Talk:X-Men: The End

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
More information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (publisher): Marvel Comics work group

Contents 1 Corrections 2 Criticism section 3 Pics 4 Focus 5 What I Did

[edit] Corrections

(IchBin 07:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)) Corrected spelling errors and some sentence structure.

Is the X-Men/Trainees section supposed to be under the GeNext part?? Is this written well? I don't know the story, and I'm not a big comic book fan, but it does seem a little confusing to me, perhaps it's just the comic book world that's confusing. Tydamann (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

As per numerous policies, unsourced material may be removed. Wikipedia is not a place to cram in your personal feelings about a book. Find some sources for the criticism, or don't put it in. Phil Sandifer 19:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pics

Can someone give captions to the covers that tell who the various characters are?

[edit] Focus

This article needs more information besides the content of the story. For example, when was it published?

[edit] What I Did

I kept the links to the criticism but ... is it noteable criticism? That's why I removed the actual content. If Scott McCloud or Mark Texeria or Joss Whedon weighs in on this book, then sure, link away. Some dude out of Ocala with an internet connection? Not so noteable. In conclusion, the heavy-handed, deep and rough criticism of the book (it's not even canon, people) sat really wrong with me. Lots42 02:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You critisize "some dude out of Ocala with an internet connection" as a critic, but then go ahead and proclaim that this sits "really wrong with" you and deleat the information without any discussion. I've reverted until proper discussion can be had with more than 2 people and a consensis can be reached about deleating the information. The information is valid in terms of keeping it in. First, the fact that its canon or not is the result of heavy critisim, of both this series and the similar Wolverine: the End series. I think when someone like Claremont, perhaps one of the three most important writers of X-Men, writes X-Men The End, it's pretty authoritative. However, due to the critism, it has now fairly universally became viewed as an one possibility of how X-Men could end or an alternate reality ending. The critisim section, for one, goes to show the controversy at the time about the validity of the story arc as cannon. The very fact that you can now make a statement like "it's not even canon, people" belies the fact that there was a lot of discussion on this point at the time the series came out and this section comments on that. Second, there is nothing in the rulebook for sources in Wikipedia about only puting in information that has been said or written by the big wigs so to speak. While one statement by someone like Whedon or Quesada or Clermont might weight much more than 10 statements by a fan or a critic, the fact remains that an outside source is a source that is valuable, even if manute. In this case, the reason for so many citations at the end of the section is persisely because so many "big wigs" at Marvel have been silent on the issue. Thus, we are forced to use multiple sources from somewhat lesser authorities to support the claim that multiple critics commented on this. Besides, how likely is it that someone at Marvel would actually critisise the series that they actually pushed. It happens and when it does it's big news, but it's unlikely. So the lack of really conclusive source doesn't mean that the information is not valid. Please, by all means, improve it and find other sources to support the claims or disprove the claims if you don't agree, but please don't just deleate the section without any discussion because you do not agree with it, especially if you go on to critize some critic from Ocala (I don't have any idea who he is, by the way) without any support for your criticism. --RossF18 03:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)