Talk:Uncanny X-Men/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Lists of co-creators

Suggestion: rather than listing creators by the years that they contributed, it seems that it would be more precise and useful to list them by the issues to which they contributed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.70.254 (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

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! ;)

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)

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)

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)

If they were popular enough, and meet Wiki standards for importance, then go ahead and make them a page, and link a disambiguation to this page. 96.60.70.254 (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Merge – BUT I think it should be merged into Grey Genome as it is a character concerning that. steveking89 12:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No - That article may be pointless, and I'm fine with deleting, but the idea of mentioning that minor character here is just silly. Ocicat (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Moreover, it seemed to me that the "Legacy" section was pretty inconsequential information, undeserving of it's prominence on the page and containing a rather involved and lengthy explanation of the publishing history of other titles which is unnecessary. I'd vote for removing it, or changing it to one sentence of information in the introduction. 96.60.70.254 (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Contributors

Hi, I was linked to this page from the Kia Asamiya page. Could someone expand what role this mangaka had with the X-Men? He's not listed and since I stopped buying US comics in the 90s.... I'm curious. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Answer after four years(!) Here is a list of Kia Asamiya's work for Marvel Comics including Uncanny X-Men

Mtminchi08 (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Summary needs a lot of attention

First of all, I'm a big fan of the X-Men, but I've missed big chunks (and I actually came to this page to hopefully fill in some gaps), so the following is coming from a lover, not an expert, so take it for what it is. I'm very impressed by the work that went into the list of line ups, but the decade by decade summary is a huge mess. The problems are manifold (sloppy phrasing, in-universe, questionable focus, etc.), and from my perspective it needs a major overhaul, but it might be best to focus on it piece by piece. For example, here's a summary of what happened in Uncanny X-Men in the 90's:

"After Psylocke used the Siege Perilous, many X-Men found themselves amnesiac. Psylocke's new life resulted in an imposter claiming to be her. She also flirted with Cyclops and soon began dating Angel. The Fatal Attractions saga resulted in Xavier's dark side to emerge and become Onslaught. Many of earth's non-mutant heroes sacrificed themselves to end the menace. The X-Men battled the Shadow King shortly after. When Apocalypse returned, he claimed to know the Twelve, the only twelve mutants who could unite to destroy him. Cyclops defeated him by merging with him, leading to Jean Grey's departure and "The Search for Cyclops" storyline."

For now, let's just focus on the content, not the style. The first three sentences are just about Psylocke. Even forgetting about the confusing presentation of facts (the section title references Psylocke's body and this just says there was an imposter -- doesn't mention Kwannon, Matsuo, anything) or straight up factual errors (she dated Archangel, for example). The problem is, it's all focused on Psylocke. For much of the first half of the 90's, Psylocke was in the Blue Team which was X-Men, not Uncanny X-Men. Why is she suddenly the most important character in a page about Uncanny X-Men. Even her dating Archangel (an actual member of the Gold Team and someone who was heavily featured in Uncanny) took place at least half the time in X-Men, not Uncanny. Then references to Fatal Attractions make it seem subordinate to Onslaught. Both were major crossovers and are poorly summarized here. They belong more to the overall X-Men franchise (and Marvel universe in the case of Onslaught) than to Uncanny. My suggestion (at least one tiny step in the right direction) is to reduce focus on crossovers and focus on things that are important to the title itself. If the focus is on crossovers, it should be the aspect that took place in the title itself. For example, the aspect of Fatal Attractions that took place in Uncanny was Magneto's attack on the mansion during Illyana's funeral, the betrayal of Colossus, etc. The mind wiping (leading to Onslaught dark side etc.) took place in X-Men, not Uncanny. See what I mean? Other than that, the focus could be on major events that occured just in Uncanny: an example might be the story line in which Bishop is introduced, the Hellions are killed, and Emma Frost goes into a coma. That story had very important implications for the entire franchise, and it occured just in Uncanny -- hence, it's important to mention it on this page. Another recent example might be the Rise and Fall of the Shi'ar Empire -- an important story occuring just in Uncanny. When I make a criticism, I usually like to contribute to the change I suggest, but as you may have noticed from my comments, I'm really only qualified to write about the early 90's. The very impressive list of line ups shows me there are people on this page with the capacity to write a much better summary that actually makes sense and is informative. Please put some of that great energy from that list into improving the summary.F. Simon Grant (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I dipped into my admittedly limited resources to hopefully spark a conversation about fixing the summary. These are just a few issues of Uncanny from the early 90's (the page also needs citations, so I thought this would help a little). I'm just hoping somebody will take what I'm saying and run with it. I'm not suggesting the summary needs to be extremely long, just concise, clear, accurate, and focusing on what's important. With that in mind, I think the first step is to get rid of the Psylocke stuff, and make room for more important information (which may or may not be from any of the following issues):

