Talk:X-Men/Archive 2

message: In the section about international characters, Bishop is listed under both the Phillipines and Australia. Which is correct? Shinji nishizono 21:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bishop's Birthplace? 

message: The members of the team originally consists of Havok, Polaris, Iceman, Rogue, Gambit and Wolverine while the members of the upcoming team written by new writer Mike Carey will consist of Cable, Cannonball, Iceman, Rogue, Mystique and Sabretooth. So why is it that someone placed Iceman, Gambit, Rogue, Sabretooth and Mystique under the X-Men team on the right side column?? I understand that some others have constantly corrected this but this particular person or people continue to edit the wrong things. So i kindly ask this person or people, whoever you are, to stop editing the wrong things. --Chambervii  21:30 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Just who is the guy who keeps editing the wrong team lineup for the Adjectiveless X-Men. Sabretooth and Mystique are only mentioned to be joining in an interview. They HAVE NOT joined the team in the comics. Besides, if they are in the team, then where is Cable's name under that heading? To whoever this person is, please do not degrade this site with your meddling. --Chambervii 15:30 8 March 2006 (UTC)
:Mystique joined the team on a probationary status in Milligan's run. --DrBat 22:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True--hottie 13:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-Men Roster 

message: This may sound ironic because I originally added the small character briefs and had a rather nasty dispute about keeping them but these sections have grown out of control. Originally, they included only the defining details about each character (as much, I thought, an outsider needed to understand about each important individual to understand the series as a whole) but now they have grown to include a ridiculous amount of biographical information and descriptions of abilities.
For example, the current Psylocke blurb
* Psylocke (Betsy Braddock), an British her psychic mind altered to produce telekinetic energies, allowing her to levitate and manipulate matter with her mind, propel herself through the air, project protective force screens, and generate focused energy blades that can sever the bonds between molecules and disrupt neural relays. Formerly a connection to the Crimson Dawn that gave her a mysteriously altered astral form and enabled her to utilize shadows to teleport herself and others over great distances, telepathy and a psychic knife that disabled her opponents physically and mentally, wore a Captain Britain uniform that increased her strength and allowed her to fly, precognition telepath and femme fatale, originally introduced in the Captain Britain comic. 
Past Psylocke blurb:
* Psylocke (Betsy Braddock), an English telepath and femme fatale, originally introduced in the Captain Britain comic. 
All that extra information would seem best on the Psylocke page.
Also, there are many details about individual plotlines such as the Dark Phoenix Saga and even a What If about the Dark Phoenix Saga. Surely, these would be better off on related pages.
This page needs a huge clean-up. It needs to be reduced down to about 35-40KBs and it needs to concentrate on the bare bones information (which is still a lot of information because this is a 40-year old franchise) that would be useful to someone only vaguely familiar or unfamiliar with the series and how it developed. The page currently seems like a place to store the favorite factoids of various users, which seems to happen a lot of comic book-related pages. Let’s try to cut it down. - Rorschach567 9/3/05
:OK, I know created a seperate article for the comic's history section (which took about 75% of the article) and stripped it down considerably for the main article. I also phased out the character captions, which I felt were redundant, after all, just click e.g. Cyclops if you want to find out what Cyke's superpowers are. But feel free to discuss, this is Wikipedia. Onomatopoeia 17:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-Up

message: Can anyone help me find sources on the following?
*"Lee has said he invented genetic 'mutants' to find a way to create a number of super-powered characters without having to come up with a separate and interesting origin for each one."
:I’ve heard this too but it would be nice to find an official source
*"Wolverine consistently won awards as the most popular comic character, so between 1980 and 1984, at least one issue per year focused on him."
:What awards exactly did Wolverine win?
*The X-Men as gay icons.
:I’m no expert on gay culture and I imagine there are gay X-Men readers, but I have yet to see any other source stating that the X-Men are "iconic" to the gay community. I could be convinced, I’d just like some evidence.
::I don't know much on the rest, but isn't the Lee quote (maybe, just maybe) from the DVD of either the first or second X-Men movie...? I have the slightest hunch... or maybe I caught it on tv or somesuch and am horribly wrong. I do half remember actually SEEING him say this. Might just be me being all hallucinatory and/or stupid, though. Try and check.Zeppocity 21:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Anybody got an idea what better image to use in the infobox? What I don't like about the current one (:Image:X-Men174.jpg) is that it's more a scene than a team shot and that it has the blacked-out silouette in the middle...--Fritz S. 14:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I thought that too. I think the previous one, with the cast shot from Cable/Deadpool, is better. --DrBat 14:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: much better pic now--Jaysscholar 18:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there something without speech bubbles we could use? What about a cover of one of the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe issues? (I don't really remember what the X-Men issue looked like, but maybe something like that...) All the other articles on comic book teams (like Avengers (comics), Fantastic Four, Justice League) use these iconic covers, maybe we could find something to match those... --Fritz S. 19:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better image? 

