia Williams Rose Byrne	Rose Byrne
Wade Wilson Deadpool Weapon XI	Ryan Reynolds		Ryan Reynolds Scott Adkins (Weapon XI)
Alexander "Alex" Summers Havok					Lucas Till

References

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 ^XMO:W. - 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)

P.S. User:Hotwiki, btw the X-Men did indeed feature in X-Men: First Class.... it's what the young mutants decide they want to call themselves in reference/tribute to their mentor, Charles Xavier. Watch the movie again. It's in the movie.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:25, 11 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 Wikipedia: CRYSTAL we don't need your assumptions. There's not even an official premise for the film. Also, I want to use this opportunity to say that, no need to mention if a film was already released or in development as it was already done above the recurring characters section. D'Ancanto isn't Rogue's surname in the four films that she appeared in. Use the same font size for all the film titles, there's absolutely no reason to decrease some of the words such as "X-Men". It just looks inconsistent and doesn't help the table. Wikia is not a good source for edits and Storm didn't appear in the wolverine, just her picture. I also updated the Rotten tomatoes score and box office numbers for Logan, why would your revert those? You are showing bad editing skills.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

I agree with getting rid of Magneto's fake ID that he used for ONE film, and additionally only for a short segment of the film as well. He was never credited as such and if we're going to be so specific that there's a debate about Dark Phoenix why include Eric's fake ID from Apocalypse? Makes zero sense.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Do we know which editor included that fake id name used in a film before? I certainly didn't do that.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 01:08, 12 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)

Thanks for reminding me. Now do me a favor and read these articles: Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, as you're seeing my edits and contributions to this article as if I am owning it. Be constructive and civil next time. That's all!TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You were told by a completely uninvolved editor that you were displaying behaviour worthy of WP:OWN. That's not an accusation or attack, that's an observation. -- Alex^TW 01:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

In trying to explain what they're not doing, they're basically doubling down on it. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

"Although HotWiki may be WP:OWNing the article" that's the exact statement from that uninvolved member. So much for displaying such a behavior. You know what, you've been accusing me of things for how many times now? and yet I'm still here editing. So that's just your perception. How about you read the rules, and start acting polite to me, assume good faith to my edits and avoid personal attacks when it comes to Hotwiki.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. It came up. So, it was definitely viewed as such by the uninvolved editor. And they're not the only person to say so, so it's not just mine, but multiple editors besides the two of us. How about you actually act civilly, stop edit-warring, stop owning the page, take on the suggestions of other editor, be prepared to actually discuss disputed content and leave the status quo while you do, and stop talking down to editors? I could go on all day. -- Alex^TW 01:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 May 2017

I would like to request that a padlock icon or other appropriate protection tag be added to the top of this article to identify it as a fully protected page. Currently it only has a GA icon. Thanks. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Done clpo13_(talk) 18:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 May 2017

Shouldn't the X-Men film series be placed under the "20th Century Fox franchises" category like Alien and The Simpsons? PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

20th Century Fox has the licensing to make films based on the X-Men characters. They don't own the actual X-Men. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please establish consensus for this change here then reactivate the edit request if desired. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:22, 13 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^TW 12:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Alex^TW! I've taken the question there as you suggested. Let's hope something can be done about the page. It isn't meant to be a warzone that certain users like to turn it into.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You're the one throwing shades to "certain users" when those "certain users" only want the best for the article, not throw a pissing contest to "certain users" who they've had disagreements with the past. If I remember correctly, you were the one using unreliable sites as your source for your edits, posting trivial stuff like an exclusive interview from a fansite, being questioned for not being neutral when it came to the selection of editors that could comment about an article move and of course, that article move mess that was denied twice. We saw how you handled that. So go ahead.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

That is not what is being discussed here. You're being accused of being uncivil, owning the article by multiple editors, and edit-warring against the version of consensus and the status quo. If that doesn't show that something's seriously wrong here, then perhaps the reports will. Cheers to Disney for submitting them. -- Alex^TW 01:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You mean "certain users" that didn't get it their way, and uses the owning the article card to deflect the real issue. Isn't that what happened when you didn't get your way when the article wasn't moved, you resorted to personal attacks. You my dear, should know better.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope. I mean editors who refuse to let the status quo remain while a discussion about disputed content is in place. Spoilers: It's you. -- Alex^TW 01:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

That's your perception and anyone who might be against my edit/s. We already have 3 editors that already stated that that Crystal ball line isn't needed. How about you take up your own advice. You don't own the article (never mind your lack of actual contribution to this article) and you don't get to decide what should stay or not, when Three editors already disagreed with you. You already locked this article twice through request for something you claimed as "trivial info" which is the crystal ball line. And now Disney Metal Head can't even edit the article to post the new official cast members. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

And you've already multiple editors who disagree. Stop trying to dodge away from the topic of your behaviour by bringing up another discussion inside an unrelated discussion. I have had no accusations of OWN against me, but you have; however, you don't seem concerned about this, especially when it's been taken to the administrators. Perhaps if you hadn't edit-warred, and left the status quo, Disney might have been able to add it. That is your fault. Learn to leave the previous version of an article while a discussion is in place. Every other editor on this site has to do it - why not you? -- Alex^TW 01:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Take up your own advice. You aren't the only editor here. I felt bad for Disney Metal Head that he is unable to edit this article.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I am taking my own advice. It was me who refused to edit-war with you anymore. If you had left the previous version, it wouldn't be protected. Who's fault is that? -- Alex^TW 01:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect. Again: If you had left the previous version, it wouldn't be protected. -- Alex^TW 02:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

it ain't my fault. Its your fault be cause you didn't acknowledge the two editors who were against that edit of yours and you still reverted to your preference. So please, I am asking nicely here, let us edit next time this article gets unlocked. Thanks in advance. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I quote from Disney: 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. You two do not have a rule over this article. Why does the decision of only you two determine what can and cannot be included? The discussion was still in place, it was not over, hence there was no conclusion. Hence, previous version. Everyone else has to abide by the rules. Why don't you? Why are you so special that you can force your edits without a conclusion to the discussion? -- Alex^TW 02:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

