Talk:Kitty Pryde

RPG stats

I removed the following from the article because I really don't think RPG stats belong in Wikipedia. Since large numbers of these "vital stats" sections have been added to various articles, I'm using Talk:Strength level (comics) to discuss this issue in general. Bryan 08:24, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Guys, we don't have a picture of the lass! Or something's kooky with my computer, and I don't! Send one up! 62.194.121.100 12:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's been fixed, thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Vital Statistics

• Name: Katherine "Kitty" Pryde
• Aliases: Sprite, Ariel, Cat
• From: Deerfield, Illinois
• Group Affiliation:
• Height: 5 ft. 6 in.
• Weight: 110 lbs.
• Eyes: Hazel
• Hair: Brown
  • Intelligence Level: Genius
  • Strength: Normal
  • Agility: Athlete
  • Reflexes: Athlete
  • Stamina: Normal
  • Speed: Normal, possibly greater in intangible form
  • Endurance: Incalculable (intangible form only)
  • Other powers and skills: Shadowcat possesses the ability to pass through solid matter by passing her atoms through the spaces between the atoms of the object through which she is moving. Utilizing her phasing ability she can also float in the air by becoming less dense than the molecules of air around her. She calls this "phasing". While phasing she is intangible and thus invulnerable, with the exception of some vulnerability to psionic attack, although psychics have a hard time reaching her mind in phased form. Her phasing powers also distrupt any electronic equipment she passes through. Shadowcat is a genius in the field of applied technology such as computers. She is an excellent hand-to-hand combatant as she was trained extensively by her one time mentor, Wolverine, in the arts of ninjitsu, aikido, and karate. She has had training in gymnastics and is a professional dancer.

New version

I removed the following since it's really about Pete Wisdom, not Shadowcat. It has been replaced with a link to the page about him.

Frelghra

During her Excalibur run, she also had a romantic relationship with the cynical, smoking, noirish :character of Pete Wisdom, a former Spy and Assassin attached to the shadowy British Intelligence :organisation Black Air. One can only assume the writers created Wisdom for the sole purpose of a bad :pun which was the title of their most loved Spin off series, Pryde and Wisdom. There appeared to :be some sort of Editorial Backlash against the smoking, swearing Englishman (Despite massive popular :appeal) and his connection to the normally sweet Shadowcat, and he was unceremoniously dropped after :a few issues, appearing later in X Force as the team leader. During this period, one insight into :Pryde's character can be seen- She has a very well hidden sadistic streak, which comes out when she :gets angry or distressed. Writers later capitalized on this.

I disagree with this, since if true, it is pertinent to Shadowcat's character, and how she is perceived by readers and editorial. My only problem with it is that it does not appear to be sourced/referenced. If the contributor who first wrote could provide a source for this behind-the-scenes factoid, then I would opine it should be restored, as it provides insight into the behind-the-scenes considerations of the character. Nightscream 10.13.05. 2:31am EST.

Corrections (10.10.05.)

Since my changes are a bit more extensive than what would completely fit in the Edit Summary field, I've explained them here:

First, I do not believe that the word "phasing" is one of Kitty's invention. Although I do not specifically recall when it was first used, I do not think it was merely what "she called" it. If I'm not mistaken, this assertion comes from the X-Men animated short film that featured Magneto, the White Queen and the Brotherhood, and which depicted Kitty joining the X-Men, in a continuity entirely separate from both the comics and the animated TV series that debuted years later.

Second, the notion of her Ariel and Sprite costumes being "ridiculously colored" is not NPOV, nor is the idea that she was the team's "mascot character", since she proved herself to be a competent member of the team to be reckoned with. I changed that to "brightly colored".

Third, the idea that Kitty lead a "carefree existence" after joining the X-Men is unsupported by any reading of those issues, in which her life was seriously threatened on a number of occassions. Looking through the issue where that monster attacked her when she was all alone in mansion by herself, or the issue where she was ruminating on the Brood egg inside her that would kill her hardly seemed "carefree." I changed that to "life of adventure".

Lastly, the notion that her crush on Collossus began when Professor X tried to place her in the New Mutants is flat-out untrue, as it clearly began when she first laid eyes on him in her first appearance, in X-Men #129, and was touched upon during that first storyline with the Hellfire Club. I moved the mention of the crush to fix that chronology. Nightscream 10.11.05. 10:45am EST.

Just one point - I can't find it right now, but I remember seeing an interview with Dave Cockrum where he actively described the costumes he designed for Kitty as ridiculous, or a synonym thereof, and said that was one of the few ways he could find the character interesting (that she was a teenage girl, and thus could get away with it).

And, c'mon - this is ridiculous :) - SoM 09:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

That's just so wrong on so many levels. :-) Nightscream Sat. 10.29.05. 11:49am EST.

