Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of X-Men films cast members/archive1

List of X-Men films cast members

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 19 days, 4 support, 2 oppose. Active opposition, no consensus to promote and no active discussion. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I modelled this on List of Harry Potter films cast members, which is featured, and I believe this is a good list, it's clearly structured and easy to read, so here goes hopefully. Alientraveller (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A few questions:

Not that I have anything against the Jackman, but are there any free images of the other cast members together? I know you're basing this page on the Harry Potter cast list, and that features Daniel Radcliff, but given that the X-Men are a team and all...
- Should we go for a non-free shot of the X3 cast then, or exclude an image altogether? Alientraveller (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, I'm not sure. On one hand, Wolverine is the clear protagonist in the films. On the other hand, it's also meant to be an ensemble cast... A team picture would be better, but can a non-free image be used if a free one can be used instead? Paul 730 19:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice there are a lot of red links for minor actors. I realise that red links can be useful in some circumstances as they show what articles do not exist and are needed... however, do we really need articles for these actors? Some of them are extras with no lines.
- I removed most of them. Alientraveller (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iceman's family are not included, despite them having a reasonably significant role in X2. Is there a reason why they're not here? Paul 730 18:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not from the comics, nor did they cameo in the other films. Likewise with Jean's parents.Alientraveller (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Iceman's parents are from the comics (not his brother though). I believe Iceman's father is a racist as well as a mutantphobe, so they've explored themes of bigotry through them, as in the films. I think their names are the same as the comic book versions as well. John and Elaine Grey are also from the comics, they were recently killed off. Are we only including cameos from more than one film? Because if that's the case, maybe Glob and some of the others shouldn't be there. Paul 730 19:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well I've added Iceman and Jean's families, though I'm not sure about the latter. It may entail including Rogue's family, but should a list be so kitchen-sinky? Alientraveller (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I know what you mean... Iceman's parents are quite important characters in the second movie, but Jean's are only there to introduce young Jean. It's just, if you're going to include other characters purely because they're in the comics, you can't really object to the Greys, who are also from the comics. Paul 730 20:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As a main contributor to List of Harry Potter films cast members, I just wanted to mentioned that I've included all characters that appear in the films, whether they appear in the novels or not and whether they are cameos or not (e.g. Nigels, or the Granger parents). I don't know how that affects you guys.--Fbv65e del — t — c // 03:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Beast was in X2? As well, there should be some kind of general reference at the bottom. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Alientraveller (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support Looks good. Only question is, who determined whether a role is a cameo or not? I haven't seen the films, so I don't know if this is something which is so obviously a cameo (like Barbossa at the end of Pirates 2) that you can determine it yourself, or something which is just a small role you see in the background but isn't extraordinarily minor. So, if it's the former, I'm fine with it; if it's the latter, either cite that these roles are being classified as cameo, or remove the distinction altogether. --Fbv65e del — t — c // 03:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I've reconsidered some who might be really small roles, and not cameos. Alientraveller (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Embedding headers inside the table is a big issue compounded by the fact that links in headers are strongly disapproved (It was a major factor in my original opposition to Chronology of the Doctor Who universe,other issues were involved in its failure.). Besides, I don't think the list is so long that it really needs the subsections, so just removing the headers and keeping the table structure would be fine, although then an extra "Cast" header between the intro and the list would be a good idea. Circeus (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks pretty good, though I am concerned with the single massive table, especially since there are subheadings/subsections within the table. Might it be a better idea to split the tables up into entirely different tables per subsection? Take a look at any of the FL discography pages to see an example of what I mean. I think that would increase legibility alot. And yes, I know that's not how the Harry Potter list does it, but maybe it should. Also, this seems to somewhat contradict what Circeus recommended above, but maybe this might be a solution to his concern as well, though I would say either of our recommendations would work. Drewcifer (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the table is smaller than quite a few other lists we have, which is why I don't think splitting the table completely is necessary. Circeus (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I supported the Harry Potter one, and this is just as good. Gran² 18:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nicely done, I'm liking the layout and design. Cirt (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose: Per Circeus above, embedding the headers is a big issue. Besides the comment above, it makes the table unsortable, which would be very nice. Though the way the characters are entered would make that difficult as well. It would be a better list IMO if "name" and "pseudonym" were separate and were color-coded for "type" (human, xman, brotherhood, etc), and all three were sortable. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]