Talk:X-Men

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the X-Men article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Good article X-Men was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision.
WikiProject Comics This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
This article was a former Comics Collaboration of the Month. (26/09/2005–10/10/2005)
To see how the article improved click here.
Archive
Archives
  1. July 2004 to April 2005
  2. April 2005 to June 2006

Contents


[edit] Essential characters

I've removed this bit of fan opinion, again. It is nothing more than a collection of one person's ideas of who fits this "essential" category. And yes, to answer the question asked in the edit summary, that probably means that the "Notable former members" bit needs to go away also as Original Research and fan opinion as to who is notable. CovenantD 22:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


I guess the word "Essential" is a bit subjective to some people I agree. But what I trying to convey on the list is what I described or wrote on the section: I bolded the important things to emphasize.

Although the X-men roster in the comic books changes constantly through the years and had numerous past members, allies and villains, there are characters that were featured outside the comic books more often than the others. Consequently becoming recognizable even for non-readers. They can be categorize as the essential characters. Characters that often appear, especially, in popular adaptations on TV series, Movies and Video Games.

I would like to make clear that this is not my "FAVORITE X-MEN" list. And I think creating "notable" or "imporatant" caharcters are not really hard to make. Should we also take out all the "Nobtable Alumni" on the articles about Schools? Or Something like that? Shoul we also get rid of the word "notable" all together and the people or things which it describes in every article for that matter?

These characters are often used, featured, appeared outside the comic book world more often than others. Giving them a "Notable" or "Essential" qualities to the franchise. They became more of an icon in sense of the franchise. They become more synonymous to the franchise as thier characters transcends outside the comic books. Making them more RECOGNIZABLE or widely known or celebrated even for the non-readers of the comic books.

These characters are frequently representing the X-men in other artforms reagardless of the storyline. But basically they could be interchangebly called as the most "popular" "important" "notable" or "Essential". What I meant by "essential" is not who I think is "Essential" but based on the criteria I gave. Yes, the list could change overtime but we cant argue who are the most notable X-men and who are not today.

Like what I said we could quantified such things. First we have to weigh it in the popular adaptions. In the case of Movies and TV series, What characters starred in these popular adaptation? Are they a lead or not? In the case of Video games, what characters are playable? are they the lead or not? All in all which characters are OFTEN seen as an X-men or Villains through these popular adaptation.

I would like to give example of which adaptation I am talking about. In the movies we have B.O. hits like X-men, X2 and X3. Which characters that are featured here? In TV series we have hits like the "X-men the animated series" and "X-men Evolution". Which characters are featured here? In case of Video games he have hits like "X-men Children of Atom", "X-men vs.Capcom", "X-men Legends". Which characters are featured here?

What I am trying to say is the consensual roster of X-men characters through these popular adaptations. And the list of characters I gave are basically the ones who always appears on these. I think this the only way we can create "notable", "essential" or "popular" characters list if we consider not only the "comic book world" but most importantly the "popular adapatations" beacuse most of the general public follows the latter.

For example Wolverine has been in every adaptation of X-men as you can possiblly think of, as well as Cyclops, Proffesor X, Mageneto and Storm. If we say their names, a regular folk could instantly connect them to as "X-men characters". So they weigh more as oppose to let say Banshee or Xorn or Feral.

I guess, I just made it too long of explaination, sorry, hehe. In summary, I am just trying to say or suggest that we can drop the word "essential" and change it to "popular characters"? maybe? And change the introduction a bit? Or we could make a poll about it perhaps?

—888

You can sign by typing four tildes (~~~~).

It's the POV words Popular or Essential that bother me. Why don't we get some other opinions, take a poll, whatever. CovenantD 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind changing the wording. "Notable"? perhaps? Although In my opinion the word "Popular" is pretty appropriate enough I think. and Yeah, others opinion and taking a poll of others is a good idea. Any takers? ~~~~

I can easily think of one "adapatation" of the X-Men that Wolverine & Storm weren't a part of -- the original team seen in the earliest comics. (Well, maybe "incarnation" would be a better term.) Dr Archeville 00:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What about Juggernaut? Should we not place him as a hero?


I think Juggernaut were mostly portayed as a villian outside the comic book realm. I believe that what is the section describing.

Attention everyone please stop adding on the section "notable characters". Pls read the description of what the article is stating before putting anything. The list right now suffice what the section of the article is conveying. If you would like to add more pls support it with a strong agurment given the criteria the article is presenting. I deleted "Dust" because clearly the character does not fit the description.-888


And we're already seeing the creep that I expected from this section. It's going to grow, inevitably, as people add their favorite characters. CovenantD 04:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Like what I said, the argument you are saying would also apply to every when ever an article describes who is notable. If this must be deleted should not also all those article describing who is notable be deleted. Also, I presicely described which characters should fit the criteria (Pls read my explanation above). I will follow this closely-888

While I can see some purpose for this - I'm sure there's a reason the initial picture for the article features Wolverine, Storm, and Nightcrawler instead of Dusk, Beak, and Multiple - creep is inevitable unless some quantification method is put in. I would guess the most recognizable characters have appeared in comics, movies, animation, and video games so why not just require that all notables appear in at least three of the above media?Haverberg 21:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a qualification that was stated clearly. The section particularly describes characters that are quite popular OUTSIDE the comic book realm. Especially, TV,Movies,&Video Games. In that way the list of characters would be more restrictive. So no matter how popular or notable a character is in the comic books, if that character isnt being frequently featured oustside of it, like what I said, that character does not fit the description or criteria. Many "notable list" section does not even give any precise description like this. I was thinking about changing the title of the section from "Notable Chracaters" to "Popular characters outside the comic books" and putting it on under the "Appearance in other media". Do you think it would be better that way? BTW, someone just put Senator Kelly, I am sorry but, yes he was, significantly, in the first movie but other than that he has minimal apperances on other things. I can think of other more characters that has more pressence than him that was not in the list. So, I am afraid I must delete him.-888

How does one define "popular outside the comic book realm?" Again, it's a subjective term that can't be quantified. CovenantD 14:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think, I already explained that it can be measurable. That is why I used the terms "frequently" and "often". How often this character appears on other adaptations like in this or on that. I am open for suggestion on what term should be used otherwise we can stick to "notable characters". IMO though, the term "popular outside the comic book realm" is a no brainer really. We can easily distinguish which are popular and which are not. I like to make it clear though that when I say "popular" it means they recognizable by non-readers or comprehensible to the general public. I guess you misinterprenting them as the most favored that is why you find it subjective-888

Frequently and often are, again, both subjective terms with no definite answer. You're going in circles, using one ill-defined word to explain another. Recognizable by which non-readers? I can assure you that there are milliions, probably billions, who have never heard of Nightcrawler or Mystique or Cable. So who do we poll? CovenantD 16:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)



First, the non-readers was not meant to be as the whole population of the planet earth, these are the people or fans that are familiar of the x-men "franchise" but not necesarilly read the comic books. The people who only knew these characeters by means of TV series, Movies, & Video Games and that is what we are focusing on.

Ok let me do this step by step. Based on the criteria: "Characters who appears "frequently" in other adaptation outside the comic books especially [TV, Movies, & Video Games]"

First let us take 4 example characters: Wolverine, Colossus, Sage, Banshee, (these are just rough example)

Wolverine: appeared on 3 movies, 8 video games, 3 TV series. Colossus: appeared on 2 movies, 5 video games, 1 TV series. Banshee: appeared on 0 movie, 0 video game, 1 TV series. Sage: appeared on 0 movie, 0 video game, 0 TV series.

Based on this we can say Wolverine "frequently" appears outside the comic book realm. Thus, based on the description he weighs more than Sage or Banshee. Based on the information would you not describe him as a "popular character outside the comic book realm?"-888

[edit] "Notable characters"

Every time I see this edited I feel like just plain removing it, but in the interest of others, I'd like to put it to a vote. Who is for removal of the header 'notable characters'? Kusonaga 13:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

  • Delete ~ It adds nothing, and is way too dependant on the editor's POV, evident from all of the reverts that section gets ~ Kusonaga 13:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wiki-newbie 13:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I've been against this from the beginning. Too subjective, POV fancruft. If they are NOTABLE enough for this then they are given proper due in the appropriate places, like the game articles and their individual ones. CovenantD 15:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There are "notable character list" in every decase in history section and there is one "notable former member list" right at front. why would this be any different? and also wondering why this section gets all the issue? The section gives a precise description of which character should be included. So I do not see any problem -888
The problem lies with the fact that seemingly only you know what is supposed to go in the notable characters list. Multiple reverts later and the list just keeps changing. It's inconsistant, and based purely on the POV of the individual editor. Secondly, yes, each decade gives the members that were prominent, which just makes the "notable characters" section a redundancy. You'll also note that the notable former member list consists solely of characters that have left the X-Men recently (besides Magneto, who gets the spot because he is their archfoe, but was also a member). Kusonaga 18:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
That is why I have been trying to comprimise not to call it "notable characters" bec of redundancy. It was not my first choice of word, however it could also apply.
I have been suggesting to call it "popular characters" as it best describes my description but one person here think the woed was "subjective". Please read my long explanation above to understand my point.
And no, the list has not actually got really out of control. As I have been checking on it once in a while. The original list I gave still stands, as is, and every single one. Maybe one or two were added but were reverted again to the original list by, to my suprise, by other users (who I think agree that the list is sound enough, as many of the x-men fans would also agree).
I must admit though that I did some research on this. So I just did not simply put my "favorite" characters" there, I can assure you it was done objectively. I did quantify which characters do "frequently" featured outside the comic book realm. I already stated my detailed explanation about this above. The section was not meant to focus on the comic book world but "OUTSIDE". That is why I was calling for people who ever wants to add to provide a strong argument why their character should be included given the criteria and put it in the talk page-888 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.146.117 (talk • contribs) .
Yeah, a denomination of "popular" would be even worse. Thing is, the list is still subject to the views of the individual editor, and having to to consistantly revert it means there is quite likely a fault with it. Besides the fact that original research isn't 'allowed', I understand your points and have read your reasons for adding the characters listed, but let's take someone like Cable. He really isn't popular enough and it just opens the door for other characters to be added. It's just redundant because notable characters are already noted in the approiate sections (even outside of comics). Kusonaga 19:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The word "popular" always comes up whenever you read an article about an X-men character (especially the ones I gave). If you could take a look each one of the character I list and read their individual article you would see "popular" everytime. It is a very common word, So I really dont get what is the problem with the word "Popular". As long as you can support the claim why not call him/her popular? I already explined that above.
We ca not avoid editing in Wikipedia. But like what I said the list up until now is as is as it was the first time I put it. The revertion was not out of control'
Cable was a popular playable character in the hit "Marvel vs. Capcom video game series" and was popular and frequently appeared in X-men animated series. Yes, he was not as popular let say Wolverine, that is a given, that is why he is in the bottom of the list. The characters at the bottom are actually the borderline
But that was my point though If someone could present or support an argument that if a character has more appearnces in "other media" than Cable then it be should explained first. and if proven right then we change it, there would be no problem at all. You see this is not really my own view the list can be flexible BUT the claim should be strong. So the list could be seen as objective. The list actually restricts people to add as not really many characters are featured outside the comic books.-888 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.146.117 (talk • contribs) .
A) It would be quite handy if you registered at wikipedia. It would be more preferable to the -888 sign you do. Either that or use ~~~~.
B) The word "popular" is POV unless proper statistics can be shown, in cited, published work (WP:NOR). In other words: Do actually support the claim.
C) Furthermore, if there is work to be referenced, it will need referencing. In other words, cite "widely known" and "recognizable for non-readers" (the second of which I doubt to be true with over half of the listed characters).
D) An other article making the same mistakes does not make it right.
E) Redundancy is a large factor here for me as well. When notable, characters are mentioned in the section when needed. Each of the sections about the TV shows, games etc. give us the roster of X-Men appearing in that particular form of media. Another specific section is therefore wholly unnecessary.
Kusonaga 10:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
B)So are you suggesting that whenever the "popular" word is used here in wikepedia it should be deleted unless proper statistic is given?
C)Again the section was not made like the characters were randomnly selected. Is it references from each individual article of the x-men characters. There is a section "appearances in other media" on every article that you can look. It is supported by facts that can be found here in wikipedia.
Let me explain the "widely known" part. First, there are people who reads the comic books who knows this charaters. Let for the sake of argument say, 10 out of 100 people read the comic books so they know and are familiar with the characters. Now lets take again out of the same 100 people 15 also knows and familiar with the X-men characters BUT does not necesarilly read the comic books but only knew them in TV series, Movies and Video Games. So 10 comic readers plus 15 non-comic readers you will have 25 out of 100 people who are now familiar with the X-men characters. Thus, people are more familiar with those characters that "frequently" appears in the other media than those characters that only appears in the comic books. That is why we can support the claim that they are "widely know" or "popular" characters outside the comic books realm or simply as an X-men characeter by itself. I do not see why is this so hard to understand in my opinion. But again when I say "Popular" it does not necesarilly means they are very liked or something like that. It simply means that most people knows them.
D) Which articles are we talking about that has mistake?
E) It is not a redundancy because the section describe specfic description that can not be found in 1) in the article itself 2) the whole wikipedia. The section simply summarizes the which X-men characters that are popular outside the comic book realm.
F)I really do not see this as a big issue as the list has been stable for so long. 67.101.146.117 11:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)888</nowiki>.
B) No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the manner in which popular is often used in a manner that is condoned, but should not be allowed by wikipedia policy.
C) I know they were not randomly selected, except you've got nothing to support the claim you make that is actually published, or that you can cite. All you've got is original research, and I again point you to WP:NOR.
D) Lots.
E) The description is redundant, since which characters are shown in other media is already shown. I'm not against showing people which characters appear in other media (on the contrary even) but that's what the specific "other media" section is for.
Kusonaga 11:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
You know what? This is stupid. I've seen one person trying and trying to defend the inclusion of this list, one without a lot of experience or knowledge of Wiki. I'm taking the section out until this is resolved. It's been there long enough. CovenantD 11:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Kusonaga 11:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The list has been STABLE for months. No one is really complaining about it. There are only 2 people who is making this long (Im sorry about that, As I explain very leghtnty). I am beggining to suspect though that the 2 user that I am talking to is as of the same person. Anyway that is not how you treat a user/comtributer even if I am an anonymous I do explain politely as possible and with grounds.---888

Months!?! Hardly. And yet another accusation of being a sock. So far that makes about 6 other people that I'm supposed to be. And from somebody who STILL can't sign their posts correctly. No, you have no valid reasons why this isn't OR. Kusonaga, since this 888 character is obviously going to reinsert this everytime, I'd like your help in keeping it out. CovenantD 12:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I never really minded the Notable characters section, but we have sufficient character information in the roster stuff in the main box. Wiki-newbie 12:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete its a redundant list, the roster already serves this purpose, hell the List of X-Men and that huge X-Men box at the bottom of the page do the same thing. --Basique 16:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Basique. There doesn't need to be numerous lists of just about the same thing. RobJ1981 00:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. For the reasons already presented by Kusonaga, Covenant and Basique. —Lesfer (talk/@) 04:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete although I respect the concept of an encyclopedia article providing clear links for those less familiar with the subject (e.g. someone who saw the movies and is interested in the comic book). That said, issues of article length and redundant multi-linking (i.e. "roster" and decade descriptions) seem to take precendence in this case. 888: I realize this conversation became heated despite your clear desire to make an article about popular characters user-friendly to a wide audience, but I hope you don't feel any ill-will. Passion for the subject (by yourself, CovenantD, Kusonaga or anyone) can only be to the benefit of the article and I hope you continue contributing to WikiProject Comics. -Markeer 16:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not huge follower of comic books but it is fairly obvious to me who the main characters are. They are the ones that appear in the cartoon and the film and the video games time after time. Wolverine, Cyclops, Storm, Proff X, Magneto, Gambit, Phoenix. Is there not a site whre you can get the number of appearences they have each had and do a top ten appearences list? 213.218.242.6 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

See I see what your point now. It is because that I am just an anonymous? It was not an accusation. I am sorry but whenever you appaer he also appears to prove your point. Just makes me wonder And yes, It has been stable for a very long time. The "Internationa Characters" should we take that out also to since it has no reference? The the other "Notable Characters" list Should we take that out too? I really do not get why this is getting all the heat. How about taking out all the "Notable Characters" and putting in one place? I really think you are not trying to help to comprimise as I have been doing that since.

It is not OR. If it is OR then all should the things here are also OR. Like the "International Chracters", "Notable List", "Appearance in other Media" etc. etc.---888

It's the very definition of OR. You created a criteria, then populated it based on that criteria. I've taken out the notable former members list, but the other examples you use are independently verifiable based on the comics. CovenantD 12:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Like what I said every section has a criteria. Let say the "International Characters" the charaters should be included there are the characters that was a "Native" outside the US. The section we are talking about is also independently verifiable as I refernces it on the characters article's "appearance in other media". if you taken out the notable former member list, then you should also take out all the "NOTABLE LIST" not only in this section but all over Wikepedia and that is a lot and the word "popular"---888

A) CovenantD is not a sockpuppet of mine (you'll note that I joined earlier).
B) Chances are good that me and Covenant will just keep deleting it if you persist.
C) Again, just because another article does it, does not make it right. No other article however, that I know of, boasts a section likened to "Notable characters".
D) No criticism before? Did you forget the discussion under "Essential characters" right here on the talk page?
E) The international character list simply states which countries these fictional characters are supposed to hail from. Easily referenced etc. etc. However, the notable character list states only the criteria, and then proceeds to list, with none of the research thrown in. Research, that isn't allowed here under WP:NOR.
Kusonaga 12:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
A)I am sorry if I offended you that I accused you as a sockpuppet
B)Every School has "Notable Alumni" should we take that out as well? That is just one example. The Essebtial characters are basically me and CovenantD. talking. I tend to explain very long
C) The section I gave also has an easy reference. As I have been pointing that out ever early on.
D)The very important thing is the List has not been out of control. It has been STABLE since It was put in AS IS. So ther is NO HARM DONE. Apparently only CovenantD has a problem with it as he was the first one and only who tries to delete it from the beggining.
E)Eventhough CovenantD has been bellitiling me like calling me a "character" and critisizing how I sign my post. I still kept my cool and tried to explain and trying to comprimise. It seems he has some issues with anonymous users in my opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.146.117 (talk • contribs) .
A) It's cool.
B) Officially? Yes. Unless cited, they should be taken out.
C) Where's the reference? Certainly not in the article itself.
D) It's gotten a few changes and reverts here and there, but we put the stability thing long past us.
E) I think that's an accusation that is rather unfounded.
Kusonaga 13:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three-Revert

Both of you need to stop, now. You're both breaking the three-revert rule. WP:3RR. Kusonaga 13:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

B)See, we also have to delete the word "notable" in every article and the word "popular"? as well.
C)Again in, Each Individual Characters Articles.
E) Not accusation, just an oipinion. sorry if I offended but thats just how I feel "belittled".
D)CovenantD is keep on reverting while I keep on explaining. Is that againts the rule?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.146.117 (talk • contribs) .

B) Again, no. If properly argumented and cited/referenced, this is not necessary, or depending on the context in which the word is used. However, yes, in quite a few cases, words like "notable" should be removed, but this does not excuse this. Again, another wrong does not make another right. We're discussing this article, not another.
C) Is this referenced no? You simply give a list. Again, this makes the list even more redundant, since each incarnation of other media specifically states which characters appear, and allows people to look it up themselves.
D) If both of you stop reverting, the rule will not be broken.
E) That's not an opinion, that's accusing someone of a behavioural pattern which has little fundament. However, an editor's personal beliefs are not what this is about.
F) Please sign your posts.
Kusonaga 13:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
B)Not necesarilly, "Notable" has a specific defenition. If you exempt one or another then that would be POV on your part. Although I have been presenting a support on my claim and I already saying that the references can be found in Indivual's characters article. If putting all th references I will. Do you think it would be better? suggestion?
C)It was meant to summarize it. That is why it is unique not redundant.
D) Well it is a form of opinion reagardless.
E) I really do not get it. The section is not harming anything or the article. It has been stable all along. So I really do not get the passion about this.--88800 13:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)88800
Just because you finally got an account doesn't mean you can continue to revert the article. CovenantD 14:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD if you edit this again as you saw it fit without a resolution then I will give up. It seems you really unwilling to comprimise. It is not worth my time most imporatantly. But nevcertheless that says something more about you than anything else. The section was not meant to offend anyone. I really do not see what is the big issue. Like what I said if enough people want to take it out I WILL BE GLADLY to abide No hard feelings. This will be my last post. let others speak. Goodluck editing.--88800 14:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC) 88800

Well that's settled then. Wiki-newbie 14:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think we should have any of those lists since some of the characters listed under Uncanny X-men could also under X-Men.

[edit] Article size

In order to avoid size issues, what about creating an section/sub-article called "Cultural impact of the X-Men"? It could contain sections "Reflecting current social issues" and "Other media". —Lesfer (talk/@) 18:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel the article can acceptably grow up to 60 KB. Wiki-newbie 18:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Spinning off a Cultural impact article would be consistent with other articles of similar import. Some, like Superman, have even reached Featured status. That would allow more room here for growth. CovenantD 18:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess we can have 'other media' in a new article, but fact is 'reflecting social issues' is something so important to the concept that X-Men that a reader needs to know that I wouldn't like that to be spun-off. We have a history spun off section anyway. Wiki-newbie 18:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm thinking about, Covenant ;)) And I don't think you're aware of WP:SIZE, Newbie. Regards —Lesfer (talk/@) 19:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Superman is 56 KB. Batman is 67 KB. Wiki-newbie 19:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

And that's with the cultural impacts in their own articles! If the split does happen (and I'd suggest waiting a couple more days for comment) be sure to leave a decent summary of the refecting social issues section to address Newbie's concerns. S/he is correct that it's one of the major aspects that contributes to their popularity and should still be covered here to some extent. CovenantD 19:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

So what will we do? Merge the history section? OK. Keep the racism/homophobia issues before introducing the main 'cultural impact' article, keep a paragraph each on the cartoons and films, mention famous writers and explain the fictional organisation of the team. Wiki-newbie 14:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Man... you're just not getting a single thing. :P —Lesfer (talk/@) 18:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Navbox Guidelines

Please follow this link Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates/navboxes to join in on the discussion . --Basique 12:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

The article needs inline citations before it gets GA. The JPStalk to me 20:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have placed the article on hold for lack of citations. Other than that it seems well written and comprehensive. Eluchil404 23:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am faling the article as suitable references are still lacking. Without them it is hard to tell if parts of the article consist of original research so I am not listing the article at WP:UGA/N at this time. Eluchil404 20:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anti-catholic

Has X-Men ever really been used as a metaphor for anti-catholicism? I know there are Catholic character but the whole Just as Catholics were often mistrusted and feared in early United States history because of their loyalty to a foreign Pope, so are the X-men suspect because of their double loyalties both to the same laws as all other citizens and to the "mutant cause." sounds a lot like original research; can anyone list any issues/storylines dealing with Anti-Catholicism? --DrBat 20:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comic timeline

I've played making a type of timeline explaining the shifting titles, currently tracing the history of 5 of the X books - have a look at User:Morwen/x-men and tell me what you think? I think it would be good if we could have something like this on the article, although my table isn't actually pretty enough. Morwen - Talk 14:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X-Men Classes

The movies mention 5 classes of mutants class 5 being the most powerful. Does anyone know what the exact criteria for each class is?

That's the films. In the comics it's Alpha, Beta and Omega, which you can easily get. Wiki-newbie 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm just wanted 2 let someone know that some guy has gone on the X-men page and changed words around to somehow include "cody" and has changed facts all together, i went on there to find articles about the X-men for school but I guess i'll just have 2 look somewhere else.

[edit] SHB Pic

It needs to be changed, the image just does not work for it's dimensions. I know it would be good if we could include every single member into the pic but i don't see that happening (the avengers article is going through the same thing). If we could find a comic cover that has most of the members (comething like this [1] ). I think it would work out great. What do you all think.Phoenix741 21:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it should be kept. Thelaststand3

Well yea it is a good pic, but because of the dimmensions of the SHB, inorder to fit, the picture has to be way to small which blurs out almost every single person on the pic, so wouldn't yopu want a pic that actually shows the x-men and not just something you have to squint to look at.Phoenix741 21:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree its too small. Would it be possible to crop deadpool off the edge and blow it up bigger?

Iron Ghost 22:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I did that. Cut Deadpool off so it could fit on my backround. Thelastsand3

K i put in a pic w/o deadpool and i made it a bit bigger, and it looks alot better.Phoenix741 14:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That looks alot better than before. Deadpool isn't even an X-Man anyway. Thelastsand3 20:57 14 January 2007

Actually he was. I think including him in the picture was a little joke since none of the X-men really like being reminded of the fact. --Shaoken 23:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What?!? when? i don't even think he is a mutant.Phoenix741 23:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion?

I think the mention of X-Men as some sort of metaphor for abortion is definitely reaching to try and find common ground with your beliefs when there is none. Disregarding the fact that it references only one or two scenes from the third movie (and doesn't supply any reference to this being in the comics), abortion is an issue thats acceptability largely depends on your opinion as to when life begins. The mutant cure was an entirely self-affecting medical procedure, meaning there's absolutely no way it could be argued taking The Cure would kill a living being ala abortion. If we really need to use it for some sort of metaphor, it's more akin to labor disputes, with the jeering onlookers representing striking workers and those seeking the Cure being scabs. Joehundredaire 10:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

ok, huh?!?Phoenix741 19:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magneto Jewish?

It was my understanding that Magneto was in the concentration camp because he was a Gypsy not Jewish? Yet this article has him listed along with Kitty Pryde as being so.

Marvel lists (http://www.marvel.com/universe/Magneto_%28Magnus%29) his citizenship and birthplace us unknown.--Jan 21 07. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ford Prefect2nd (talk • contribs) 02:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

He's Jewish.
Check out his article for more details on the whole 'Jewish/Gypsy' disupute.--DrBat 00:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] main image

The main image is nice, but does anyone think it's too cluttered? Not too mention too wide... I thought the Larocca one from the X-Men handbook was better. --DrBat 21:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It supposedly doesn't count as fair use. Wiki-newbie 21:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rosters

The rosters in the infobox need to go. The article is about the entire history of X-Men, not just now. This is the way this WikiProject has been shown to feel about this sort of matter in many discussions. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If the article was only about the current teams, you'd have a point. It's about the past AND current, and the current teams are a very important part of the X-verse, so they belong.76.214.173.215 09:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Articles should not suffer recentism. No one but you wants it. Consensus wins. WikiNew 12:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus my ass. From what I can see, there were several other people putting that list back up before me. Alot more than just you and Chris. You wanna play that game, then the consensus for the list wins. And again, if the article only talked about what was happening recently, you'd have a point, but the lists are just a tiny part of the article, and in no way tell anyone that the article is just about what is happening recently.76.214.173.215 05:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Right, the article is not just about the recent comics, so neither should the infobox be. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that they don't belong. There's an entire article dedicated to the roster of the X-Men - we don't need month-by-month changes here. CovenantD 05:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't twist my words around. Info boxes are about the info on the titles. People are going to want some quick info when the come to this page, and the rosters in the info box are the quickest way to get them. Leave 'em up.76.214.173.215 06:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with CovenantD, Wiki-newbie, and ChrisGriswold. There is already a page for the rosters of the teams, and adding that info to the infobox is just adding clutter to the page. vanis 06:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tense

This article should discuss fictional events in present tense, rather than past, to differentiate from real events. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. We're discussing things very much from an out-of-universe perspective as it is. See Storm (comics) and Transformers (fiction) for another example of this style the article has. Wiki-newbie 20:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Great, then this will improve the article even more. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Your reply is too ambigious. Wiki-newbie 12:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What more do you want? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
There's a lot of past tense used to describe fictional events. "The 'all-new, all-different X-Men' were led by Cyclops" There's also stuff like "Wolverine/Logan who would become the breakout character": "Would" he? Or "did" he? He did. He became the breakout character. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] X-Men of the world

The list in this section is unnecessary. It doesn't tell you any more about the subject of the article than saying X-Men has a lot of international characters. This either needs to be deleted or split off into its own article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

This article is very much in need of references, particularly because of some original research and POV problems. I notice that there are some references in the references section, but it's not clear what they are backing up. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] magneto

im suprise magneto got his power back in the third movie. its cool that there going to probly make x4 because im a fan of there movies. and im suprise xavier survied i wait therw all the way therw the creadits to see who was in it but then it showed this part in the end that xavier was in a medical bed witch is cool he said like hi to the nurse i here it was his twin brother because it said that xavier almost died and magneto ran the school for a while. im just wondering who would win magneto or xavier —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trevor5575 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Wording.

The X-Men occasionally guest-starred on Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends. Spider-Man, Iceman and Firestar were the three regular heroes. The X-Men first appeared on the Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends episode The Origin of Iceman. Appearing in this particular episode (in a flashback sequence only) are Professor X and the five original X-Men: Iceman, Cyclops, Angel, Marvel Girl and Beast. The next appearance on Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends was in the episode A Firestar is Born. Making appearances in this particular episode are Professor X, Cyclops, Angel, Wolverine, Storm, and Juggernaut (plus Magneto in a cameo appearance). The X-Men would return the following season in the episode entitled The X-Men Adventure. Making appearances there were Professor X, Cyclops, Storm, Nightcrawler, Colossus, Sprite, and Thunderbird. The X-Men Adventure was meant to be a pilot for an X-Men cartoon, featuring the X-Men characters in the episode, plus Lady Lightning (animated version of Carol Danvers/Ms. Marvel) and Videoman as members. Needless to say, the cartoon never happened.

That last line, "Needless to say, the cartoon never happened." (I've put it in bold) doesn't feel entirely NPOV. I don't think it actually insinuates any kind of opinion; I just don't like the wording. I'm editing it to, "The cartoon was never produced." I think it reads more objectively. HXcGeek 08:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Card Game

I see there is no mention to the Xmen Trading Card Game that was put out by Wizards of the Coast. I think it should be mentioned. See List of collectible card games#2000 Releases --Mjrmtg 04:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by 68.34.51.231

Is he right, or do we need to revert them?Phoenix741 18:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Right about what? S/he hasn't even bothered to comment on this talk page. I see nothing in the edit summaries that justifies the insistence on her/his prefered version in defiance of the discussion above. CovenantD 19:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That is all I needed to hear. Was really wondering if something has changed or not. Guess it hasn't thanks.Phoenix741 19:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main image

Let's talk. CovenantD 19:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The X-Men roster at the end of 2006, by Mark Brooks

X-Men roster

All I am going to say is this. I can't see any character in that image besides Sabertooth. If we could cut down the image so that the people in the center are bigger, I am cool with that. Until then I think we should use the other image, cause we can see the characters better, and it shows all of the main X-men (cyclops, beast, wolvie, etc, etc)Phoenix741 19:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support (Just to formalize it...) CovenantD 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support (Since we are being all official and such)Phoenix741 20:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Nice & clear image--Stavenn 23:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cover art for X-Men (vol. 2) #200, by David Finch

X-Men (vol. 2) #200

I prefer this one. The previous image wasn't very well recieved. It was dull: a line-up. This is a quality image that defines X-Men. WikiNew 19:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Dull yes, but at least you could make out who was who.Phoenix741 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I can barely see Wolverine or Xavier in the line-up version. WikiNew 19:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My biggest problem with this one is the size of the characters in relation to the panel. It seems as though the focus of the pic is a big empty space, and all the X people are arranged at the periphery of that space. As a result, the characters on the far side are relatively small and difficult to see. Yeah, some of the individual characters are hard to see in the Roster pic, but with a lineup this large somebody's going to be depreciated. It's the overall effect that I think is important. Also, the level of detail, while nice in a large pic, is a bit too busy for something at 250px.

If this one is kept, I'd like to see the date appear in the caption to give it some temporal reference. We all know the lineup will change sooner rather than later and should avoid the implication that the pic shows the current lineup. :) CovenantD 19:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer this one. It's the X-Men past and present and possibly future. I like it. Thelaststand3 20:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I like this one too, though my first choice would be X-Men #1. --Maestro25 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination for Giant Size X-Men #1 cover

This is the most iconic image of the X-Men. It covers the well-known original and "all-new" teams, which also gives a sense of the changing nature of the membership. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Works for me, but since that means the Giant Size X-Men cover wont be in the text anymore, could we put the roster pic that is up now, at the bottom of the page.Phoenix741 12:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the new picture (X-men #1(interlocking))

It is better, but it is still kinda sorta hard to see some of the people, I think we should use a comic cover seing as how they fit better into these articles. Giant Size X-Men #1 seems to fit perfectly. Phoenix741 14:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

There's too much going on in the pictur to even tell who's in it. I liked the X-Men roster from 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.77.55.20 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Picture and list

Everyone always gets in a huff whenever the lists for the current teams are put up, saying that the article can't show recent stuff. Yet, people also get in a huff whenever they change the picture from the one that shows the most RECENT teams of X-Men. Hypocritical much? So, you can either change the pic and remove the lists, or keep the pic and allow the lists back, because they both "violate" this so called recentism thing, which doesn't even count here anyways.68.34.51.231 23:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The picture wasn't for recentism, is was because we could see everyone. That is why I did not want to use that other pic, you can't see anyone. Next time read the discussion before you post.Phoenix741 12:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I read the discussion perfectly. That current pic you use violates the "recentism" crap that everyone is flinging around. If that can be used, so can the lists. Why don't you read before you post next time.68.34.51.231 17:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We're not complaining about the recency. We just want to be able to see everyone clearly. I don't like your attitude, but that is beside the point.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../x/-/m/Talk%7EX-Men_a2f9.html"