In the Movie section it says that she is mentioned by Xavier at the end of the movie, this isn't a whole truth. If when you watch that scene whn Xavier says "let's just say I know a little girl who cn walk through walls" it immediatly cuts to Kurt Wagner, (who is a teleport) and Kurt giggles, this insinuates that Kurt was the one who retieved the file. I think Xavier mentioning "little girl" was just kind of an inside joke refering to Sen. Kelly in the first movie talkin about a little girl who walks through walls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.153.45.49 (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Adamantium and Extra Notes on Powers

I don't ever remember Kitty having a problem passing through adamantium or vice versa. Surely with the number of times she's trained with Wolverine this would have come up. Unless someone can find a direct reference I'm going to take that bit out.

I can't find it immediately, but I will find it and it does exist - it was referenced in the Wolverine storyline where Sabretooth acquired adamantium bones. Kitty had a bad time when she tried to phase through them... --Mrph 00:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Wolverine #126, written by Chris Claremont. --Mrph 00:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the "Added Note on the Interpretation of Kitty's Powers" however relevent does not need its own heading and so I'd be happy to move that up as a subheading of either Shadowcat's "Powers and Abilities" section or the movieverse Shadowcat section. Gnosis1185 22:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Most of it reads like Original Research so I'm fine with it going away. I moved it down earlier just because I didn't have time to do a proper edit. Still don't.  :-) CovenantD 22:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You know what, I'm also going to get rid of the "Added Note" because it's very poorly written and doesn't even belong on the Shadowcat page. If anything it should probably be on the movie page but I really just don't have the heart to put it on there myself. Gnosis1185 22:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Shadowcat and Sex

Am I the only one who thinks that it isn't very necessary to state the issue in which she and Colossus have sex for the first time? It seems like it is in bad taste to me. I feel that something about them having resumed their relationship would sit a little better. Thoughts? Gnosis1185 14:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the relevance of the issue number, but it might be good to reinclude the tidbit I read in this article earlier, about how when Shadowcat and Colossus actually did the deed, she phased through the floor. It might provide interesting insight into her powers and how they're affected (i.e. emotionally). Of course, I could be full of crap - no offense meant if anybody doesn't agree. As to Gnosis' question, it might be important to mention the consummation of their relationship (w/ or w/o phasing) just because it's a milestone in their relationship. Achin4aiken15 22:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I updated the entry on her powers, namely that she has to focus on being tangible; this might help you understand why she fell through the bed while with Peter. As far as noting the issue number, it is trivia that could be usefull in some contexts, like dating the conception of a possible child. If the wording of the entry is offensive, it could be reworded more scientifically, but I think the issue # is worth noting.Dorin 08:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

She had sex outside of marriage?!?! What the hell issue was this in?!? I thought she was a practicing Jew...they believe such things are immoral. That's totally out of character for a pracicing Jew!! Marvel writers are screwed up, man. --Promus Kaa 19:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

She's been all up on Pete Wisdom and Piotr Rasputin; in Astonishing X-Men, she lost control of herself during climax and reverted to her default, phased state, falling through the floor naked behind a student. That is hottt!!! Also, Claremont apparently didn't want to make her an adult yet when he was writing Mekanix or whatever, but because Warren Ellis had already written a sexual relationship between Pryde and Wisdom, it would have created a pederastic situation in the previous comics. Don't take my word for the last bit; I can't recall where I got that info, so I should do some research to find a reliable source on that. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

She had sex with Pete Wisdom, too?!?? Marvel writers are now officially screwed up. And I see nothing "hottt" about the phasing-through-the-bed thing, I think it's rather disgusting and not something that should have been written for her character as it's OUT of blasted character. She's a practicing Jew...she wouldn't have had sex with either Peter outside of marriage. --Promus Kaa 03:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

All the practicing Jews I know have lots of premarital sex. They can't get enough of it. But I can only speak for the practicing Jews I know and I don't feel it's appropriate to generalize. The issue is important for the article. Your outrage enough signifies that it is notable enough to belong. -- Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How many "practicing Jews" do you know?? And how does my outrage signify anything about this staying?? I'm not asking that it be removed...I was just shocked to learn about it. And I'm mostly mad at Marvel, not you people. They should PAY for this outrage!! Defilation of character... And I resent your "they can't get enough of it" comment. That was uncalled for and insulting. I just hope for your sake that there aren't any other Jews here. >:( --Promus Kaa 17:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would you be insulted by something I said about a few of my friends who happen to be Jewish but do not represent all Jews? The fact that anyone might be upset with Marvel about this indicates that it is significant. That's all. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As a Jew, I'm rather more insulted by Promus Kaa's haste to condemn ("she had sex outside of marriage?! sinner!") and overgeneralize ("ALL Jews believe X") than by ChrisGriswold's amusing anecdote. Not all practicing Jews are orthodox. You might as well scream bloody murder at the Thing for not regularly attending synagoguge; every religious person practices their beliefs in a slightly different way. It's as unrealistic, extremist, and absurd as dismissing the ethicality or character consistency of every fictional Christian who has ever had extramarital sex. Christianity's stance against extramarital sex is just as strong as Judaism's—but people will be people. And God bless them for it. -Silence 03:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I never condemned anybody other then the Marvel writers, and I never said that "ALL JEWS BELIEVE X." Don't put words into my mouth; I never generalized, it was ChrisGriswold who generalized about "ALL Jews" in a way that I found insulting. The Thing isn't a practicing Jew, so of course he doesn't attend synogauge. I just meant that people who actually practice their religion er..."religiously" (no pun intended) usually follow the rules of their religion. Since Pryde is a practicing Jew, I found it out-of-character that she would have sex with either Peter. And why the hell is this turning into a "flame Promus Kaa" discussion??!? --Promus Kaa 22:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my point was that I don't appreciate such generalizations, an I find it rather rude and incorrect to say I generalized at all. My Jewish friends like to have pre-marital sexual intercourse; this has no bearing on anyone other than my very human Jewish friends. Who really like sex. So far, you have in fact dictated what praciticing Jews do and do not do, and I have not done the same. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I know and you know that you made a generalization about practicing Jews that I'm sure other practicing Jews would have taken offense at. I've never dictated anything, Judaism dictates rules to Jews; rules that practicing Jews usually follow. That's all I've ever said. Now if we could stop fighting about this, that would be awesome. --Promus Kaa 17:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