If you continue to throw shade and acting sarcastic, don't be surprised if I don't respond. By the way I am perched to edit the article to include more credible information that isn't crystal ball info and unsourcedTheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

If you continue to dodge the accusations against you from multiple editors, and actually realize your issues, expect the same from me. Nice way to not answer the questions, by the way. What makes the views of you two so solid that it overrides the currently-existing discussion? -- Alex^TW 02:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

EXACTLY why I took this to an admin. There are a couple of editors on this page that repeatedly violate WP:CIVILity, while exhibiting WP:OWNing behavior. It continues on in your discussion-hijack here by turning the conversation to different topics. Anyone can see your edits and will and will be able to see the pious tone and self-praise that anyone on this page promotes (I'm looking at you). Wikipedia is meant to be a community effort to improve average knowledge regarding various topics. You're right User:Hotwiki, I was the one who cited my references with multiple sources regarding the page's retitle-move. You were the one that had zero references and 'rallied' your support with crafty conversation twisting. You never had a reference that stated otherwise. Don't go casting your warped reality in into this current section and topic. The discussion right here is the fact that something needs to be done to keep this animal circus from continuing onward. User:AlexTheWhovian stated it well, and I repeat again: with you stating "Tenebrae and me" over and over and over -- how is it that in your mind those 2 opinions outway multiple others? It isn't right and will be taken care of. The end.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: If you refuse to agree to the discussion to defend yourself, it will be safe to say that you agree with the accusations against you. -- Alex^TW 02:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Stop harassing me, leave me alone. If you have something you need to say regarding Hotwiki, take it to the authorities. I am not obligated to reply to your every post. Bye.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You are when there's serious accusations against you from multiple editors. Since you refuse to face or defend them, you therefore accept them. It already has been taking to the authorities, requesting a block against you on articles related to this one. If you revert the edit once more after the page protection has expired, even after this discussion of two weeks (or more) and having no consensus or basis, then another report will be filed against you for a further block. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 02:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I will explain myself to the administrators, not you. Again I am not obligated to explain myself to you. You are not a moderator nor an administrator. Stop harassing me, stop threatening and using intimidation like as if I am gonna get blocked for not explaining myself, which I already did in the past and I've had enough of you. Leave me alone.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not threatening you at all. I'm telling you what will happen. If you continue to edit-war to force your OWN version, you will be reported. That's all there is. -- Alex^TW 02:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You are threatening and harassing me at the same time. Also asking me how "special" I am is you being uncivil towards me. I've already said enough. So go ahead, send your report. I will explain myself to the administrators.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You seem to not be understanding the fact that you've already been reported. -- Alex^TW 03:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Great. Now where's the message from my talk page regarding the report? This is the last comment you'll get from me, by the way as I refuse to interact with someone who harasses, threatens me and resorts to personal attacks. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who filed it, I'm not the one required to post the message. I agree with the latter part of your comment. Your incivility, edit-warring, owning the page, not taking on the suggestions of other editor, not being prepared to actually discuss disputed content or leave the status quo while you do, and talking down to editors, all senseless on your part. -- Alex^TW 03:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

So, is there a confirmation from you, or not, that you will not revert the edit once the page protection is lifted and the edit is re-implemented? If so, I can request the protection be lifted, so that waiting edit requests can be done by regular editors. If not, if you have not taken notes of the accusations of many editors against you, then the issue remains. Your answer is required. -- Alex^TW 09:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It does seem a certain user has exhibited quite a bit of WP:OWNing behaviour, even as the article is admin confirmed only. Deciding by themselves what information should and shouldn't be in the article even though it has relevance. Something should be done as no one will be able to get anyway with the article as long as it continues. Brocicle (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Hokwiki, I phrased the section the way I did to begin with because I was trying to assume that the users who are constantly confrontational would own up to their conflict and resolve the issue. I was also not wanting to point fingers. But since you have dragged it on this way - I have now sent you a personal message on your talk page. The issue at hand is simply the lack of willingness to work collaboratively with other editors, regardless of experience or opinion. Hope the issues can be ended and this page can stop being used as an WP:OWNed page by any users.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of TV Series

Something in another discussion made me start thinking about this. We now have two television series that are connected to the film series, with at least one character appearing so far that has previously appeared in one of the films. Right now this article is "X-Men (film series)". But should we consider making a change to add in the television series? We could simply add a "Television Series" section for the connected series. Or we could even take things a step further and rename this page to something "X-men (shared universe)" (that's just a quick example, there's probably something better to call it)? Thoughts?-AnonWikiEditor (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is merely for the film series. And the article move to X-Men (shared universe) or whatever propose title it had, was denied very recently.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

After looking through the previous discussion, I'm not clear on why it was "denied". It seemed like there was overwhelming support in favor of it. Though recent, I'll also add that the entire discussion took place before "The Gifted" was ordered to series. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It was denied per WP:SNOW against the move. Brocicle (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Grammatical fix / repetitive language

Not worth a formal edit request, but dropping this note here so someone (me?) can fix it when protection expires: Fox had begun negotiations for the treatment for another solo film should probably be changed to Fox was negotiating a treatment for another solo film. Repetition of "for" is awkward, and "negotiate for" implies someone had already written a treatment and was holding it for ransom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)