Talk:X-Men (film series)/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Recent reverts

{{re|Hotwiki} Given that you plan to only edit-war, not leave the WP:STATUSQUO as it is, and only want to force your reverts, I'll be the better person for you and start a discussion... 1) The note is clearly for editors that are not aware that they need to update the accessdate parameter when they update the values for box performances or critical reception, and 2) did you read the guideline that I linked you to that explains the accessibility of the scope attribute? -- Alex^TW 13:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Hotwiki:, given that the first one failed. -- Alex^TW 13:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

that hat note is only needed for articles with inexperienced editors who doesn't know how to change the access date and needed to be told to change the access date when they update the section or row. Thankfully, this article, specifically the box office section is usually up to date and was just updated by yours truly and that update included changing the access date of the references given. It's an extra tag that isn't needed. It's also never been a concern in the first place to address that note to editors of this article. So keep it away.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Not every editor who edits this article is as experienced as other editors, so it is necessary for them as well. And it doesn't matter if they know how to change the access date, or if they don't know how, it's the fact that they need to. You are not the only editor on this article, as per your comment of "just updated by yours truly"; you may not update them straight away, other editors may come in and do it themselves, therefore the note is required for them. This is not your article. What harm does a hidden note that is not seen by readers do? It does no harm to include it; in fact, it does more good than anything, leaving notes for editors who don't know the specific details of editing sourced content.

I also noticed that you completely ignored the topic of the table's scope attributes and the guideline that I provided to you. Just because it doesn't do anything visually, doesn't mean it doesn't do anything at all. I recommend that you revert to the STATUSQUO, as you've been recommended to before this discussion by multiple editors, and allow this discussion to conclude. -- Alex^TW 15:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No. Its just your habit being against with my edits in this article and I suggest you leave me alone and not turn this into a personal vendetta which is just a hindrance to the articles I contribute like this one.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

User talk pages are for personal behaviour, article talk pages are for content disputes. I recommend that you address the topics that I presented, instead of trying to avoid them to protect your version of the article. You are not the only person who edits this article. -- Alex^TW 10:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

You have an obsession with reverting my edits. An obsession that needs to be stopped. And you come up with excuses to spin / justify your reasonings. Leave me alone. Again, the hat note isn't needed and updating the access date has never been an issue even if you claim that it is, it isn't. × TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure where you're getting that, as these days, I barely edit the article, so it seems to be your paranoia concerning me and any of my edits speaking. And yet again, you've completely ignored every point I brought up, and completely ignored the accessibility issue as well! Did you even read the guideline I linked? And clearly it was an issue, else why was it added? There was clearly a reason for it - a reason exists for everything we do in life. So, kindly address the points, else the status quo will be restored. Cheerio. -- Alex^TW 15:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

There was no issue, it was just an edit from an editor adding a hidden tag that isn't needed as I've already pointed out.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I'll take it one point at a time, then. Explain why the hidden comment was added if it wasn't necessary? -- Alex^TW 16:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Pining Brojam, since it was their edit, which also included the accessibility code. -- Alex^TW 16:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I seen no harm in adding a note for other editors. You are not the only one that wants and is allowed to edit this article; instead of reverting edits and attacking editors, a simple note will make it clear to all editors. Looking at how many edits you revert, it seems that many more hidden notes should be included in this article. For example, one on why the announcement of the six untitled Fox Marvel films should not be included in this article. To prevent this [1] [2] [3]. - Brojam (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

you might as well copy and paste all Wikipedia guidelines in hidden tags. We cannot prevent inexperienced editors to make mistakes. I am sure you have made plenty in the past. We have a couple of "experienced" editors in this article who have made bad / questionable edits in the past and I doubt a hidden tag inside the editing box would have made a difference. Anyway, its an extraneous stuff that isn't needed. I just updated the whole article recently and I updated most of the access dates of the references I've reviewed so no it's not a concern. If someone forgot to update the access date, you could tell them directly via their talk page.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations on updating the article. And for the umpeenth time: you are not the only editor who does so. You also seem to have completely ignored Brojam's comment. -- Alex^TW 17:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Arguing over a hidden tag is ridiculous. It does not harm the article by being there and helps other editors who have something they want to contribute but don't regularly edit the article. Hotwiki it's not the end of the world if there is a hidden note that is beneficial. Brocicle (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems there's more support to include it. As for the accessibility code in the tables that was removed by the same editor, who's ignored that entire topic... -- Alex^TW 18:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Then I suggest you copy and paste all guidelines in 1 hidden tag if that's beneficial to "inexperienced" editors. The editing box is not a tutorial guide that editors need to see that note everytime they edit the box office section. It's not like this article has so many inexperienced editors who can't keep the access date updated when those editors update the box office numbers. Keep it out. This article existed for years and we didn't have that hat note, why in the world would it need it now... Because reasons. × TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

We simply need to add notes for common issues with articles, not for every guideline. You may know what you're doing, and yes, it's not a tutorial place, but they are more than welcome to edit the article as you are, or as I am, or anyone else, they just might not know the specifics of what they have to do at the same time. It seems that the consensus is that there's absolutely no issue with keeping the note, and I agree that this is a ridiculous thing to have to discuss, so there's valid reason to reinstate it. Any word on the other topic you keep ignoring? -- Alex^TW 04:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Updating the access date isn't a common issue here. Doing original research and crystal wording like To be announced are much more common issues in this article and there are no hidden notes for those.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Clearly it was enough of an issue to add the note, else why would it have been added? Answer that. And sure, we should go ahead and add notes for those too, as has been suggested by the other editors in this thread. Good idea! -- Alex^TW 05:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I added the note back in, the only one disagreeing with it being there is you Hotwiki. The editor who put it in originally obviously had a good reason for it to be added. Just drop it Brocicle (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculous. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion on these edits has been noted, but do try to be more civil. I've also added one on the future films, since it seems to be a reoccurring issue. -- Alex^TW 13:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! Hopefully those take it on-board with future edits. Brocicle (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Hotwiki exhibiting ownership behavior again I see. This is not your article. The tag should be on this article, even though you believe that this article is exempt simply because you know what you're doing. The article is for any and all users.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

My chart

A while ago a chart was made in order to show the films in the series, and the upcoming release dates slated for 20th Century Fox Marvel films. At this point in time, the only Marvel films the studio makes (and makes successfully) are X-Men films. With a number of movies stated to be in development, it would make sense that these upcoming untitled releases are one of the various projects currently in development. I know we can't WP:CRYSTALBALL but I thought my edit was helpful/constructive and followed similar layouts to other franchises and film serieses. I was wondering if the edit was simply reverted until the SDCC press announcement, or on some other basis? To assume that the studio is doing anything other than X-Men is against all current projects announced and common knowledge.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Talking about doing something and actually being in development are two different things. Brocicle (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The film table that you once again reposted isn't needed. There's a crew section. The release dates are already mentioned twice. You were just repeating stuff. Also, AGAIN, I mentioned in my edit to read the archive page in which this was discussed before: [4].TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Section detailing Kinberg's role in the series?

Simon Kinberg has been called 'the Kevin Feige of the X-Men' in press-releases following his success in screenwriting for Days of Future Past. The studio hired him with the intent of creating a shared universe -- which had included the failed F4ntastic movie. Nonetheless, his role in the series has remained dominant as he is often times the voice for the studio in discussing the progress of their X-Men films. He started off as co-writer of The Last Stand. After its poor reception he came back for a redemptive critical and financial success with Days of Future Past. Following that he has since been a writer, and producer of many X-Men films, as well as executive produced the two spin-off TV series. In addition to all of this, Kinberg is now writing/directing/producing the next installment in the franchise which will re-adapt his earlier adaptation of the Dark Phoenix in The Last Stand with next year's Dark Phoenix film. Similar pages have similar sections with the DC Extended Universe detailing the addition of Geoff Johns to the creative team to maintain a story thread throughout the films. I think a similar section, with Kinberg's image and details would be constructive and insightful for this page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not needed, and stop mimicking the other articles. Simon Kinberg isn't the first producer to produce the films and I don't see why there's a need to cater a separate section for him. And we don't need your personal opinion in this article about his track record in this series. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow hostility much?!^ That's not opinion-based. The studio itself had called him/referenced to him as their Kevin Feige. Don't get all butt-hurt, User:Hotwiki. Seriously.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Further references to a franchise

In one of the most current TV spots for The Gifted, the trailer clearly states that it is "in the X-Men Universe"; further establishing itself as a part of the 'film series' which advanced beyond merely being a series with the release of the Wolverine films. Another TV spot stated the same. These can be watched in the following links: The Gifted Unity in X-Men Universe, and The Gifted - X-Men Universe promo. This is like unto the Star Trek franchise (with it's various incarnations/stories/films/TV shows/etc). This page really needs to be updated... If 21st Century Fox - the parent company of 20th Century Fox, Fox Television and FX is referencing the franchise as a "universe" - I again restate for the umpteenth time -- this page is not current. It is not correct. It needs to be renamed, so as to be correct.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Here we go again. Beating the dead horse when this has been already rejected by the majority of the editors twice now. And what is exactly wrong with this article? It merely features the X-Men films and nothing more, which is the main objective of the article titled as X-Men film series. × TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: you're more than welcome to start a discussion or a request to change the article name but based on the outcome of the previous ones I doubt it will be renamed. Brocicle (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Hotwiki you and your dead horses are out of date. Just because it started off as a film series, doesn't mean it can't change. Whether that's now or later it eventually will. User:Brocicle thanks for being collaborative. In all reality the discussion may have been shot down before, but that doesn't mean that it should with new information coming out as I stated above^. I will look into starting a discussion/request, but my intentions are to start the discussion here to begin with.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a starting point is bringing in all editors who had previously discussed this issue.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Tell that to yourself as you don't know how to stop when this has been denied by a group of editors more than once, which is a sign that you can't collaborate with other editors well. And make sure if you a start a petition, you just won't notify editors that aren't/weren't against about an article move. You clearly didn't do that before and was reported for that. I already turned this page into a franchise page once and look how that convinced most editors to simply keep this article just for the films only. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey now, I apologized for doing something that I didn't meaningfully do to offend you, or to be out of guidelines. You are continuously hostile towards any editor that has a different opinion than you, or brings up a valid point that is news for the franchise itself. For whatever reason you get on the defensive right away. Anyway discussing things with you, never gets anywhere because you aren't very collaborative. I will make sure to notify all editors that had had any opinion regarding the topic. Just because a discussion for a move wasn't approved before, doesn't mean it can't be now. What is your explanation for my points made at the start of this thread?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

What hostile? You are the one throwing names here. I didn't even mention you before you started throwing names (again). This has been discussed more than once, the article move has been rejected twice. Forcing another article move is a sign that you can't respect the editors who decided to keep this film merely about the films. And the "X-Men Universe"

is merely a marketing ploy for the upcoming TV series. Not an official name for this Fox franchise. That "label" isn't used anywhere but 1 advert. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

As we have seen in many previous discussion on the topic, the majority does not appear feel the need yet to turn this page into the "X-Men Cinematic Universe" or an equivalent of that. Personally I don't really see the harm in mentioning that there are TV-shows that are tied into these movies, but that's just me. Knowing Fox's history cinematic universe is not a term we will be seeing anytime soon though. They are not trying to be the MCU or the DCEU, but rather they have Deadpool, Logan, New Mutants, the X-Men movies, Legion and The Gifted each in their own little bubble, with some minor connections between them. Maybe seeing the references that The Gifted supposedly makes to the movies will sway people, or maybe the rumor that James McAvoy will show up in Legion will turn out to be true and that will sway people. As of right now, Legion's connection to the movies is about as theoretical as the connection between the Marvel Netflix shows and the MCU though. They have a prop from the movies they used and they are teasing a major character from the movies, but aside from that is mostly just a standalone thing. The Gifted is different because it is apparently directly referencing events, characters and factions that we've seen in the movies as well. Aside from the X-Men and Brotherhood apparently there are also smaller references like Trask Industries, which are based on the movie incarnation, not the version in the comics. However, it is unlikely that The Gifted will have any Agents of SHIELD style cross-over. But yeah, I have no idea if that will be enough to warrant a mention or whether it will change people's opinions. Time will tell. 83.163.203.51 (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

There is already a consensus to merely keep the whole article just about the film series. That's why even the other tie-in materials to the films like the videogames, the short film and the novelizations of the films were already removed. We mention the TV shows, then we might as well resurrect the other tie in materials into this article but we would also breaking the consensus by doing that. The article is also already large enough. If there's a connection from these so called X-Men shows to the films, then just mention it in the separate article of those shows.

× TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Consensuses can change with time, as information changes. Just because a consensus was reached before, doesn't mean a new one can't be started. As 83.163.203.51 pointed out, 21st Century Fox has been expanding the franchise past the standard X-Men film series medium. To ignore that is ignorance and thick-headedness. That's like saying "Oh, they may be changing their techniques but I will not admit it one bit"... totally an ego thing to do. Mentioning 'tie-in materials' is a very unprofessional sub-heading title. Sounds too 'fanboy'-like. If it was 'In other media', perhaps that would encompass all the different avenues of this expanding franchise/"film series"/whatever you want to call it. Regardless, the TV shows do have connections to the films, as both creators/showrunners of both television series has stated so. If there's an 'in other media' section, dividing such a section further into "books", "video games", "television series" would be a permissible format, until the studio decides to label this franchise. Whether the X-Men Universe used in The Gifted TV spots is a marketing ploy or not, it's an actual direct and simple title from the studio - which is more than can be said about the page's current title.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Its funny that you said consensus can be Changed in time, sure. When it hasn't even been a year since more than a DOZEN of editors turned down your proposal TWICE to rename this article. I hope you take that to account, that you cannot just ask for an article move anytime you feel like it. And like I said, the term "X-Men Universe" has only been used for 1 advert of a TV show and that doesn't justify an article rename/"change" for this. × TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

When did the the proposed change get turned down twice by dozens of editors? -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Most recent one is listed in Archive 7 of the talk page. Unsure abouy the first proposal. Brocicle (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

In reality it wasn't turned down twice. The general consensus was that we as editors couldn't come to a conclusion and to wait until both TV series were released. If you go back and read it - that was what many editors said (i.e.: indecisive on a decision). The "two" times that User:Hotwiki references is the fact that editors discussed it at length prior to opening an official proposal for change/move of article. To correct their incorrect statement - an editor can move for an article change whenever they feel like it. There is no timeslot limit, nor seasonal window of opportunity for this. The official The Gift Facebook webpage often posts videos with X-Men Universe wording. Sounds more official than what this page has been classified as for years. Also - there's actually two official TV spots that have used the X-Men Universe moniker/as you call 'marketing ploy'. Look it up.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

And how do you explain that most of the editors opposed to your proposal before? × TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Because before most editors said to wait and see what the studio says when the TV shows come out. One's released, and one's pending release with the studio saying: "in the X-Men Universe".... you call it a marketing ploy but it's a name being given by the studio. Doesn't get much simpler than that which is why I opened this discussion.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

A term that hasn't even been used in any of the films, and just 1 television show. No. Renaming this article is a drastic move, and just because 1 TV show used a term, yet the none of the film have used yet is inappropriate.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The people involved have not seen very consistent with the names for this "universe". The writers of Deadpool specifically used "X-Men Universe" as well to indicate where their movie fits in, but Matt Nix who is responsible for The Gifted actually used "X-Men Cinematic Universe" as well, while his show is promoted as being in the "X-Men Universe". 2001:982:4947:1:E86B:62FF:52D9:3462 (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The classification doesn't need to be stated in the movies, as when on Earth does any Marvel film say "in the Marvel Cinematic Universe" directly in any of their films? They don't. Regardless of your continued dispute against this - the studio (with Bryan Singer, Lauren Shuler Donner, and Simon Kinberg - all involved with this series) have stated multiple times (with this series) that it takes place "in the X-Men Universe". With that being said it's obvious they're in the same 'franchise', and regardless of whether that is the permanent official title or not, it again restates why the TV series should be listed as an installment, as I've stated before. One day the studio will name it (as well the DCEU - which isn't its official name, either). Time will tell. I was merely pointing out that this X-Universe is a franchise. Just look at the sub-section title I wrote to begin with: "Further references to a franchise". --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Separate Deadpool franchise?

A user has created a draft article for a separate Deadpool franchise at Draft:Deadpool (film series), but I do not believe that is correct. There has been no official indication that these films are considered to be entirely separate from the X-Men films, and even if they were, I think we would follow the same model as the MCU and keep everything together anyway. I have started a discussion at Draft talk:Deadpool (film series)#Necessary? if anyone wants to chime in there about this. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I put it up for deletion now.★Trekker (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Development of Gambit

Just drawing attention to the relatively new article Development of Gambit. It seems a flouting of WP:NFF (a guideline, not policy), and precludes the Draft:Gambit (2019 film). I'll leave it to others to determine whether the article should remain as is, be merged elsewhere, or redirected to a draft. Cheers. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Deadpool 2 title

Fox listed it as The Untitled Deadpool Sequel. Is there big reason why two editors removed the word THE from the title, other than to make the title incomplete? So should we call The Wolverine as Wolverine now?--TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

There are sources listed in the move request on the article page as to why it should remain Untitled Deadpool Sequel. This in a way is a parent article, and should reflect how the article for Deadpool 2 is presented. Seeing as 2 editors have reverted you and given a reasonable explanation, may be you should take your issue to the Deadpool 2 talk page. Brocicle (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

“This film is not yet titled so we are temporarily referring to it as Untitled Deadpool Sequel.” [5] Brocicle (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on X-Men (film series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212032316/http://splashpage.mtv.com/2012/02/07/wolverine-release-date-july-26-2013 to http://splashpage.mtv.com/2012/02/07/wolverine-release-date-july-26-2013/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.actramontreal.ca/whats-shooting/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.heyuguys.com/channing-tatum-gambit/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/x-men-dark-phoenix-evan-peters-returning-as-quicksilver-1018062
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814022350/http://www.startribune.com/412/story/455017.html to http://www.startribune.com/412/story/455017.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Release table

Why are there no tables summarizing the released and upcoming movies for this film series? I point to examples such as those displayed at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films (under Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3 and Future; listed together at Marvel Cinematic Universe#Feature films), and at DC Extended Universe (under Films and Future). -- Alex^TW 00:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I think they should be added and replace the "Crew" section. - Brojam (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

we already had this discussion before. No need to copy the format of Marvel Cinematic Universe, the article is good as it is. Also release dates are Already mentioned twice. While you would be removing a lot of info by deleting the crew section, just for the sake of mimicking the article of Dceu/MCU and just keeping certain crew members in the release table. And I can also mentioned articles that did not have this release table and have a separate crew section. So big no to this suggestion.Hotwiki (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with replacing the crew section with a (or two) release table/s. If something works on an article that's been promoted to GA, then clearly there is nothing wrong with it - Wikipedia is all about adding and improving to article, not just saying "good as is". No actual encyclopedic information would be deleted, as the information would be available, and content like cinematographer and editors are irrelevant to the reader; remember, WP:READERSFIRST. I would recommend three things: 1) mentioning those articles, as I'll put similar proposals across to them; 2) mentioning the past discussions - if there are no recent ones, then there's nothing wrong with having this discussion; 3) not saying "so big no to this suggestion", as that seems very WP:OWNy, as you are directly shutting down an editor, making decisions only on your own without any discussion, and thus not working collaboratively. -- Alex^TW 07:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You would just list down the titles of the films for the fourth time, mention the release dates for the third time - just because you wanted it to look similar to the articles of MCU and dceu. While removing the cinematographer, executive producers, editors of the respective films which doesn't improve the article. And again, you can't seem to handle suggestions without using the OWN card on me. Obviously I was just voicing out my opinions. No need for your personal jabs. And we had this discussion and it wasn't just me who didn't agree with the release table. And that's why its not in the article as of the moment. This reminds me of your proposal to move this article only be declined twice by a group of editors.Hotwiki (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

In this article, there is nothing that summarizes the contents of the article in full. Providing a table which summarizes the important details of the films is more important to readers than cinematographers and editors is, which can either remain in the crew table or be moved to their individual articles. Titles and dates would not be duplicated to that level - with a summary table, the article content can be cut down. With what you've said, that means that titles are already listed thrice and dates twice - why is this acceptable at the moment, but further changes would not be?

It is not because I want it to look similar to the MCU and DCEU articles, there needs to be something that summarizes this article properly. You didn't make a suggestion. I raised a suggestion, you made a demand as to what can and cannot be in the article. That is WP:OWN, sorry if you don't like it, but it's textbook. And I still see that you're not mentioning any article or any discussions to back up your empty claims, only attempting to bring up the past as if you were WP:WINNING those discussions.

If you truly disagree, I look forward to seeing your response to each of my points, not just a few. I've made some further posts at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film to direct some more opinions from film-editing users here. -- Alex^TW 13:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You are just repeating information and mimicking the other articles for adding this "release table". Anyway feel free to read the archive page in which this was already discussed before by editors (not just me) that it isn't needed in this article. We aren't gonna ignore that previous discussion for sure.Hotwiki (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm repeating myself because you aren't answering any of what I say. If you actually discussed it, this would go a lot quicker. You have no further comments, then? I take it that silence is consensus. Cheers! -- Alex^TW 13:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Adam.stom was against in the last discussion regarding this issue. And I am against this as well.There's no consensus that we should post a "release table". Again wait for someone else to agree with you. Hotwiki (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

All the information in your proposed "release chart" are already in the article.Hotwiki (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Already got someone agreeing with me, didn't you see the other comment in this discussion? You're not the only one here. You have addressed not a single one of the issues I raised, so your desire to not discuss this has been noted. Thanks. -- Alex^TW 14:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah just one that isn't even sure, how's that a consensus? How about you take your advice about ownership, you don't respect the previous consensus and now you are taking ownership of a "consensus". Hotwiki (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Did I say it was a consensus? No. Am I trying to start a discussion to move towards a consensus, whether in or against my favour? Yes. I recommend you don't try to put words in people's mouth or make demands as to the content of the discussion. I never said I had the consensus. Ever. Now, shall I put across the points that you haven't answered in dot points, so you can answer them in an easier fashion? I'd be happy to! -- Alex^TW 23:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm opposed to adding tables to articles unless tables are absolutely the best way to display data. In the case of this article, the § Recurring characters table, for instance, is awful: way too wide, full of bizarre annotations that renders it hard to read/understand, and includes multiple instances of overlapping colspan and rowspan, which pose serious WP:ACCESS issues. As do the tables mentioned at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. Alex, you better than anyone know that WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good rationale for adding things to existing articles, as I've seen you argue that point repeatedly in different contexts. Just because an article with a certain status includes things a certain way doesn't mean that every element of that article should be duplicated in other articles. Maybe the GA review was a while ago, maybe an article has GA status despite the inclusion of tables of complicated doom. Whatever the case, we should always be looking to render things in prose unless there is a very good argument for a tabular format. One look at some of these tables and I know where I stand on the issue: we should be trying to move away from them, not towards them. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: I don't think Alex is suggesting we add unnecessary tables, I think he is recommending that we replace a not that helpful table with a different format of tables that have proven to be effective in the past. It makes sense to give an easy visual overview of all the films rather than have a big table trying to list the crew of all the different films (and which is a big mess that isn't that easy to read, in my opinion). @Hotwiki: I believe you are referring to my comment in this discussion which is from a couple of years ago, where my point was that we should not have both of these tables. But now I would support Alex's suggestion to replace the crew table with the type of overview table that we see in other articles, simply because that format is much more useful for our readers. I just don't see the point in telling people all the major crew members for every film, when they can look at the individual articles for that information if they really want to. What is helpful is giving people an easy overview with a few major details so they don't have to go reading through all the prose to find it, especially since there are now so many films listed here. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with the recurring characters tables - who's idea was that? Luckily for us, I'm not basing my content on WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'm basing it off of what has been seen as a good example across multiple Wikipedia articles, that serves the reader first and summarizes the content in the article sufficiently. I believe that this article should have such a table due to the messy layout it currently has - adding such a table would allow the content here to be trimmed back and laid out in a tider fashion with less tables. I can easily say that a summary table would cut down on the mess that is the crew table. I'm not saying we shouldn't list in prose, at all. All the prose can stay exactly as it is. This is not a rationale for banning all tables, it's combining multiple tables into one. If we should always be looking to render things in prose, then why are there as many tables are there currently is? Should they not all be coverted into prose? Why is this suggestion specifically bad because it's not prose? -- Alex^TW 23:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

This is very odd. I just came to this article and was thinking the same thing. I was just about to draft a version of an overview release table based on the one for the MCU, before deciding to check this talk page to see if anyone had mentioned it. Sure enough, this discussion took place YESTERDAY...

Anyway, weird coincidences aside, I do think we should have an overview table for the X-Men series, like other major film franchises like Star Wars and the MCU has. Would it be best to draft a table and then see what people think? I don't see any reason not to. It's the first thing average readers come across when viewing Wikipedia, hence why it's always at the top. If they want to know any specifics, THEN they scroll down and read more info. An overview table is necessary. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Bumping thread. -- Alex^TW 22:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Are there any further comments on this discussion? -- Alex^TW 21:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I am still against this release table.Hotwiki (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should mock up the release table and put it with the crew table the article currently has, so everyone can give a more accurate assessment of which is more useful to readers? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. So, we're merging the crew table and the release table? -- Alex^TW 00:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

If others agree that the standard release table is more useful to readers than the current crew table, then we should just be able to add the former and remove the latter from the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I know you are, but there's more people for it than against it, especially after you falsely claimed someone was against it. -- Alex^TW 00:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Comparison

@AlexTheWhovian, Brojam, Hotwiki, Joeyconnick, and TheMysteriousEditor: I have mocked up what the overview tables (for released and upcoming films) would look like, and put them in my sandbox with the current crew table so that everyone can easily compare them. If everyone could voice some opinion on this, it would really help speed up finding consensus on this matter. Anyone else watching this discussion that I did not ping should also feel free to join in and help out. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The two new tables look good to me, but we should add sources for the information. - Brojam (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I second Brojam's comment on both the approval and sources. -- Alex^TW 04:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I also agree on the sources, just didn't include any since I was quickly putting it together. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with everyone else. I think that looks suitable and is necessary. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I prefer we avoid rowspan and colspan where possible (i.e. where we could just repeat a cell's contents) as it makes tables, especially large tables like these, hard to follow and also, I believe, poses accessibility issues. Other than that, these are a definite improvement over the combined crew table. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

One rowspan and one colspan in the release tables won't make it hard to read - note that they're even used in WP:LTAB, which is part of MOS:ACCESS. The usages of them in the crew table, I agree, that makes it a nightmare. What's even worse than that is the characters table, that needs a major overhaul. -- Alex^TW 23:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I second the need for the characters table to be overhauled. Once this issue is resolved, we should have a look at that. - Brojam (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I get that they're not outright banned, but as you frequently point out, WP:OTHERSTUFF: just because they are used somewhere else doesn't mean we should or have to use them here. If we don't absolutely need them to make the table "work" (like it's not a super or subheading that applies to multiple rows or columns), why include them when we can just duplicate the data and be consistent with the number of cells per column and/or row? It seems pretty subjective to say they are fine in the release table but are not fine in the crew table. I get that their use is more extensive in the latter but where, then, is the objective point where we draw the line?

Anyway, hardly the most problematic issue facing Wikipedia, I know... 🙂 —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Except that I'm not saying we should use them because another article does, I'm saying that it's used in the guideline itself. Guidelines are what suggest how we lay Wikipedia out. Where is the point where we draw the line in not following guidelines? Also, can you point me to where it states that they are an accessibility issue? I can't seem to find it. Furthermore, you contradicted yourself with the while It seems pretty subjective to say they are fine in the release table but are not fine in the crew table. I get that their use is more extensive in the latter thing - you answered your former concern with the latter sentence. -- Alex^TW 06:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

They're used in an example in that section. The guideline itself doesn't say "use rowspan and/or colspan wherever you can" (to be fair, it also doesn't say don't). You can search the Talk archives in MOS:ACCESS to find numerous examples of when people have raised the fact that rowspan and colspan are not dealt with nicely by all accessibility tools. And finally, no, I didn't contradict myself with my statement about where do we draw the line. I fully understand there is less use of colspan and rowspan in the proposed new table than in the existing one. My point is that how much less is "less enough" that it's not considered too much? That's what you seem fine being subjective about. But there's no guidance as to how many instances of colspan/rowspan is okay. Is it a strict number? Is it a percentage? Who determines what is "okay" and what is "too much"? Because we already have a case here where you think the amount used in the proposed table is fine and I don't. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

They are, yes, and examples in guidelines exist to show what is acceptable. If it was unacceptable to use them, why are they included in a guideline? People may have raised it in discussions, but unless any changes were made, then that's all they are - discussions. Anyways. We get off-topic here; to determine if they're acceptable or not, a discussion needs to be raised, a consensus formed and a change made. So, I agree with your questions; who are we to determine when they are and are not acceptable? Where is the line? My answer to that is that we can use them until we are told not to by consensus's and changes. -- Alex^TW 05:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I have posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film to try and get some more input here. Hopefully there will be a clear consensus for us to act on shortly. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm definitely in support of the new version. Good job all! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Found my way here via WP:FILM, thumbs up for new overview tables.Sethie (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)