was Kitty really a practicing Jew? Streamless 19:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You;d think she'd have it down pat by now. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

To my understanding, it was Warren Ellis writing the Wisdom/Pryde relationships. I think what's more screwed up than a nice girl dating a bad guy (oh no, that NEVER happens..) is someone calling Warren Ellis a "Marvel Writer." I'm sure he'd love to hear that.. - J Salem Gourley

I'm sure he likes cashing his paychecks, though, too.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 01:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Touche, Sir Griswold. I think Mister Kaa failed to take into account two things. He's calling "Marvel Writers" screwed up, when it's Warren Ellis who was the only one covering the Pryde/Wisdom relationship; Marvel knew what they were getting into when they hired him. You think Kaa's read any of Warren Ellis's other books? -J Salem Gourley

I would argue Kitty and Piotr getting it on is significant, due to the intentionally controversial moment when she, at 14 years of age, offered her body to him. --Lollerkeet 07:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that was when they both believed they would be dead within the next few hours. She said (direct quote) "We may never get another chance!" --Phoenixfan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phoenixfan (talk • contribs) 05:41, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Try this one : Pussy Pride

Merge

Per the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Proliferation of Ultimate character articlesWP:COMIC talk page, Ultimate character entries should be merged into the character's main article.--Chris Griswold 05:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Merge--Chris Griswold 05:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Dr Archeville 15:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• No Merge--Mr Wednesday 21:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge' -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge T-Man 09:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Closed with CONSENSUS TO MERGE CovenantD 17:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussions

Once again the Ultimate characters are their own person. Their becoming a bigger hit than any of the other Ult Universes. Let them be.Mr Wednesday 21:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The only primary dif I can see between US and S is the Peter Parker relationship. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs copy editing. --Chris Griswold 01:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've given the intro and char bio a pass, will try to get to the other sections soon -Markeer 22:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, done passes at all sections. I'd suggest another editor take a glance at it for overall readability, particularly (as per current tag) whether it would make sense to someone reading it having never heard of the character before. -Markeer 19:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done some additional work. I think it's okay apart from the usual controversies about such articles (too much of an in-world perspective? legitimate use of primary sources?). Metamagician3000 04:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Tried to cut down some sections that had some extraneous information in hopes that it now contains the pertinent information (in keeping with the trend that WP is not a plot summarizer). Maybe someone can check it out to make sure I didn't edit something major out. I also tried to edit everything to the present tense. --Silver lode 05:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone think we can remove the cleanup tag? --Silver lode 03:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is definitely in better form than it was some time ago, I'm removing the tag but let's keep this talk section active for awhile. -Markeer 16:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Move to "Kitty Pryde"?

Anyone else think the article should be renamed Kitty Pryde? my reasons are multiple codenames (like jean grey) and what are most people likely to type searching for this article. Exvicious 10:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it matters either way because if you search Kitty Pryde, it redirects you to Shadowcat. But if people want to move there and have it redirect the other way that seems fine too. --Silver lode 16:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Move to Kitty Pryde. Definitely. She has lots of codenames, and per WP:CMC naming conventions, her article should be her "real" name. Additionally, Kitty Pryde is the most recognizable name; see Weezer's song "In the Garage", for instance.--Chris Griswold 08:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree, move - 15:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of it being named "Kitty Pryde" I know she has numerous codenames but she is sticking with Shadowcat now! In Astonishing she is call Shadowcat! Cyclops and Wolverine have numerous names as well however it displays their codename! I don't think Shadowcat's should be any different from the rest of the X-Men! - User: Pho3nixflame69 07:53, 2 September 2006

• In my opinion, Kitty Pryde is better than Shadowcat. I think it's fine, like the powerful Jean Grey. Lord Hammu (Talk)

Yeah but Jean Grey is different, when she's named Phoenix or Dark Phoenix it's because there's a whole other persona in her body and when the Phoenix Force is gone she is Jean Grey again, Shadowcat had two other codenames that have never been brought up, she's always been known as Shadowcat since the name appeared in the 80's, even in X-Men: Evolution she was known as Shadowcat!!! User: Pho3nixflame69

It doesn't matter what she is doing now; it matters what she is best known by. The majority of people don't know who who Shadowcat is, but they have a better chance of knowing who Kitty Pryde is because she's character in a movie and mentioned in a variety of pop culture. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't that really matters, people will then learn her real name besides Shadowcat. I think it's only fair seeing as all the other X-Men are titled as their codenames! user: Pho3nixflame69

This page should be called Shadowcat, Sprite and Ariel are old codenames.--Gonzalo84 19:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Real meeting of the minds here. How old is Pho, exactly? Feh. Anyway, there several characters in and outside of the X-Men whose articles aren't titled based on their superheroic moniker. Get over it. Wolv, Cyclops and Jean Grey are all major exceptions. Let's try...Carol Danvers, Jamie Madrox, Amanda Sefton and Neal Shaara. No? How 'bout Hal Jordan and Dick Grayson at DC? Also, Kitty herself is an exception in that even her most famous alias is not very notible, but her alter ego is based (name wise) on a semi-notible living person. Honestly.. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 15:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then change those names too, especially Multiple Man's! User: pho3nixflame69

No. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is ridiculous, just change it to Shadowcat, how hard is that? (user: pho3nixflame69)

Move Survey

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

We should have a redirect page for Shadowcat, Sprite, Ariel, etc. I agree that this page should be titled Kitty Pryde, but if someone searches for Shadowcat they should be redirected here. --Promus Kaa 19:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been suggested by Exvicious (above) that this article should be moved/renamed Kitty Pryde similarly to Jean Grey, Kyle Rayner and other characters who have used multiple superhero codenames.

Survey

The result of the debate was move. Andrewa 03:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Move -I've always felt this article should be named "Kitty Pryde", I'm very much in favor -Markeer 13:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Question - How long has Kitty Pryde gone by Kitty Pryde vs. Shadowcat vs. Sprite vs. Ariel? From my recollection, Jean went by Marvel Girl for a fairly short period of time, and Phoenix/Dark Phoenix was a (reasonably) short incident. She's gone by Jean Grey for the vast majority of X-Men's run. Woodshed 16:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As Kitty Pryde is her real name, she's gone by it for pretty much her whole life :P ... But as a superhero, she's never used it. She ran through Sprite/Ariel/Cat in a few years and then settled on Shadowcat. However, a lot of the stories focus on the "home life" of the X-Men, so 90% of the time she's just called "Kitty." Most people know her as Kitty Pryde more than as Shadowcat. The main reason to use it, however, is a reader is reading her earlier appearances where she's still going by "Ariel", and coming here, it makes more sense if this page is not called by a code name she got later. If that makes sense. -HKMARKS 16:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought she went through a (long?) period where, like "Jean Grey", she was either nicknameless or eponymous. My impression is that her tenures as Ariel and Sprite were rather brief (with Sprite being the longer of the two). Woodshed 19:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You might be right. My X-knowledge is gappy. -HKMARKS 19:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Move -per HKM comment --Newt ΨΦ 17:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Comment - Be sure to include yesterday's move discussion in the concensus, please. --Chris Griswold 00:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Chris, no worries. I have Exvicious, HKM and yourself as "Moves" from the above conversation (with Silver lode as "Neutral") but I'll leave it up at least through Mon/Tues for people who use Wikipedia from work (i.e. don't tend to look on weekends). -Markeer 02:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Move per above. She's always been known as Kitty Pryde, it's her (lack of code-) name now, and it is the most popular usage of her name. (nice Weezer callback, Griswold!). Could be off on this, but I don't think Kitty's used Shadowcat since her Excalibur days (about 10 years ago? maybe even eariler, because I think she dropped it during the book's run). Maybe her various codenames should be mentioned in the lead as well, but that's just a suggestion. --SevereTireDamage 04:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, you've got me thinking: It may have been Warren Ellis who had her drop the name in Excalibur; he tends to like characters without superhero names. I will have to look that up. --Chris Griswold 09:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey Closed with a consensus to Move -Markeer 16:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tongue Kissing Parker

An unregistered user repeatedly has removed the picture of Kitty slipping Peter Parker the tongue, and the only real rationale given so far is that the user doesn't like it. One of the major differences in the Ultimate version of the character is that she knows what Spider-Man's tonsils taste like, and so this is a pretty representative image. Half of the Ultimate section is about their Ultimate lip-locks. Please, if you want to remove the picture, at least give a better rationale. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate Shadowcat

While web-slinging in Peter's arms in Ultimate Power #2, she seems to be chosing an codename. I don't read Ultimate X-Men, so I don't know if they refer to her in the missions, or even in the massion, as Shadowcat. Do they just call her Kitty? If so, we should add that, since something similar happened to the Ultimate F4 and such info is in their article. Kajito 20:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to speculate on whether she is going to have a codename. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed nonsense about "not even having an educated IQ." IQ is stable with age and gives no indication of being dependent upon education.

Ariel

Somebody please help me. When was Kitty ever called "Ariel"? Did the name first appear in "New Mutants," because I'm collecting Uncanny X-Men (I don't have the Brood Saga) and I read about Kitty complaining about the name "Sprite" in #169, but between that and her leave of absence as of #183 (after which she returns as "Shadowcat,"), there's nada about "Ariel." All I know is she rejected the name when Professor X first proposed it when she joined the team, and after her return as Shadowcat, several Sentinels from the future (Nimrod and the Omegas) called her "Ariel". When was Kitty referred to as "Ariel"?

If I recall correctly, the first time that Kitty was in the danger room, in uniform for the first time, Professor X suggested the codename "Ariel," but Kitty immediately shot it down, and decided to go by the suggested codename of "Sprite" (so long as no one joked about pulling her tab...), so I really don't see how she could have "gone by" the name "Ariel" at all, really (unless it was in one of those weirdo alternate universe thingies). --68.217.193.72 14:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

a google search told me that Kitty's first appearance as Ariel was in X-Men 171 in 1983. Hope this helps you vanis314 13:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I thank you both a lot; I've just checked the summary of #171 at Uncannyxmen.net, and they say that, although Kitty doesn't assume the name in that particular issue, she was using it in a graphic novel and in crossovers around the same time. Mystery solved.

Yeah, as I remember it, she went by "Ariel" in the graphic novel God Loves/Man Kills.

What's with the SHB image?

I don't know if it's just me, but for some reason, the image of Shadowcat in the SHB keep disappearing. -- DCincarnate 13:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Widget

Since this article already has a DoFP section and they are the same character only different realities, Widget (Marvel Comics) should be merged into this page. 69.182.78.104 07:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Distinctivly different charcters. 66.109.248.114 19:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see discussion regarding(Merging Alternate Versions of Characters)

• Oppose - As above. RIANZ 00:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

After 2 month of no additional discussion and no consensus met, a move that discussion close.66.109.248.114 18:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - For reasons already stated. 204.153.84.10 16:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shadowcat.jpg

Image:Shadowcat.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Kitty Pryde X-Men Evolution

Please image Kitty Pryde in X-Men Evolution

Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.

There's a cover image next to the Excalibut section, but for some reason the biography jumps straight from Excalibur to rejoining the X-Men and never mentions her working for S.H.I.E.L.D at all. Could someone who knows more about this add some details, please? Daibhid C 12:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Speculation on Death

Can we remove the section "explaining" the chronology Blinded By the Light and Messiah Complex and Breakworld? It's alright to state that there is suspicion that she dies because of Astonishing's prophetic storyline and her absence from Messiah Complex, but the section afterward is casual speculation and opinion about what Marvel may do and what implications may result from speculated future plot decisions. Marvel has countless loose ends to tie in other titles that still haven't been addressed after years from timeline mess-ups. If the fate of Shadowcat is still up in the air, then the article should only state that, not comment on how the story lines may clash since her death may be addressed and sorted out later if it even happens at all.Luminum (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We might want to ask an administrator to protect this page. All the speculative edits are coming from anonymous IPs. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

How do we do that?Luminum (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Administrator's Noticeboard or whatever. Usually I just ask an admin directly. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you do it? I'm unsure of how to go about filing a report, since the 3RR thing isn't warranted here.Luminum (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why keep deleating the part about Kitty being inside the Breakworld weapon headed for Earth and then mention that Collossus mourning her? Unless Kitty died in the Astonishing arc, why is Collossus mourning her? And if she died in the Breakworld arc, it must take place after Blinded by Light story line. That's not speculation. That's just common sense. ANd if Wesley Dodds doesn't think that an arc during which Kitty dies is not important to put into that article, more power to him, but that doesn't change the fact that either put in the fact that she died during the breakworld mission or don't put in the Uncanny X-Men bit about Collossus mourning her. She either died and he's mourning her death, or she didn't die and Collossus is just crazy and so is Wolverine and Nightcrawler who mourn with him. COMMON SENSE IS NOT SPECULATION. --RossF18 (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: common sense. Yes, it is speculation, because the actual issue is not out yet. Once the issue comes out and illustrates what happens, then we can say so because then we would have a source. Anything else would be original research, and any original research would have to be removed instantly, per Wiki guidelines. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: common sense. First, the way the section is written needs to be cleaned up even if it wants to be added to the article. I did that some 20 edits ago in an attempt to explain to the original poster that the quality of the written piece was substandard. However, the poster took no head and changed it back.

Second, while it is probably true that Kitty will die at the conclusion of Whedon's run on Astonishing, it is not yet fact. The situation in Uncanny X-Men points to it being a possibility, but never outright states that she is dead. Given Marvel's history of finding any amount of ways to dispose of a character, death is not the only situation that could lead to Kitty being "gone" from the lives of the X-Men. Wikipedia requires facts, and until the last issue of Astonishing shows that Kitty is in fact, dead and buried, then she isn't officially "dead." As a random example of what could happen, she could end up lost in space, shot into another dimension, become an alien world diplomat, get captured, or even be rendered catatonic in the X-Men's infirmary. In any of those situations, Colossus could still say that he's "lost her" while fitting Blindfold's prediction that one of the X-Men has not returned from space. Are they all as likely as one another? No. But they are possibilities and until something else comes along and actually says what has happened to her, anything else is speculative and does not belong in the article.

Third, writing about where the Astonishing storyline begins and ends is unnecessary. When asked, Joss stated that he wanted to steer clear of the bigger X-title crossovers (which you can read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astonishing_X-Men#Volume_three_.282004-present.29). Likewise, editor Nick Lowe said that the continuity issue will be resolved when the run comes to its end. That being said, major continuity has been ignored in Astonishing X-Men since the "Torn" arc and that lack of continuity has been accepted by both fans and staff. Therefore, it is silly to begin speculating on where this specific part of Astonishing X-Men fits in with the rest of Marvel continuity when other glaringly obvious events have not been challenged (ex. Cyclops' catatonia/control of his powers, House of M, Decimation, Civil War, or the fact that any of the other titles have featured the Astonishing cast while they're supposed to be in space.) The Astonishing line is accepted as being out of continuity and an attempt to officially integrate it will happen after Joss' run is over. Until then, there's no need to speculate on it in a Wikipedia article because it's officially a non-issue, will be officially dealt with later, and because speculating about it just because of Kitty when there's a plethora of pre-established continuity "errors" is poor.

And finally, speculation on Astonishing X-Men's continuity does not belong on a page specifically devoted just to Kitty. The section that was (poorly) written by the poster about what would or would not be "hard to believe" is about the general continuity of Astonishing X-Men, which has its own place: the Astonishing X-Men Wiki article. Given that the Astonishing X-Men article already succinctly explains the issues with continuity, the poster's speculation/"common sense" then becomes redundant speculation/"common sense.

Those are the reasons why the explanation about continuity placement does not belong here.

I don't know why WelseyDodds is deleting the plot summary that involves Kitty in "Breakworld". It's relevant in terms of the significant events involving Kitty and it may have been an editing mistake. What I will do then is add that section back in as well as the fact-only account of events that occur mentioning Kitty in Uncanny X-Men #496. Then we can discuss/work off of that, as it would be the most factual update of events significantly involving Kitty Pryde.Luminum (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I remove the Breakworld stuff because it really doesn't say much about the character. She's just there. It's really unnecessary to add details about the story just because she's in it, given how long the character has been published. Recentism has been a big problem with the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand. However, if that's the case, then Ross is correct that it's absurd to mention her "disappearance" in Uncanny X-Men since there is no indication of Kitty being in any major peril. The question then becomes, do you include the update of significant events and if so, how do you do it in a way that makes the article logical but non-speculative.Luminum (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Right now, until there's details about how Whedon's run will end, it should just stand without mention of "Unstoppable", because we don't know how much of anything matters. Once we figure out what happens, then we will most certainly have to include details about the arc. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Then wait to post the Uncanny X-Men comment. Dodds, you seem impervious to logic of anyone else. I agree with Luminum that either have a brief mention of Unstoppable and then mention the comment from Uncanny, or just leave the update tag, take out the Uncanny X-Men comment, and wait until Weddon run ends. Yes, we know for a fact what happens in Uncanny, but without any detail about Astonishing's last arc, the Uncanny X-Men comment is out of the blue. In the previous paragraph it would say that Kitty is fighting along side the X-Men to preserve the Destiny diaries and everything is fine. Then, boom, she's dead or gone or something happened to her to make Collossus talk about her after visiting the grave yard of his parents. Dodds seems to want his cake and eat it too. Logically, you can't have no mention of Kitty in peril in Astonishing and then have Collossus say that he lost her and leave it at that. You have to provide at least a brief one line explanation about how did he loose her. If we don't know, wait until we do so that the last comment makes sense.--RossF18 (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Then what I think we should do is leave the article as is right now. The events in Unstoppable are still up there and give an idea of what it means to Uncanny X-Men. What I don't want to see (and what I just reverted) is about what it "suggests" or "might" mean about Kitty, because we don't know for sure, and even the best guess about the end of Astonishing is still a guess. When April comes, then all this business can be put to rest and the article can be tightened up.Luminum (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

While is a safe assumption that Kitty is "lost" due to the events of "Unstoppable", it's still an assumption, and original research. As for your argument about the logic of Kitty suddenly disappearing, characters disappear for no immediate reason all the time in fiction. An answer is usually given later, and there's no problem with just saying, "Oh, she's gone now for some reason we can't explain" because no explanation has been given yet. I agree with Luminum's last comment. Speculation is the main thing we want to avoid in this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ellen Page images

This image has been used in this article to show Ellen Page as Kitty Pryde. Today a different image was uploaded and put in its place. Neither are free, and we can't claim fair-use for both, so which should we use? I say the original, as it's a much clearer, no-nonsense and encyclopedic image. faithless (^speak) 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Pondering