message: Currently the History section makes no mentioning of the name change from X-Men to Uncanny X-Men. Anybody know which was the first issue labled Uncanny? --Fritz S. 13:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a teeny bit complicated - on the cover, it was straight or almost straight after Dark Phoenix - 138 or 139. But the "Uncanny" tag had been used on the page 1 blurb for a long time before that, and I don't know about the indicia. - SoM 14:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: vote to keep as "Xmen", if that's what you're asking. Hamilton burr 08:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncanny 

message: How's it going?  Any more tasks need doing? I added a few reference sources, anybody got any others to add, anyone have access to the X-Men Companions? Hiding  talk 17:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that generally not so much work has been done on the article since it became the collab. As for what still needs to be done, the History section still misses some important things in the first subsections, and in contrast the last two subsections (Changing and modernizing the franchise and Post Morrison X-Men and House of M) are too long, I think. Also, the image on top is still unsatisfing, the Claremont quote under Racism is unsourced, the differentiation between homosexuals and lesbians in Religious, sexual and other minorities seems odd to me (done), the Northstar image is unsourced (replaced), Real-life comparison might need some work and images. Plus, the Character diversity section is merly a list, and posibbly could be expanded to be a fully-written Characters section that also gives a little detail about some of the main characters. I'm also not so sure the article really needs the cast section. That should probably go in the movies' articles... --Fritz S. 19:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: In my opinion it isn't (see above). Either way, the article should be peer reviewed first, anyway. --Fritz S. 20:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration 

message: Is it worth nominatinmg as it stands? Hiding  talk 19:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion it isn't (see above). Either way, the article should be peer reviewed first, anyway. --Fritz S. 20:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article

message: Is this really justified...?
a) It isn't really a point of controversy; if the view is significantly held at all, those who do aren't exactly raising a war on the issue... It's not so much a point of controversy as a potential criticism. I don't really reckon we should include a Controversy section just for the heck of it; instead, when the issue is big enough for it to pretty much have to be approached in the article. I really, really don't think this is the case.
b) Taking it simply as criticism rather than a true point of controversy, should it be here at all? Are we really supposed to find, for every single article on a piece of work, criticisms to include? Because, again, if this was a substantial concern among readers or critics, I'd get the point, but I'd never even seen the thought expressed elsewhere, so it seems... baseless.
So, maybe we should check what to do to this, or is everyone really perfectly okay with keeping it? Personally, I'd do away with it; it ilustrates no particular main point and very much seems a very specific minority's view (if not, no offence, a transference of concerns the user who added it has himself).
Thoughts...? Zeppocity 11:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs rephrased to be less... virulant... and reheaded, but I have seen the criticism raised elsewhere with moderate frequency, and I think it does deserve a place in the article. - SoM 13:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If it has to be there, there needs to be some rebuttal, or opposing view, to it. And why did Purple Rose, the guy who did it, mark it as a minor edit? --DrBat 13:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the new Controversy section 

message: RE: X-Men #1 as "the highest selling comic book of all time": This claim keeps being made for one comic or another on Wikipedia, never with any citation. I'm sure the author did not make this up, but read it or heard it somewhere. So just state the source -- no biggie. However, if that source is simply a company press release, that's inadequate on any journalistic or encyclopedic level. Also, a claim like this needs a number that can be checked again publically available circulation figures -- which comics and magazine publishers print once a year and must be public by law in order to sell advertising. -- Tenebrae 00:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major claim needs citation 

message: When did Iceman get his powers back?  It certainly hasn't happened in Deadly Genesis 1, The newest issues of either XMen series or New Excalibur.  I'm going to delete the addition, and ask that someone bring meaningful documentation. Elefuntboy 05:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In X-Men #178. Keep up :) - SoM 11:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, I totally just checked and feel like an idiot.  My bad, guys =). Elefuntboy 15:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iceman 

message: Shouldn't Ultimate Colossus be added?--Dylankidwell 00:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious, sexual and other minorities 

message: When Professor Xavier founded the X-Men, he was not a parapalegic.  His legs had been crushed by Lucifer beyond repair.  He still retained feeling in them, he simply could not move them.  Just a minor, almost semantic terminology thing.  I'd change it but I'm afraid I'd muck up the flow of the section; I'd rather let someone versed in this sort of editing do it.
Psuedonym 19:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Xavier and His Legs 

message: Well the basic note is still there, but could someone explain to me why racism still has an an entire section as a metaphor, whilst the information and evidence of the sexual orientation discrimination allegory - the "coming out" in the film and the legacy vs. AIDS viruses amongst - has been removed from the page? If not, I'll hapiily re-add it asap. -Erolos 03:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, nevermind that, it was vandalised by a random IP and not corrected, I'm re-adding it - the discussion above this actually seems to confirm consensus for it anyway, even if that was necessary. -Erolos 03:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I just added it back too. I don't know if it had been removed multiple times, but it clearly needs watching... Binerman 04:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the first time, and not the last either. Havok (T/C/c) 07:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual allegory removed 

message: Seriously, he's more like the team pet, or mascot. This is the only place that I've ever seen him referred to as an actual member of Astonishing X-men. To me, it just looks odd for him to be listed. Arcanum7
:Actually the OHOTMU X-Men Handooks class him as a team member and he's noted as being member of Excalibur. Originalsinner 01:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and Beast also looks like a mascot--Hotwiki 13:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Lockheed really need to be included in the team roster? 

message: Should it be added to the 2000s timeline during the Morrison run of New X-men? Not really sure how to state it however. Seikonekoala 13:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Mutations? 

message: Under the Films section, Pyro is listed as appearing in X2 and X3.  Wasn't Pyro in the first film too?  In the classroom setting, he tries to get Rogue's attention with a little fire and then Iceman freezes the fire.  I know it was not the same actor but I remember reading that it was supposed to be Pyro and they changed the actor for X2 because the first one didn't look like your typical bad boy.  If Beast's minor appearance in the first film can be listed, shouldn't Pyro's appearance be listed as well? --kwyjibear 05:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearances in other media 

message: May i know why there external links are being reduced to just 2? --Chamber
Wikipedia is not a library of links. CovenantD 13:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: On May 31, someone at IP 64.12.117.5 deleted the Reflecting concurrent social issues: Deafness and Cochlear implants subsection, with change 5619155.  They also included the following vandalish edits:
* A.K.A what losers they couldn't think of their own super-hero team.
* Me again:A.K.A what losers they couldn't think of their own super-hero team.
* Me again lets hopew this is the last time: A.K.A what losers they couldn't think of their own super-hero team.
* Lets hope this is the last time: A.K.A what losers they couldn't think of their own super-hero team.
* Guess no: A.K.A what losers they couldn't think of their own super-hero team.
I don't want to get into a revert war, so I'm asking whether people think the following paragraph belongs in the X-men article:
*Deafness and Cochlear implants: In X-Men: The Last Stand, a chemical 'cure' for mutants is discovered. The mutant community is divided over this, with some wanting to take it and lose their mutant abilities, while others protest. This divide has strong parallels to the deaf community's reaction to Cochlear implants, where people view them as the correction of a disability while others claim that there is nothing wrong with deafness and hence nothing to correct. This question of how to view mutanthood is illustrated in the language of the drug's proponents and opponents; Warren Worthington II of Worthington Pharmaceuticals, the company that developed the drug, presents himself and his company as trying to cure mutants of a disease. Protesters, however, chant “nothing to cure!”
: -- Jeff 04:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe it represents a connection to the argument on whether or not deaf people should get the implants. I read a review that actually compared Rogue's plight and her dilemma on whether or not get the 'cure' to that of deaf people. --DrBat 00:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflecting concurrent social issues: Deafness and Cochlear implants 

message: I was reading through various X-Men related pages today and I noticed that most of the time, comics are named by the X-Men v1 / X-Men v2 convention, but several articles also name them as Uncanny X-Men / X-Men, which I found confusing at times. I think we should reach a consciences on which naming system to use and change any that were named differently.
Schubatis1 02:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The adjectivelss X-Men title is usually refered to as X-Men volume 2. --DrBat 00:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that, but I've seen it both ways on Wikipedia and I only one method should be used to reduce confusion. Schubatis1 03:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series Names 

message: It's in the first paragraph, but Wolverine is Canadian though.
-G
:Although it's not the most common usage, 'American' can cover anyone from the American continents. Still, there are other members of the X-men who don't fall into that category. It should say something like 'US-based'. Nick Fel 11:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They all get American passports and identities when they join the Xavier Institute. 194.171.56.2 12:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...american mutants..." 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Essential characters 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  anti-catholic 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comic timeline 

message: 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)
thread_title:  X-Men Classes 

message: 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  ). I think it would work out great. What do you all think.Phoenix741 21:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Abortion? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  main image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Right, the article is not just about the recent comics, so neither should the infobox be. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 19:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Rosters 

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

text: What more do you want? --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 10:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tense 

message: 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)
thread_title:  X-Men of the world 

message: 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)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
thread_title:  magneto 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wording. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Card Game 

message: Is he right, or do we need to revert them?Phoenix741 18:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edits by 68.34.51.231 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Dull yes, but at least you could make out who was who.Phoenix741 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Main image 

message: 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)
thread_title: The X-Men roster at the end of 2006, by [[Mark Brooks (comics)|Mark Brooks]]

message: 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)
replies: text: Dull yes, but at least you could make out who was who.Phoenix741 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cover art for ''[[X-Men (vol. 2)]]'' #200, by [[David Finch]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Nomination for Giant Size X-Men #1 cover

message: 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)
thread_title: About the new picture (X-men  #1(interlocking))

message: 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)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Picture and list 

message: I have a proposed image for this page. Tell me what you think.
X-Men Disassembled —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
someone deleted your image, put it back up with a fair use rationale if you believe it is appropriate. SJMNY (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Image 

message: I'd like to help turn this into a "good article" and i think the first step should be to archive the discussion, none of which seems to be current or ongoing.  once we've done that we can hopefully move to deciding what needs to be sourced and how to go about that since inline sourcing was cited as the reason this isnt a "good article."
as per WP:ARCHIVE i'd like to seek consensus for doing this. SJMNY (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do...since two months have gone by and no one has objected, I say go for it.  Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.79.83.254 (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving and becoming a good article 

message: In the article, it says that the "X" in the name "X-Men" is a reference to the X gene which present in all mutants. However, waaaay back in Uncanny X-Men #1, Professor X says it stands for "eXtra power". Now fair enough, this is presumably not canon anymore, but I was wondering if it was worth a mention anywhere?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aawood (talk • contribs) 20:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "X" in X-men 

message: Was looking at the cover of X-Men #1.  
In another article I read that Marvel Girl is a daughter of, I think it was, Scott Summers, but when you click on the name, it says that she's Jean Grey (as I thought it was when I started reading X-Men) but I can't remember when she just became Jean instead of Marvel Girl.  
-Rachel Grey is Scott's dauhgter in an alternate timeline, she uses her mother Jean Grey's original codename, Marvel Girl.~~
In another article I wrote about Beast and on the cover of X-Men #1 it does show Beast in his human form.  It also shows how Iceman looked before he gained better control over his powers.  Also, since Bobby's shown with the original team, he MUST be older than portrayed in the movies.
In the movie, Rogue seems much younger than portrayed in the comics.  I do like how the movie explained her white hair (I can't remember if there ever was an explanation in the comics).  After all, it's hard to remember way back 40+ years or so when I started reading comics (and if the prices hadn't gone so high and the quality went down, I probably still would buy them; I think I'd need a whole room to keep them in, tho).
Any other differences anyone can explain or would like to mention?
I did like Prof X - - he seemed like the character come to life, and so did Wolverine. Unlike some paper-to-person conversions.
Katladygh (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-Men #1 

