Talk:X-Men: Legacy

message: "Others artists, including Igor Kordey and Ethan Van Sciver, often illustrated issues because the series was published semi-bi-weekly"
What, exactly, is semi-bi-weekly? Weekly?
:I think the text means the period when frequency changed for only part of the year. There have been periods when Marvel ups the frequency of a title during one season only rather than a permanent change of pace. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-bi-weekly? 

message: I think this page should be moved to X-Men (comic book).  Other than the clunky name it has now, I think the change would follow convention.  And we can refer X-Men, vol. 1 to uncanny, so moving the page would allow for both volumes to be discussed (i.e. Astonishing X-Men). --Silver lode 00:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Move - per my nom. --Silver lode 00:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 'Move per above.  WesleyDodds 07:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: But this article is about a single comic book, not the name.  Just a simple note saying that Uncanny X-Men was originally just called X-Men is all we need.  There's not another comic being labeled as X-Men right now and the one that was has a different name.  It's best known as Uncanny X-Men anyways and has been for decades.  The volume number is somewhat trival.  WesleyDodds 07:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: While I am still not sure if I agree with you that X-Men (comic book) would create more confusion, I would like to point out if you feel that (comic book) is the wrong way to do things you should bring it up in the Wikiproject so that you can change the way the guidelines say we should create pages.  My original thought behind this was to make this page more like Astonishing X-Men which describes each volume of the series (though vol's 1 and 2 are not very long).  Should they be split into Astonishing X-Men (vol. 1) etc.?  I don't think I will pursue another move though bc it seems no be a non starter of an issue since there aren't that many comments, and since your move is at least an improvement from what it was. --Silver lode 13:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I noticed this article is listed under "Requested moves" on the wikiproject comics Notice Board.  Has this discussion reached a point where a survey/vote is appropriate regarding a move or merger?  If so, I'll create the vote at the bottom of this talk page (well, or someone else will).  Since this article is a tad lengthy and X-Men is more than a tad lengthy, I wanted to check the status before considering move options. -Markeer 13:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Cool.  Since you first suggested the move above, I'll move the Notice Board item down to "Completed Move Discussions" (with no consensus to move).  Silver lode added the item to the Notice Board so if he objects or wishes for a vote I'll be happy to move it back later.  Just trying to clean up the Notice Board a bit. -Markeer 14:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: I think this article needs some massive cleanup.  I can work with what is there, but I don't have enough knowledge to fully fix it.  Anyone want to help? --Silver lode 00:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why delete the list of issues, I think you just want to delete because it's too many and if u think it's useless what about the collections?.--hottie 07:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what if it's big, the collections (trade paperbacks and hard cover collections) are more useless. They are more people who buy the regular issues than the paperbacks/collections.--hottie 14:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Blah you're lucky I'm busy because I could put that list back and put the release month, who's in the cover, writer watsoever.--hottie 23:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: if you do put that much effort into it, i suggest making it its own page ala list of amazing spiderman issues.  and have that linked from here.  --Silver lode 01:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: *Add comic series box - done
*Better picture needed for box
*Delete list of issues
*Citations needed everywhere
--Silver lode 19:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why delete the list of issues, I think you just want to delete because it's too many and if u think it's useless what about the collections?.--hottie 07:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: Is this list of issue titles really necessary?  It's enormous, incomplete, and I don't see the need.
Bhissong 20:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what if it's big, the collections (trade paperbacks and hard cover collections) are more useless. They are more people who buy the regular issues than the paperbacks/collections.--hottie 14:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blah you're lucky I'm busy because I could put that list back and put the release month, who's in the cover, writer watsoever.--hottie 23:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: if you do put that much effort into it, i suggest making it its own page ala list of amazing spiderman issues.  and have that linked from here.  --Silver lode 01:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Issuse titles

message: Okay is there any need for all them detail plots of his run? Anyone else think they should be deleted. Thelaststand3
The whole description of his run is biased towards the section anyway. I think the whole section should be deleted. Can I get an Amen somebody? Elemental5293 (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Grant Morision's Run

message: dizfactor The entire section on Grant Morrison's run needs serious cleanup for blatantly biased language.  —Preceding comment was added at 15:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: :Image:XMEN192012 col.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 (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:XMEN192012 col.jpg