Anyone agree it's noteable Kitty is a personal friend of British ruling royalty? "X-Men: True Friends" three part limited series by Chris Claremont and Rick Leonardi. Lots42 (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I haven't read the series you're mentioning, but wouldn't any X-Man who knows/teamed up with Psylocke/Meggan/Captain Britain be considered a "close friend" of British ruling royalty? Colossus, Nightcrawler, Sage, Dazzler, Marvel Girl III, to name a few. It doesn't seem to therefore be as notable. Likewise, does every X-Man deserve a new section because they're friends with Storm, who's the queen of Wakanda? Not so much. So in my opinion, no, unless you can make a really convincing argument.Luminum (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done - as should be clear from the various tags on the article it needs a lot more references and more content in the PH. (Emperor (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

Vandalism

Seems that IP User:190.84.184.117 has been bored today. Reverted 4 vandalism edits and left a note on the Talk page. Please let me know if I should do anything else as I am a tad new. Thanks.
Oscaron (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with Colossus

Now, I'm not sure why this new section has been added, but why does it stop with their break up? Shouldn't their Excalibur days be mention next? Then especially Colossus and Kitty renewing their relationship in Astonishing X-Men be the end of the section? Plus whatever happens in Uncanny X-Men 504 - 506 which is suppose to have a three issue subplot of Colossus' feelings on losing Kitty. JackalsIII (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC).

Exactly. Their relationship is much more extensive than the point where it stopped in the article. Kitty grows up after all.--RossF18 (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dead?

Dead or not? I haven't picked up "Astonishing", after Whedon left, unfortunately. (JoeLoeb (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

Very mutch alive, as stated by Agent Brand from S.W.O.R.D (who has advanced technology, therefore making her answer more beleivable), and it's been revealed by Marvel that she is coming back soon (in some interviews, it's hinted Magneto brings her back, by wanting to gain the trust of the X-Men and bring them a gift. This makes sense, as she's in a METAL bullet, and he's on top of a mountain, focusing extemley hard on something)

Earth not earth

I had someone revert me claiming that the planet Earth should be lower case, I reverting them back calling bullshit.[1] Everywhere I look it says Earth when its a planet is capitalized, no reason to treat it differently than other planets, and earth when its dirt or a color is not capitalized. Even Wikianswers says that. [2] Dream Focus 07:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

1) Watch your tone and remember WP:GF and WP:Civil. I reverted it and gave a editing summary without any of the attitude you're giving off here. 2) You must not be looking very hard because...[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9] show that the rules for capitalization of "earth" do not center on differentiating dirt from the celestial body, although it is a means of differentiation. As I mentioned in the revision summary with examples, the consensus is mixed, but examples clearly demonstrate that "earth" is acceptable for use when referring to the planet. It is capitalized when it is used explicitly as a proper noun, typically when mentioned in the context of other celestial bodies with proper nouns and used without the article "the." Ex. "She said that Earth is the third planet from the Sun, before Mars and after Venus." or "The spin of Earth's rotation is constant." However, it does not need to be capitalized when in the context of other celestial bodies sans proper nouns (such as generic types of bodies ex. galaxies, moons) nor is it necessary when it is alone despite referring to the planet. Ex. "The rotation of the earth is constant." or "Kitty Pryde is able to phase out of sync with the rotation of the earth." The rule isn't limited just to when "earth" is or isn't referring to dirt or a color. Also, Wikianswers isn't the end-all-be-all of grammatical standards. I hope that clarifies the revision.Luminum (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is the preferred/expected capitalization style? I think we should determine that, rather than edit warring over such a minor item. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/earth says "English usage guides prefer the capitalized form of this word (Earth) when referring to the planet." Dream Focus 16:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• It makes no sense at all to capitalize other planets, but not Earth. If you are referring to Earth the planet, it should be capitalized, and if its earth as in some sort of mystical entity or concept, perhaps it's different. No reason not to capitalize it here. Can others give their opinions please? Dream Focus 16:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"It makes no sense" isn't a good enough argument when grammatical guides are mixed. That's your opinion. I'm giving you actual guidelines. If it bothers you, take it up with grammarians of the English language, but until then, it's the grammatical status quo. In the very same Wictionary entry, when used as a proper noun it isn't capitalized. The usage note isn't sourced, either. ::shrug:: I think finding the preferred version is a good suggestion, but indications from the sources I've reviewed show that it's a toss up and not black and white.Luminum (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of supplying a third opinion on this, I believe the general consensus is that it's "Earth" and "the earth." There is no hard and fast ruling on this that you'll find anywhere, so far as I know, but "Earth," without an article in front of it, is capitalized, whereas when it is preceded by an article you will find it not capitalized. This distinction is close to being a distinction between referring to the celestial body as a whole and the matter which makes up the body, but that's an oversimplification. Either way, that's my opinion on this. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• http://history.nasa.gov/styleguide.html

Astronomical Bodies:

Capitalize the names of planets (e.g. Earth, Mars, Jupiter). Capitalize moon when referring to Earth's Moon, otherwise lowercase moon (e.g. the Moon orbits the Earth, Jupiter's moons). Do not capitalize solar system and universe.