message: I've seen other titles on wikipedia adding the year date inside the disambiguation section, this seems like a good idea here. The more clear and specific an article's title the less need there is for an unwieldy otherusers template at the top of the article. Note: this increased movie title disambiguation specificity discussion started at: Talk:The X-Files (film) about whether to rename that article to The X-Files (Fight the Future) which is that movie's subtitle/nickname/working title or whether to rename it to The X-Files (1998 film) or neither (there is a second X-Files film scheduled for release July 25, 2008 titled The X-Files: I Want to Believe). Convergence Dude (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  otheruses is getting out of hand, how about [[X-Men (2000 film)]]? 

message: I searched around the internet and through Marvel's own catalog of products and there is no proof that something like X-men Dimensions exist. If anyone can proof it's existance as official legitimated Novel produced by Marvel, i'm okay with it. But if not, i would like to see it removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.6.232.115 (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I can't find anything either, and the second hit on google is for a forum where they are trying to figure out if it's a hoax or not, so I'm being bold and removing it.  If there's a source I missed, please feel free to add it back in.  Templarion (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no such thing as X-men: Dimensions novels! 

message: I've removed the image "giantsize1.jpg" because it is a varied form of the X-Men team. The image I've added right now actually features a cover of the X-Men that is clear, definate and modern - it's also an Uncanny cover, a part of the core X-Men series. -- A talk/contribs 00:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unsure about that. We should be reflecting a classic line-up and avoiding new-for-the-sake-of-new images. The Giant Size X-Men being an important issue as it showed the new team but it also showed the old one too. I'd rather we kept that one personally. (Emperor (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes, sorry for the longest reply - this page isn't on my watchlist yet. Well, I see what your getting at. But if it's portraying the classic (but varied) X-Men, shouldn't it be (at the very least) moved to the main body of the article? I'm not one for new-for-the-sake-of-new-type images, but it seems (to me) more like a "publication history" image, rather than a modern image to visual the members of a team. -- A talk/contribs 22:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article image 

message: I wrote current roster for every x-book in table form but it was undone.actually it is an easy and clear way of seeing current roster for every book then why it was undone????????????  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoxee1214 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Because, as has been pointed out to you in all the summaries, they are NOT needed.  It makes the page already larger than it needs to be, and there is a full roster list of the actual X-Men in the infobox.  Furthermore, if readers need a roster list for a specific book, they can go to that books page via the X-Men Comic Books template at the bottom and view the full roster lists on those pages where they belong, instead of making it tedious and overdone on here.70.226.117.142 (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Roster of Every X-Book 

message: This is not the first time I came across this statement about the first copy of the 90s edition of X-Men. This statement is false. How can a book be the highest selling book in history with 8 millions when the Asterix series, to take the most popular European series, has sold 325 millions copies with 34 books, making an average over 9 millions per book. I suspect that the Dragon Ball series (a Japan magan) also have some books over the 8 million mark (its average is over 6 millions) (see Wikipedia articles on Asterix and Dragon Ball for sources).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.244.181 (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This book is the highest selling book in comic book history (selling close to 8 million copies) 

message: Last year, the X-Men titles were split between "Team Cyclops" and "Team Wolverine", I wonder if it'd be pertinent to change the navbox to reflect this? I am more than willing to do it myself, but I'd like to wait until all the Marvel NOW X-Books have been released so we can be sure where each title lies.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.79.73 (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because it's not needed.  X-Men are X-Men.  It was shot down multiple times when it started after Schism, and it is needed even less now. The schism has essentially ended with all the X-Men except for Scott's little group are all essentially back on the same side. 68.33.140.207 (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to the Navbox 

message: I would like to take issue with much of the inclusions in the "LGBT" section in the "Reflecting Social Issues" group.  The comment that Another metaphor that has been applied to the X-Men is that of LGBT rights simply because mutants conceal their powers (and rightfully so from a population that at best distrusts them) and because of the age that they realize these powers (puberty brings on many body changes, not just sexual ones) is an extreme stretch.  And then to say it points to homosexuality is basically basing an opinion upon another opinion - original research at the worst.   
Then the author goes on to say that Several scenes in the X-Men films, two of which were directed by openly gay director Bryan Singer, illustrate this theme.  Instead of proving the point, the only that it MIGHT prove is that Singer intruduced these scenes into the X-Men movie to either prove a point or further an issue.  I have the same comment about the next section that attempts to link the X-Men and homosexuals teaching/Section 28 simply because Ian McKellan was involved in Section 28 and he happens to play Magneto.  That's like saying that the movie Bull Durham is all about liberal activism just because Timothy Robbins and Susan Sarandan starred in the movie.  The issues that mutants, and the X-Men in particular, have to deal with have similarities with many disadvantaged/discriminated people groups - I could just as easily say that the X-Men having to hide their powers equates them all to green aliens trying to hide within the American public.  Come on.
And then we get to the point where because Angel binds his wings and Mystique can shapechange into men means that the X-Men comics point to trans-gender issues...  I also agree with a previous talk section that states that the similarities between AIDS and the Legacy Virus are just that - as it appears that the reference that the author uses is someone's personal website (which I'm pretty sure eliminates it as a source).
At least a third of this section is original research and most of the rest is opinion based upon biased sources.  Nothing against the LGBT movement, but IMHO Wikipedia isn't the time or place.  Leave the parts where it talks about real, factual, info (like the X-Men who are Bi), and lets ditch the rest of the unsupported "stuff".
Ckruschke (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No comments were made pro or con, so I made the edits I deemed appropriate based upon my above assertions/arguments. Ckruschke (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete or Seriously Alter LGBT Section? 

message: After Nightcrawler was deleted from the "members" list by an editor because he is dead, I was wondering if this huge list is actually made up only of members of the "X-Men" team.  Granted it's been awhile since I've read the comic, but I can't believe that everyone on this list is really on the "X-Men" and not a member of one of the other teams - this isn't a list of hangers-on or just mutants associated with the "X-Men" - right?  Also if Nightcrawler is deleted because he's no longer alive, why is the Sub-Mariner kept?  Even if he does live in Utopia, I don't think he's on the "X-Men".  Does this list need to be scrubbed? Ckruschke (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, all of the people listed are full current members of the team, which is why X-Men-in-training members aren't included in the list. The X-Men's current status quo is quite different now from how it has been in the past: They're pretty much an expansive army under Cyclops's control, and different members are put together on squads as needed for any given mission. Namor is most definitely on the X-Men, and in fact he's part of the core leadership group. The fact that the team is so large now is a main reason why the list on this page is limited to current members; if we included past members, it would be gigantic! DeadpoolRP (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members? 

message: The article Omega Gang has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
:A search for references found no published (gBooks) support for the article content or subject. A few blog and fan sites have the subject, no WP:RS found, fails WP:N and WP:V
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[Omega Gang]] 

message: I happened to notice that Nightcrawler is NOT on the list of X-Men. I doubt that all of those mutants are still currently members of the X-Men so I demand that either Nightcrawler get added back to the list or others get removed right now!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.114.7 (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nightcrawler is dead, so he's not a current member, while everyone on the list is. That's why! They're currently a very large group (and we're not even including the students in the list)! DeadpoolRP (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Sorry! I'm sure he'll be back in a few years, so don't worry . . . DeadpoolRP (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHY IS NIGHTCRAWLER NOT INCLUDED ON THE LIST OF X-MEN!? 

message: As said in the edit summaries, Dani has not gone by Mirage for awhile, especially not since losing her powers, and from what I can remember, she hasn't gone by anything but Moonstar since just before she joined the X-Men proper years ago.  If you have something that says differently, please mention it here.  Also, using handbooks is not a proper source for it, since they will list ALL of a character's codenames.  We are going by what she is recently using.  For the most recent issue summary in the last issue of New Mutants, you can view here, and as one can see, everyone is listed by their codenames but Dani, where she only has her real name listed. 69.250.56.64 (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moonstar/Mirage 

message: Substituted at 21:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment