Talk:X-Men: First Class/Archive 2

Why are my additions always reverted?
Why is it that every time I add a mention of Wolverines cameo (where he "profanely" tells of Xavier and Lensherr) and the fact that Lensherr considers Shaw to be Schmidt ("You killed my mother") to the main plot summary, it keeps getting removed? The Wolverine cameo is acknowledged in the "credits" section (where his role is mentioned as "uncredited"), and I've explained in "Schmidt/Shaw" on the talk page why it's self-evident that Schmidt and Shaw are the same person (it's even implicitly mentioned in the plot summary). PLEASE EXPLAIN. RobertGustafson (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I restored my version. IF ANYONE WANTS TO REVERT IT AGAIN, PLEASE CONTACT ME HERE AND DISCUSS IT FIRST. I'd avise whoever's doing the reverts to EDIT the article, rather than do a blanket revert. I've made many corrections (i.e., em dashes instead of hyphens) to punctuation and grammar--and those should be preserved, even if my additions are revised or removed. Once again, DISCUSS FIRST, "REVERT" LATER. RobertGustafson (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I've had to revert your edits. First of all, your additions pushed the plot length over the 700 word limit as imposed at WP:FILMPLOT.  Feel free to edit the article, but please respect the MOS guidelines for editing.  Also, as per WP:BRD we do not re-add contentious material if it has been reverted.  The onus is on the editor adding the material to obtain a consensus for it. Betty Logan (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I whittled down the reverted text and reinstated the extra details--which I think are important. Hopefully, this will fall within the 700-word limit. In any case, we should remember that the rules are "guidelines", not strict exact tenants; therefore, if the resulting text only slightly exceeds 700 words (say, 701-720 words), it should stand. Also, if you find the additions to be contentious--mentioning Wolverine, equating Schmidt with Shaw, Raven's "mutant and proud" remark, etc.--watch the movie. At any rate, I see no significant objections (let alone contra-consensus) on the talk page to any of these things on a content/accuracy basis.RobertGustafson (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to say this harshly, but it sounds to me as if you're saying that the guidelines shouldn't apply to you. Clearly, I along with other editors disagree with that, and are finding some of the details to be extraneous and unnecessary &mdash; colloquially, plot bloating. It's easy enough to blockquote the live page's plot, put it into a word-processing file, and click on "Word count", so we all have the technical means to know how much we're writing; the rest of us do that. I think what Betty Logan means by contentious content is content that deliberately goes beyond WP:FILM guidelines, and that's a valid concern. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae, I did not mean to say that I thought a special exception should be made for me or any particular editor; rather, I meant to say that exceptions should be made to certain rules in exceptional circumstances. For instance, a movie might be extra long and have a very complex plot that is difficult or impossible to summarize in 700 words or less without leaving out important details--and I believe all the details I inserted are important, not superfluous. Incidentally, I did a word-count check even before reading your response above, and found my revised version (with more efficient wording of the pre-existing stuff) to consist of 667 words--33 words below the limit. In any case, I never deliberately go beyond any Wikipedia guidelines; I hope your comment above assumed good faith on my part. RobertGustafson (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with the current length, and normally I wouldn't revert a plot that goes over the limit by a few words. It's worth bearing in mind though that the guideline stipulates 400-700 words, so once you get past 800 and heading for 900 it is too long. Another issue we get with plots is that you can have a perfectly good plot of 680 words, and someone comes along and adds 40 words; not a big deal but then someone else comes along and adds 40 words, but it's only 40s words so what is the big deal?  And then someone else comes along with their 40, and well you get the picture. Each version is often no worse than the previous version because of the incremental nature of the edits, but then you end up with a plot of over 1000 words so you end up just restoring a previous version or trimming it. If you have a perfectly good plot under the guideline and someone adds something that really doesn't significantly increase a reader's understanding of the story, it's better just to revert the change. That way, good changes that improve the quality of the writing and the level of exposition don't get lost when you have to trim it down or inevitably restore an older version. For the record, I don't buy the theory that an extra long film requires an extra long summary, because a decent writer should be able to adjust the level of abstraction; the exceptions to the rule are usually films like Pulp Fiction and Memento that have complex narratives. Betty Logan (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Betty Logan on this; if Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol can be 700 words or less, just about anything can!


 * And I hope I didn't give RobertGustafson the wrong impression: I know his edits are in good faith. I know he's trying to improve the article. Indeed, I don't believe anyone's made more than minor, nominal edits to his additions once the plot got below 700. The consensus of editors on this article is that we're respecting WP:FILM plot-length guidelines, and it's important we try to recognize that sometimes we just have to say, "Yeah, other editors are being reasonable even if I disagree with certain specifics, so let's go along for the sake of the project." Absolutely, Robert: I never doubted for one second your good intentions. Hey, I love the film, too! --Tenebrae (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Tenebrae. In retrospect, I give the following ADVICE FOR ALL MOVIE-PLOT EDITORS: Any time you want to add to or significantly edit a plot summary, first do a word count. If it approaches 700, condense the existing narrative while or before making additions. It can be tricky to significantly drop the word count while preserving vital content and readability, but it usually can be done--believe me, I've had to do it in certain email forms and letters to the editor. It usually requires successive rounds of condensation--a few words here, a few words there, again and again. And be careful to keep the grammar and punctuation smooth--and to use meaning-intensive words that can singlehandedly stand in for phrases or clauses. If you can find one or two words that say as much as five or six, use them.


 * If you find it difficult or impossible to stay below 700 without sacrificing integral content or clarity, post a message on the talk page IMMEDIATELY after saving your changes explaining why and inviting others to see if they can make the narrative more efficient. There are a few cases, as Betty Logan acknowledged, where a movie has an extremely complex narrative--and in such cases, you should say so. In some cases, it might be good to propose creating secondary articles that provide bits of more comprehensive narrative separately. RobertGustafson (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Robert, it gave me chills to read such a well-thought-out, concise encapsulation of just plain good writing in general. Beyond the needs of Wikipedia, this is some of the best writing advice I've ever read &mdash; and I'm someone who writes for a living. Offhand I can't think of where, but I would love to see this posted someplace where many more Wikipedians can read it. You have my utmost respect. With great regards, Tenebrae (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I notice that my reference to Magneto's faulting Shaw (Schmidt) for killing his mother and Mystique's advising McCoy to embrace his mutant nature got deleted again, in spite of the synopsis falling under 700 words. I think these things are important; after all, why would Erik kill, rather than join, Shaw, with whom he shares so much philosophy regarding mutants, unless he's still mad about what happened in 1944? Without that fact being mentioned, the narrative doesn't make sense. Similarly, the "mutant and proud" bit is an important theme of all the X-Men movies, and serves to (implicitly) explain Mystique's and McCoy's changing attitudes, over the films, especially by X3--where Mystique refuses to answer to "Raven" and McCoy quits the White House after she's "cured" against her will. (I wouldn't offer an "explicit" explanation, lest I introduce OR synthesis.) I put these things back in, and it's still under 700 words.

I also reinserted the mention of the Wolverine cameo. Although I can't be sure until more movies come out, he'll probably appear in them too and is therefore significant. As before, I've put it in parentheses in order to give it the proper diminutive emphasis. (PS. Isn't it a bit ironic that the only swear word in the whole film is what was described in another [unrelated] film as "the Queen Mother of Dirty Words"? Do you know any other movies that have no swear words except "fuck"? Not that it's relavant here.) RobertGustafson (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure how your edits got reverted; I don't think I did it, at least not intentionally. Sometimes anon IPs make questionable incremental changes that don't get much noticed, and then after someone does a big plot bloat, the plot gets reverted to the most recent shorter version &mdash; and all the previous incremental changes remain. Good eye. I'll keep a closer watch, since as far as I'm concerned your edits are insightful, well-worded and completely pertinent. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I re-inserted the "James Howlett" alias for the character "Logan / Wolverine" into the cast credits (result: "James Howlett / Logan / Wolverine")--as that's the character's real (given) name in both the comic and the X-Men not-so-prequel film, X-Men Origins: Wolverine. ("Logan" is a nickname.) Ideally, one might add "James Howlett" into Wolverine's credits for the original-trilogy films, but I didn't, as his given name was not mentioned in film until the XMO: Wolverine prequel. Also, anyone adding text should watch their grammar, and use conventions already present in the existing text--i.e., using em dashes in place of hyphens for pauses.RobertGustafson (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems like overkill to me. The character's in the film for less than 30 seconds; he has no effect on the plot. So it seems pretty excessive to list his full name for a cameo like this, especially when his original name is entirely irrelevant to this film and the only source used is a prior film. --Boycool (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not have a problem with the detailed discussion of Hugh Jackman's cameo as Wolverine. Nor do I have a problem with the profane quote in this section. But I do think that having the same profane quote appear in the plot summary is unnecessary. Arguably the entire cameo scene is not really appropriate for a plot summary because it has no real effect on the plot. I think a reasonable balance is to delete the "Go fuck yourself" quote from the plot summary, but leave the quote and further discussion in the cast section.


 * I didn't realize the quote appears twice. I agree with you &mdash; that's overkill. We should have it one place or the other. I'll take a look and try and edit, and see how it goes with other editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

GA nom.
I just noticed that this is going to be GA nominated. If there is any problem that hinder it from being a good article let me know and I will gladly try to fix it if I can. For it is a article I help create when it was just started out...and I gladly commend the other editors for helping out when I was too busy to go on Wikipedia. :) Jhenderson 7 7 7  15:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am currently assessing it for the Film Project, so I will highlight any issues I find. I've copy-edited in places where the language was slightly awkward, but generally it is well-written with correct grammar/punctuation etc.
 * 1) It has decent coverage, but I think given some of its plot elements i.e. social outcasts, Nazi concentration camps, it would benefit from some thematic analysis. That's beyond the requirements of a B class review but a GA reviewer may ask for it; not all GA rated film articles have themes sections, but many do.
 * On my to do list. Jhenderson  7 7 7  17:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, there are so many GA articles without thematic analysis that no-one can reasonably insist upon in it in a GA review, it's more of an FA requirement really that requires extensive coverage. I think if I were you I'd concentrate getting it through GA, and then work on thematic analysis afterwards if you want to do it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) The only problematic section really for me is the critical reception:
 * 2) The Metacritic score is only just above average so I don't think we can claim with any conviction that the reviews were strongly positive, so I've altered it.
 * ✅: It is listed as favorable. Jhenderson  7 7 7  17:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) I also don't think the paragraph about what the internet reviewers thought is particularly relevant; it might have been when these were the only reviews available, but there are plenty of reviews out there by high quality publications. Are these reviewers notable enough to be acknowledged by Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic?
 * ✅: Looks like the unimportant parts are removed. Jhenderson  7 7 7  17:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Also, while the positive/negative split of the reviews is reasonable, I think the whole section could be made a bit more substantial i.e. it's clear what the reviewers think of the film, but the acting is only touched upon; how do the actors compare in their roles to the actors in the other films? How does the film compare with the previous films? What do the reviewers make of the 1960s setting? I think those are aspects the critical reception should try to address, although I accept that is entirely dependent on what the reviewers actually write about.
 * 2) Should X-Jet be wikilinked to Williams X-Jet?
 * ✅: It was fixed by another editor. Jhenderson  7 7 7  17:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) The claims corresponding to references 62 (Fox exec...) and 73 (Gray) need to be addressed, because they don't fully corroborate the claims.
 * Would you mind pointing to the citations again. Because citations have been removed and updated. Jhenderson  7 7 7  17:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like Igordebraga has sorted it. Betty Logan (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Some of the citation formatting is inconsistent, and a consistent referencing style is an absolute GA requirement so that will definitely need to be addressed.
 * On my to do list. Please point specifically all these problems out below and I will gladly fix it if i can. Jhenderson 7 7 7  17:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The date formatting in the references is inconsistent.
 * It helps to know where. Jhenderson  7 7 7  17:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all through the reference section; the format keeps alternating between American and ISO date formats. First 17 refs use American, and then 18 uses ISO, 20-22 American, 23-24 ISO, 25-29 American, 30-34 ISO....and then back to American and so on. Someone needs to go through the refs and makes sure they all use the same date format. Betty Logan (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Retrieval dates are missing in some cases (currently 48, 61, 64, 71–78, 84–88, 96–99).
 * 2) Bibliographic details are missing in some cases. Author omitted for ref 62; Publisher missing for 94 & 95.
 * 3) Possible WP:RS issues with several sources. I've tagged all the ones that have caused me concern: . It may be that some of them turn out ok after a little more checking. If you disagree with any of my observations about the sources and remove the tags, please include an explanation for each source here, so the GA reviewer can assess the case for and against.
 * ✅ by another editor. I do disagree with Screen Rant and Cinema Blend being unreliable. But it doesn't matter now if we have other sources for it.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  17:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, there is a difference between a source being reliable and a source being a reliable source. The former doesn't necessarily imply the latter in the case of Wikipedia. The problem sources here have been replaced so it is academic, but there are essentially two ways a source's reliability can generally be established: i) the source is published by a reputable publisher with a professional staff subject to editorial oversight ii) the source is deemed reliable through citation by other reliable sources i.e. if the New York Times cites Cinema Blend then it's more or less ok for our purposes, because we can cite content from the NY Times which may be using content from Cinema Blend. So RS isn't really established by how right or wrong it usually is (although one would hope it isn't generally inaccurate), but its level of professionalism and its reputation in the world of publishing. Betty Logan (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just that your opinion of the review scares me because I have another planned GA article for the future. Check out The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film). It does use ScreenRant and GameRant (once) as sources and PERSONALLY they all look ok to me. But I might want you to weigh in on that opinion somewhere if the way these have been used as sources are ok. It also uses Cinema Blend three times. Jhenderson  7 7 7  21:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all I'm not categorically saying these sources are not RS, I'm just expressing concerns over them due to their nature. Second of all, a reviewer doesn't get the final word on whether a source is reliable or not. Personally if you are using these in other articles then I would take them to the RS noticeboard and get an informed opinion; if they are ruled RS then you have something to point to in a GA review, if not then it's probably better to find out before the review starts. Betty Logan (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Makes sense Betty Logan. I know you are not the official word then again who is? So that recommendation in the RS noticeboard might be a good idea. Now back to this article though... Jhenderson  7 7 7  21:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

All the copy-editing I've done and issues I have highlighted can be seen at. Overall this article has substantial coverage, although the crticial reception is a bit weak. There are no major NPOV issues, and apart from some sourcing issues the article is mainly in order. It easily meets the criteria for a 'C' class article so I will upgrade its status. Once the above issues have been addressed let me know or submit it for re-assessment at the Film project so it can be checked against B-class criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Betty Logan. I just want to let you know I will try to address your concerns in the future. Hopefully tomorrow. Jhenderson  7 7 7  18:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree with ScreenRant being unreliable. I've been using it quite a bit. It makes good commentary basically because it is hardly ever a original source. GA Captain America: The First Avenger is even using it. So there is a article to use prose for that source. I do agree with comicbookmovie not being reliable and will try to find a source for whatever replacing it with. If Bleeding Cool is a original source then I would say it is ok. Plus the movie proves it and we don't always need a source to prove who's on the cast like you don't need a source to prove the plot. I think both me and Tenebrae can agree with the ScreenRant/Comicbookmovie. As for the BleedingCool I agree that can be unreliable sometimes but I would probably say it's in just as much as Comic Book Resources could be. Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Also judging by the article of it I would say Cinema Blend is reliable. If I would to remove the unreliable tags I would prefer your permission or reasoning of it to be ok. Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Citation #62 and #73 are they still the citation numbers that you are talking about because there have been a few citations that have been removed I believe due to your concerns on the unreliable ones. Jhenderson  7 7 7  16:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * May I say Jhenderson has been doing good work in addressing our mutual colleague Betty Logan's excellently observed concerns. Comicbookmovie.com has long ago been established as non-RS, as it's all user-contributed and even runs a disclaimer about its contents' veracity. I haven't run across the Screen Rant or Cinema Blend cites yet as I go down the list archiving and copy editing.


 * RE: Cite 9 (Extraordinary Abilities. X-Men: First Class DVD: 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment. 2011). I would say it needs a timestamp for each claim. Otherwise, it's like citing a book and not giving page numbers. We shouldn't expect Wikipedia users to have to listen to an entire documentary to confirm a quote or a claim. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ditto Cite 11: (Documentary) Children of the Atom. X-Men: First Class Blu-Ray: 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how you timestamp a film documentary? To be honest. Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You can use the cite episode and cite video templates; however, these documentaries seem to be used to source so many things then in theory you would have to provide a timestamp for each claim. It's probably not a GA requirement though because the information is still verifiable, and watching a half hour documentary is not like having to read a 500 page book. Betty Logan (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear that isn't a requirement. Is there anything that us editors missed that you have recommended? Jhenderson 7 7 7  20:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll tell ya, I could use a few hands to help archive the rest of these links to avoid the inevitable future link-rot. And boy, no one can say this ain't a well-cited article! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I will be happy to. Possibly tomorrow though. Because when I am done updating on a particular article I will probably call it a day for Wikipedia. I just hope there is not much updating tomorrow. I appreciate all your work Tenebrae....I was sitting back and watching you work hard because I didn't want to get in and edit conflict there while you are free to edit. ;) Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks .... yer a buddy! And, yep, I think I've had about all the X-Men I can take for one day! I'll likewise watch to make sure you're not already editing whenever I get bck to it.-- Tenebrae (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not necessary to actually add an archived link to every reference, not even all FA articles have them. I've run a webcite comb on the article so anything that can be archived on there has been archived, and archived links can be added as if and when. Betty Logan (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Webcite comb"? Wait ... you mean all this time I've been adding them manually there's been a way to do it automatically? Actually, I'm a little confused since there are cites still here with links not yet archived. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Some links can't be cached, put a webcite comb will cache everything that can be cached in one go. Obviously it doesn't add the archive links to the article, but those can be added if and when they need to be. The important thing is that they are now cached:

Betty Logan (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Wowee wow wow! That's great! Can any editor apply a WebCite comb or is it an admin tool?


 * Also, some things that WebCitation.org can't archive, Archive.org can (and vice versa), so knowing which ones did not get WebCite-archived is good to know &mdash; I can try the alternative.


 * So is there any way of signaling or otherwise putting a note in the References section that all but this or that URL in archived? It would save a LOT of work to know! With great thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You just submit the url at this page and select the sources you want to archive. It takes about ten minutes to run and seems like it has frozen, but then it produces the archive list. I don't think there is any way to automate their addition to the references themselves, but you can run Checklinks every six months or so which will tell you which sources have died, and then you can manually add them in. If would be great if there was a bot that would do this task automatically, but if there is I don't know of it. Betty Logan (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Betty! That's incredibly useful info! It's always great to see your signature at a film-article edit or talk-page discussion. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Remaining issues

 * Jhenderson has left a request on my page asking what needs to be done. So to sum up (my comments apply to this incarnation:
 * 1) Thematic analysis would improve the article, but I would say it is more an FA requirement than a GA requirement.
 * 2) The critical reception section is the weakest part of the article. The major concerns have been addressed, and while it would almost certianly need to be expanded to satisfy an FA review, it does adequately convey the critical consensus on the film so I believe it satisfies GA criteria. It certianly satisfies B class criteria which is what I'm assessing it for, but since it is up for a GA review then I may as well point out GA issues as I go through.
 * 3) Ref #31 (X-perts: Jason Flemyng...) is messed up. Looks like two sources have been conflated. As discussed above Comic Book Movie has reliability issues, and I don't really know what the Facebook link is in there for.
 * 4) I discovered that it's straight up copied from a feature on the X-Men Movies Facebook page (which was unfortunadely removed...). igordebraga ≠ 16:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) I'm not sure I think Tenebrae might have solved this problem. ;) Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC) ✅
 * 6) ISO date format needs to be corrected to American date format in refs: 31, 32, 40, 59, 60, 84-86 ✅
 * 7) Retrieval dates missing for some online sources: 38, 45, 58, 61, 65, 68, 69, 71-75, 78-82, 90-93 (retrieval dates are needed in case online sources are altered in the meantime)
 * 8) Is there a way to know when a source has been originally retrieved on Wikipedia? Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Just use today's date. The content currently still matches up to the sources so it isn't a problem. If the sources die or change it means that future editors can trace the claims back to at least today's date. Betty Logan (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) proofread every section's citation one at a time and ✅ all the citations that I have noticed along with me unbaring the urls. The only ones I couldn't seem to use in on is on cite video templates.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Author missing for ref 59
 * 12) Publisher missing for ref 63
 * Once the remaining source issues are addressed then we can upgrade the article to B class. Betty Logan (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Once the remaining source issues are addressed then we can upgrade the article to B class. Betty Logan (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Once the remaining source issues are addressed then we can upgrade the article to B class. Betty Logan (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

B class assessment
The article now meets the Film Project criteria for a B-class article. Since this article is currently nominated for a GA review I have applied the GA criteria rather than B-class criteria throught the review, and believe that any outstanding issues that obstruct its promotion to GA class have also been addressed, although the reviewer may find other issues I have not spotted. I have highlighted areas of improvement such as adding a section on thematic analysis and expanding the critical reception section, but believe the coverage as it currently stands meet the criteria for B and GA class. Betty Logan (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

On another note, the article is still listed as 'Start' class at the WikiProject Comics, since I assessed it under Film Project guidelines. I don't think the comics project will have any problem with grading this article as B class so it is probably worth dropping a note at their project and seeing if they will upgrade it too. Betty Logan (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Both me and Tenebrae are members of that WikiProject if it's acceptable for us to change it. Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters to be honest; ordinarily you shouldn't assess articles you are involved with, but it's not like you would be undertaking an assessment. If it you are sure it meets the coverage requirements of the project (which I am not familiar with) then go ahead. Betty Logan (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Take That again
I hope this gets a quick(er) response this time. I already posted this in talk once about Take That's not being used in the end credits and if it was only used in certain countries. The reply I eventually got was a list of the songs featured on the soundtrack none of which contained a song from Take That. It now seems someone is acting ignorant and disregarded this in favour of just re-adding without mention of it's apparent omission. If it was supposed to be in the end credits then so be it, but don't ignore the fact that it ended up not being used at all. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I listed the songs in January, and, since that post is archived, here it is again below for convenience. I guess we all assumed you'd be the one to make the edit. But I'll go ahead and do that now.


 * Please note there's a cited newspaper article quoting the use of a Take That song, but it's a tabloid report quoting an anonymous source, so that's not a reliable-source citation and I'll remove it. Also, the Digital Spy citation is simply quoting, with attribution, The Sun 's article, so that's not usable in any case.


 * Here is all that's listed on the official credits from 20th Century Fox, minus the licensing data.
 * SONGS:


 * CONCENTRATION CAMP (from X-MEN)
 * Written by Michael Kamen


 * LA VIE EN ROS
 * Written by Louiguy and Edith Pi
 * Performed by Edith Piaf


 * PALISADES PARK
 * Written by Charles Barris
 * Performed by Freddy Cannon


 * RUN (I’M A NATURAL DISASTER)
 * Written by Thomas Callaway, Brian Burton and Keith Mansfield
 * Performed by Gnarls Barkley
 * (contains a sample of “Junior Jet Set”, performed by Keith Mansfield, courtesy of KPM Music Ltd.)


 * A LITTLE BIT OF SOAP
 * Written by Bert Russell
 * Performed by The Jarmels


 * GREEN ONIONS
 * by Al Jackson Jr., Booker T. Jones, Lewie Steinberg and Stephen Cropper
 * Performed by Booker T. & the MG’s


 * HIPPY HIPPY SHAKE
 * Written by Robert Lee Romero
 * Performed by Chan Romero


 * SOVIET NATIONAL ANTHEM
 * Written by Anatolij N. Alexandrov
 * Performed by The Red Army Choirs of Alexandrov

--Tenebrae (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Take That song was released as the "Official Single of" First Class - Including footage of the film in it's video - something fox only tend to release for officially sanctioned works. A search of Highbeam returns a variety of UK papers at different levels confirming that status. I don't think quoting the credits is helpful Tenebrae, it shows that it didn't appear in the credits in your territory and gives no indication of the relevance and significance of that omission (being only a primary source) . I'll try and browse round some other international secondary sources and see if they link the two with more detail. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Bad sentence structure for the actor's character prepartion
Look at the line in the quotes below. It makes no sense whatsoever. I don't know who bothered to type that and didn't actually proofread. You had horrible teachers. I fixed it for you. Used (2 times) and using doesn't work together in the same sentence.

" As Jones suffers from acrophobia, using the rig used to depict Banshee's flight used required much preparation time with the stunt team" Majinsnake (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't Jennifer Lawrence be in the infobox?
Why isn't she listed under the cast section of the infobox? Mystique is a fairly important villain later in the series and I would assume her presence in this film warrants a credit there.

&#9875; nbmatt 07:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, and have added Lawrence to the infobox. People tend to get unnecessarily worked up about stuff like this, so I’m sure someone will be along to revert shortly. As long as they can clarify which "poster" is referred to in the hidden text, they should feel free. The first person to add that claim to the article seems not to have felt the need to clarify which poster he or she was looking at. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 08:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

0
As prequel to X-Men 1, X-Men 0 should redirect here. Part of a series, X-Men 2, X-Men 3, X-Men 4. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Production credits
The official credits read: "TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX Presents In Association with MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT and DUNE ENTERTAINMENT a BAD HAT HARRY / DONNERS’ COMPANY Production." Further down it says, "Produced in Association with INGENIOUS MEDIA," and near the very end it says, "Made in Association with BIG SCREEN PRODUCTIONS and INGENIOUS FILM PARTNERS." Don't know who put Ingenious up so high, but that's misrepresentative. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Continuity section?
Articles for some films & shows have continuity sections to discuss elements within the film or associated films. As an example, Magneto subdues the White Queen in her diamond form with a metallic bedframe, yet diamond is stronger than metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aekolman (talk • contribs) 04:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No, diamond is harder than metal. But nowhere near as ductile, hence it will break long before any metal will. Urhixidur (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Moreover, Wikipedia is not IMDB, and not the place for goofs - so they should be excised when found. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And, really, if that Magneto/White Queen comment isn't the definition of fancruft &mdash; something only a hardcore fan and no ordinary reader of this encyclopedia would know or care about &mdash; then what is? What's next? A section in their respective article over who's stronger, Superman or the Hulk?--Tenebrae (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Technical stuff like that don't belong here. Realistically I would never think it's a good idea to have to iceberg as ice either...but it's still pointless to explain stuff like that. Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * And strength is separate issue from hardness in that one can have a very hard abrasive bit, but be as weak as a mouse. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

X-Men: Origins Magneto
If the cancelled project X-Men: Origins Magneto is redirected here and if all the information is deleted from the X-Men (film series). Then I purpose that the information that was deleted either be put back here or they put back in the film series article. Jhenderson 7 7 7  16:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If the project was announced and some movement publicly made on it, and then was canceled, that seems notable as part of a comprehensive look at how the series moves forward in bits and pieces, including changes from originally announced plans. I would imagine X-Men (film series) would be the logical place to put that information. -Tenebrae (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. It was on X-Men (film series) though. Somehow it was removed. Jhenderson  7 7 7  00:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Azazel
Anyone else hear Shaw calling him "Witch Hazel"? -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Reboot?
Today, two sources, Box Office Mojo and Entertainment Weekly, said that this film is a reboot. Is this film a reboot?And1987 (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Both good sources. Let's wait a bit and see if there are any letters-to-the-editor followups or corrections. If not, I absolutely think it's worth mentioning in the article that some observers consider this film a reboot. I would keep the term out of the lead, though, since the studio itself considers it a prequel. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

In this film, Charles Xavier is quite aware of Magneto's telepathy-proofing helmet. Not so in X-Men. Also, the first Cerebro is shown built by Beast, whereas in X-Men Xavier claims it was built by himself and Magneto. These may be signs of the script being treated as a reboot. Urhixidur (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No this film is not a reboot, I hate that term. This is evident by the next film coming out, the actors from X-Men reprise their roles. The next film also includes the actors from First Class. It's almost as if the movie was made so that Bryan Singer could shut those people who think this movie is a reboot the hell up. --Maximus92 (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The film blatantly ignores the continuity of the other films because they knew it would be simplified by "Days of Future Past". How about we call it a Semi-Reboot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.62.199 (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Country of origin
20th Century Fox, Marvel Entertainment, Bad Hat Harry Productions and The Donners' Company are all American companies. Apparently the British Film Institute says it's a US-UK-Australia co-production. Why and how is the BFI saying this? What is its rationale? Is this British bias regarding the Commonwealth? Let's go see what the American Film Institute says. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The search function at the AFI site for its catalog of films turns up nothing at all under "X-Men", which is confounding. I'll try again but someone else will have better luck at http://www.afi.com/members/catalog/default.aspx?s=. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Is this the link you are looking for? The BFI have a checklist of various factors: corporate authorship/funding/tax laws/British talent etc. It's not really our place to question their methodology, just the extent to which other sources agree. Neither the AFI or the New York Times acknowledge British involvement, and neither does Britain's own Screen International or the extremely credible and impartial European Audiovisual Observatory. At best it looks like a British satellite production (like Star Wars which qualified for some UK tax breaks for filming there), but given that the BFI also list Australia too I'm wondering if it's just a data entry error. Unless a credible source can be found to corroborate the BFI then they should probably come out. Betty Logan (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Given that it's the sole source versus all those others &mdash; and great research, by the way, Betty Logan &mdash; the BFI's claim might be considered fringe. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. Also note the BFI usually lists countries in alphabetical order, even if it results in ones with minor involvement going above the main country of production. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Block-evading sock is back
This uncited and inaccurate "Dune Entertainment" addition yesterday by 98.246.92.242 appears to be, once again, the blocked sock GaGu13 a.k.a. Thefilmlover a.k.a. 70.90.133.205 and other identities ... including, most infamously, the indefinitely blocked Extravaganza1. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Spelling of Lehnscherr
There's a note that in the credits, Magneto's name was spelled "Lensherr", but everywhere else it's spelled "Lehnsherr". Unfortunately, for quite some time, the note has showed the name spelled the same way both times. I corrected this, but was reverted with a note to discuss. I have undone the reversion - either the name needs to be spelled different ways each time, or the note needs to be dropped altogether. I have no particular preference on which. Discuss amongst yourselves. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No, you were right — I hadn't noticed the names were the same. In my defense, the edit-summary could have mentioned that, especially since IMDb is generally not a reliable source — anyone could go in and change the character's spelling there. --