That's what the official government webpage says about that. Don't know where else to look. Over at http://www.sti.nasa.gov/sp7084/ch4.html they have Grammar, Punctuation, and Capitalization: A Handbook for Technical Writers and Editors which says Earth (the planet) is capitalized but not earth (the ground). Anyway, two people say Earth, and only one says earth, so consensus is clear. I'm changing it Earth. Dream Focus 21:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...that's not a consensus. Ginsengbomb provided the correct assertion that Earth is capitalized when used without an article and is not capitalized when used with the article "the," which I already mentioned earlier. It wasn't in support of your opinion. One user suggested that we find the preferred standard, one user pointed out a grammatical rule, you consistently push capitalizing "Earth" despite that rule, and I am pushing that we follow that rule. That's 1 nuetral, 1 stating a rule, 1 for "Earth", and 1 for "earth." That's not a consensus. Besides, it's not a "want" issue--it's a correct grammar issue.

I don't know how else to communicate to you that we are NOT talking about Earth (planet) vs. earth (substance), which you keep going back to. In fact, Ginsengbomb pointed out that only distinguishing between the planet and the ground is an oversimplification. All the links I have provided to you (and the ones you've provided, such as Wictionary) have stated that when referring to the planet, both "Earth" and "earth" are acceptable and the only clear rule is when using the article "the."

The NASA example is correct. Earth is capitalized in the first example because it lacks an article preceding it ("the"). Though the second example is preceded by "the," it is also capitalized because it is placed in the context of other celestial bodies (referring to Earth's moon, the Moon). If the sentence was "Calculate the rotation of the earth," it refers to the planet, but is lower cased because it is preceded by the article "the" and is not placed with any other celestial body. That's what all those links I referenced state, which encompass the instructions of NASA's handbook and more.

In the section you're editing, both times, "earth" is preceded by the article. As it stands now, it's grammatically incorrect. The only strong rule here is that it's "the earth" rather than "the Earth" unless another celestial body with a proper noun is included in context. Therefore, I'm reverting it. If you want to remove the articles and capitalize Earth, go ahead, and only then will it be correct. Luminum (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear (I tend to be overly apologetic/middle-ground when making points), I was agreeing with Luminum in this case. I also don't think the sentence should be changed to "Earth" (without article) as it reads pretty goofy then (she sent something "through Earth"? No, she sent something "through the earth"). I'm fine with "through Earth," if it goes towards consensus in this relatively silly debate, hehe. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "phased through Earth" sounds awkward, but it's still technically correct...and that should avoid an editing war in the meantime.Luminum (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Breathing while phasing

Recent comic A+X #8 (2013) says that Kitty assumed for years that she had to hold her breath while phasing (which apparently she doesn't need to do anymore while phasing). She claims nowadays, she can phase through stuff while breathing and talking, and as a feat, can do micro-concussions using a phasing trick. However, I'm not sure exactly when was she able to start doing this, in order to add references. Sera404 (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I just read that issue. Just reference it for this. Dream Focus 15:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Helping with the Northstar wedding

It is too bad that some homophobic inmature editor eliminated the section about Kitty helping out with the Northstar wedding. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Fictional Presidents of the United States category

When was she ever president of the United States? Dream Focus 05:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Professor Pryde

Lately I've seen here referred to as "Professor Pryde" in many of the comics but there's no mention of this in the article Jikybebna (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kitty Pryde/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== Explanation == It is a very good article. I see it's been around a while nad has undergone a great amount of edit's from various users who all seem to agree as to what it's content should be. The article is put together in a good way. The structure of the article is good, and it stays in a NPOV point of view. I see it breaching no policies. The only downfall I see that could use some immediate work, is for it to have more good references, which I don't think would be too hard of an undertaking.businessman332211 17:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Note I am not monitoring this or related talk page. If you have anything you want me to see, or say to me about this, please leave it on my talk page, with any relevant links as needed. businessman332211 18:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kitty Pryde. 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/20110608020121/http://herochat.com/forum/index.php?topic=170859.0 to http://herochat.com/forum/index.php?topic=170859.0

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kitty Pryde. 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/20110713004756/http://uk.comics.ign.com/articles/708/708826p5.html to http://uk.comics.ign.com/articles/708/708826p5.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Solo Film

A Kitty Pryde movie is being developed. Could I add this sentence in?

"It's unclear if Ellen Page will reprise her role."

--LegerPrime (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it's a statement of a non-fact. Only add content that is factual and sourced. For example, if Ellen Page was in talks to reprise the role, that would be good to include, or if she or her representation made any mention of it.Luminum (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Ellen Page, not Elliot Page

Within the fourth paragraph, Elliot Page is described as having played this mutant character. This is incorrect as the part was played by this actor before surgery and name change. It will also be factually confusing because the credits of the film says, Ellen Page. In this article, consider reverting the actor's name back to Ellen Page. We can additionally add the words "now known as Elliot Page" in the article. Clicking on the link will lead the readers to the Elliot Page article where they can now view the update on this actor. It is common understanding that Wikipedia offers facts and that this correction does not intrude on anyone's rights.

Imperator Romanii (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)