message: Surely this article should be at the title for the series as it was named for most of its run instead of what is, by all appearances, a temporary title. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: What? 86.143.48.55 (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "almost near-death" 

message: Hello there, my edit
New X-Men artist Frank Quitely redesigned the look of team, giving them sleek, leather / polyester outfits instead of their traditional superhero uniforms for a more contemporary look and feel,probably influenced by the first X-Men movie.
was deleted ... altough I don't have it sourced (yeah yeah), it's fairly obvious - the new outfits started to appear few months after the movie and they were first seen in the movie (not in the book, where they used their outfits since 60s).... --89.24.108.71 (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  new x-men suits and movie 

message: As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T  14:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: C-Class rated for Comics Project

message: Good series analysis at CBR . -Sharp962 (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series commentary 

message: I've removed this section again, as it is a long list of titles and incomplete. Maybe a better solution would be to create a new List page like the List of Strangehaven issues or the List of Amazing Spider-Man comics? Anyone else want to weigh in. Richardm9 (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue List 

message: When I added the last two storylines to the team roster list, I wasn't sure if I should put the actual release year or the year listed in the indicia section. Issues #242–243 were released in 2010 (in November and December), so I listed them as coming out in 2010, but the dates listed in their indicia (their "cover dates," though Marvel doesn't actually put it on the cover anymore) are January and February 2011. Let me know if it needs to be switched! DeadpoolRP (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years in Team Roster List 

message: With the series ended and the title re-launched with a new #1 and a related but different character, it probably makes sense to rename this page from X-men: Legacy to something more representative, maybe X-Men vol. 2?
Ecrz (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguably.  But I suppose it depends where the article about Legacy vol 2 is going to be.  If it's still this article, it should stay.  If it's going to be a separate article, I'd agree with this being moved to X-Men (vol. 2), to go along with X-Men (vol. 3).   It's not like we are terribly consistent at this.  Morwen - Talk 10:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-title 

message: Does the roster section really need to be as detailed as it is?  The book hasn't really had a consistent roster since Messiah Complex - every arc has had its own line-up, and there's no concept of "Rogue's field team" like there had been in the initial part of Carey's run: can we just have "Rogue and friends" from #226 onwards?  Morwen - Talk 18:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  roster section overlong 

message: as we all know x-men legacy vol.2 is debuting as part of marvel now! which has no relationship to vol.1 just a name is same. so should we create another article for vol. 2 or put that title's information in this page also. well i think new article should be created because x-men legacy vol. 1 was one of the longest running x-book and it was a team book but vol.2 seems to have no relationship whatsoever. but still what's your idea??--Shoxee1214 (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your test for deciding whether a book has "no relationship", and how does it apply to other books such as Astonishing X-Men, X-Treme X-Men and Excalibur (comics)?   Morwen (Talk) 12:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: well thing is x-men legacy was a x-men centric and team book. and x-men legacy vol. 2 is announced to be a separate title focusing on legion only making it a solo title . and though it will be a x-book but it wuldn't feature a x-men team or an x-man. so??--Shoxee1214 (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: X-Men Legacy has basically been a solo title since it's had that name, though.  First focusing on Professor X, then Rogue.  Now there's another character taking centre stage: Legion.    All the press is talking about the "relaunch of X-Men Legacy", not "a new book that happens to be called X-Men Legacy".  Mind, I think we would do well to formulate guidelines about what articles about comic books we should separate and which we should merge (and also, when we we have articles about titles that are distinct from their characters: why do we have Wolverine (comic book) but not Thor (comic book), for example.)   Morwen (Talk) 13:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok i got your point thanks. but for your matter what do you suggest should we create Thor (comic book) article or should we merge wolverine (comic book) article because i think a separate comic book article will be good .why? because as we know article shouldn't be extremely large and complex and by making a new article for comic book a new less complex article can be created separating it from a character itself. well its my point. whats your's??--Shoxee1214 (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't thought about it enough to come up with a specific proposal.  I don't think there's much point creating extra stubs for Marvel or DC universe things though, when there are already so many articles that require basic work.  Morwen (Talk) 14:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-Men Legacy vol. 2 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on X-Men: Legacy. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070616114829/http://www.timberdonkey.com:80/x-men/uxm/142.php to http://www.timberdonkey.com/x-men/uxm/142.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified