Talk:Uncanny X-Men

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Uncanny X-Men article.
Article policies
WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Line-Ups

I reverted changes to Line-Ups, because the previous reversion removed some correct information (e.g. the inclusion of Havok, Polaris, and Banshee at certain points). I also made some additional changes. It still needs a lot of changes. There have been many line-up changes (a lot of them minor, like one member). I'm going to try to do some more work, and it would helpful if others could look it over as well. It may also be good to come up with a consensus on certain matters, like whether a character counts in the line-up if he/she quits in the middle of that issue. --JamesAM 18:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edits, you don't need any character just because they appeared or became a X-Men member in UXM#40, #67, #46 etc doesn't mean they are already in line-up and don't write it Xavier write it Professor X.--LooseTheHotButtonS 13:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't changes in the line-up be noted? If new members join in an issue and the line-up changes, shouldn't that be noted? I think it would best to reflect all the changes if a line-up section is to be included. It would be inaccurate to imply that Thunderbird was on the team for 40 issues rather than 2. If consensus develops that only major line-up changes should be included (and I don't think I agree with that), it would probably be better to only list the issue when that line-up was introduced rather than list a range of issues that's inaccurate. Also, some important changes were eliminated in the revert. Banshee was a member of the All-New, All-Different X-Men for several years, and he was removed. I agree that Professor X (since it's the name of his entry and "code name") is better to use. Xavier was simply the name from the revert. --JamesAM 16:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I altered the reference to Carol Danvers because she was never technically an X-Man. She explicitly declined an offer to join the team in Uncanny X-Men #164. She did not accompany the X-Men on missions when they returned to earth. When she left the X-Mansion, Danvers remarked that she was glad she wasn't an X-Man. So that's my reasoning behind that change. --JamesAM 02:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing all the names with the references, what a strain! ;)

[edit] Comic info box Image

I noticed there was no image in the comic info. box. With so many incarnations of Uncanny, I just picked a popular one (from the Dark Phoenix Saga) and added it. If anyone has a better image, by all means, put it in there. I just figured any Uncanny image was better than nothing. Bhissong 04:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)bhissong

It's fine. X-Men (vol. 2) uses a recent image, but as there isn't one uploaded this one can stay. --Jamdav86 16:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I still think we need to find a better image than Uncanny #479. Sure, it's current, but most of the image is taken up by an enormous sword. The X-men are just background. I think we to keep looking, and for now, keep some sort of "classic" image up. It's not perfect, but better than nothing. Bhissong 20:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)bhissong

Huh, now you're picking. The pic is good and current, the current cast is all in the pic, just because the "classic" image ur saying is notable you're going to use it forever well I say no--hottie 16:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to change it again because I have a sneeking suspicion that you plan on just changing it back. I chose the older image because it was iconic and the article itself addresses the comic series, not just the current incarnation. I wish there was a nice picture of the current team. I'd be all for displaying it in the image box. But, all of the most recent images so far have been relatively unusable, either because of size or content (e.g., the huge sword dominating the image you seem to prefer). Hopefully soon there will be a nice, current cover that will highlight the characters. But for now, I suppose there's no sense worrying about it. (Oh, and dude: take a vallum, get a girlfriend/boyfriend, or something. You are WAY too tense about these articles). Bhissong 01:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)bhissong

Wait for that special cover you want, and oh yeah I'm pretty tense with articles that's why I'm not editing here regularly--hottie 16:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The current cover being displayed shows the Starjammers not any incarnation of the X-Men (except for a barely visible Havok and Polaris).

I think is should be http://www.marvel.com/comics/onsale/covers/uploaded/0.032069001208293278image_big.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.171.66 (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flagship?

Is Uncanny X-Men really the flagship? I've always thought Amazing Spider-Man was. --User:002KFlash052 23:31, 7 Aug. 2006

X-Men has traditionally been the best-selling Marvel title. However the sentence should be changed to 'flagship of the X-Men franchise', as its popularity has slipped in recent years. --Jamdav86 18:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian rock band

Since it's apparently not mentioned here, I feel compelled to point out that there is/was also an Australian rock band by the name of the Uncanny X-Men, fronted by Brian Mannix. They were fairly popular in the 1980s... http://www.uncannyxmen.homestead.com/ --ozzmosis 14:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Storm, Warpath and Nightcrawler.jpg

Image:Storm, Warpath and Nightcrawler.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 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 11:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Current Line-Up

This is getting on my nerves becuase someone keeps changing the current lineup to people who aren't on the team anymore. Prfoessor Xavier, Caliban, Hepzibah and Warpath are no longer part of the team. So please do not keep changing it back. Thelaststand3 20:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger with minor character

Yes to merging. Maudemiller (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I Disagree, each character in X-Men has their own page. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That is not a valid reason. Perhaps the other characters should be merged, if you are arguing simply for consistency; moreover, your comment would be more credible if it were grammatically correct. Sincerely. Maudemiller (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Your response might be more credible were it not so needlessly condescending. The merge is a ridiculous proposal. By all means suggest a deletion for a character as minor as this, but merging a minor character into an article about a 60-year-old comic line shows a clear misunderstanding of how comic book articles should be laid out - see List of Watchmen characters, Batman supporting characters and Marvel Family as opposed to Watchmen, Batman and Captain Marvel (DC Comics). -Kez (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Only Marvel title to reach 500 consecutively? Not quite

I removed this

thus making Uncanny X-Men as the only Marvel title to reach #500 consecutively

because it's not quite right. Journey Into Mystery/Thor managed to hit 500 without any non-consecutive numbering business, and while there was a title change involved, there was likewise a title change involved with X-men becoming Uncanny X-Men, and adding to this the fact that X-Men was in reprints and on hiatus at points, I think you really have to give JiM/Thor as much right to the claim here.76.226.128.109 (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)