Uncanny X-Men (Vol. 1) #281-282, October-November 1991: In the first half of the 90's, Uncanny focused on the Gold Team, and this was the debut of the Gold Team: Storm, Jean, Colossus, Archangel, and Iceman. In 281, Trevor Fitzroy and his Sentinels killed most of the Hellions and put Emma Frost in a comma. In 282, Bishop debuted. I would say, of the ones I'm listing here, those two events have the most long lasting significance.
Uncanny X-Men (Vol. 1) #304, September 1993: The section of Fatal Attractions that took place in Uncanny focused on Ilyana's funeral. This is where Magneto crashed the funeral and Colossus turned against the X-Men and joined the Acolytes. As I said, I don't think a reference to the entirety of Fatal Attractions is necessary here.
Uncanny X-Men (Vol. 1) #306, November 1993: This is the return of Cameron Hodge as a member of the Phallanx. I'd put this low on the priority list, but it might be worth mentioning the Phallanx as a major 90's villain in general.
Uncanny X-Men (Vol. 1) #316, September 1994: Speaking of the Phallanx, this is the first part of the Phallanx Covenent: Generation Next story line which includes the first appearance of M, if I'm not mistaken (as I said, I'm not an expert, just a lover). Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Emma woke up before this issue, right? What's the issue where she possessed Iceman? Or is that even worth mentioning?
Uncanny X-Men (Vol. 1) #320, January 1995: The first part of Legion Quest, but Legion woke up before this, right?
Uncanny became Astonishing X-Men for AoA in March of 1995.
Uncanny X-Men (Vol. 1) #325, October 1995: The Return of Colossus, the first appearance of Marrow (???) but not the first appearance of Gene Nation (???). This is another one low on the priorities list, but it's worth considering.
Uncanny X-Men (Vol. 1) #330, March 1996: If whoever wrote this summary to begin with was really interested in "Psylocke's body" then the whole Crimson Dawn business took place in this and surrounding issues. I would put it very low on the priorities list, but I thought I should just mention it.

Anyway, as I said, not an expert, just want to start a conversation about making that summary better. I hate to make criticisms without doing something to help -- I don't know how much this helped, but at least I tried.F. Simon Grant (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Cast

Updated the cast in the post-X-Men: Manifest Destiny issues to reflect the fact that the title now has the largest main and supporting cast that it has ever had, along with the fact that many supporting characters are constantly rotating in and out of the book, such as Cannonball, Domino, Armor and X-23, as well as all of the students. As a result I have selected the characters only that writer Matt Fraction has given his info boxes to in the issues themselves to spotlight, and even then only characters that have received several of these. Also in a similar way to what was done with Messiah Complex I have highlighted Utopia as a crossover, linking to its own page, mainly due to the large number of main characters involved. As a side note this was my first time editing a table on Wikipedia and I'm not sure if I got the layout correct. Please let me know if I made a mistake. Garhdo (talk) 02:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the cast section is overly long and unnecessary. No other super team has such a listing on its page. It's a just a very long list and that the sort of thing Wikipedia tends to hate. 70.88.213.74 (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually looking at it now I'm very tempted to agree with you however I think that it is necessary for the X-Men titles to have these cast pages due to the many times where certain members of the team have only appeared in one book, or in several titles at once as the case may be. It is a bit nitpicky though so i will condense it to reflect major cast changes, as opposed to eg'Banshee left the team for issue # but was back next issue'.Garhdo (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Title clarifications

A few things there were pretty off. Here's an exact breakdown showing difference between the cover and indicia

Issue 1-49 Cover - The X-Men
Issue 1-49 Indicia - The X-Men
Issue 50-93 Cover - X-Men
Issue 50-93 Indicia - The X-Men
Issue 94-113 Cover - X-Men
Issue 94-113 Indicia - X-Men
Issue 114-141 Cover - The Uncanny X-Men
Issue 114-141 Indica - X-Men
Issue 142-393 Cover - The Uncanny X-Men
Issue 142-393 Indicia - The Uncanny X-Men
Issue 394-407 Cover - Uncanny X-Men
Issue 394-407 Indicia - The Uncanny X-Men
Issue 408+ Cover - Uncanny X-Men
Issue 408+ Indicia - Uncanny X-Men

The cover changed titles 4 times.
Issue 1-49 Cover - The X-Men
Issue 50-113 Cover - X-Men
Issue 114-393 Cover - The Uncanny X-Men
Issue 394+ - Cover - Uncanny X-Men

The indicia changed titles 4 times.
Issue 1-93 Indicia - The X-Men
Issue 94-141 Indica - X-Men
Issue 142-407 Indicia - The Uncanny X-Men
Issue 408+ Indicia - Uncanny X-Men

There are 4 times when the indicia and cover title matched.
Issue 1-49 Cover - The X-Men
Issue 1-49 Indicia - The X-Men
Issue 94-113 Cover - X-Men
Issue 94-113 Indicia - X-Men
Issue 142-393 Cover - The Uncanny X-Men
Issue 142-393 Indicia - The Uncanny X-Men
Issue 408+ Cover - Uncanny X-Men
Issue 408+ Indicia - Uncanny X-Men

There are 4 times when the indicia and cover title did not match.
Issue 50-93 Cover - X-Men
Issue 50-93 Indicia - The X-Men
Issue 114-141 Cover - The Uncanny X-Men
Issue 114-141 Indica - X-Men
Issue 394-407 Cover - Uncanny X-Men
Issue 394-407 Indicia - The Uncanny X-Men

I've physically checked any relevant issues. If anyone has any corrections please post. Otherwise I think the above is the most comprehensive listing of the "correct" title there is. 173.87.191.217 (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Section titles

I'm not sure why someone feels the need for the history section titles to be a foot long, but simply dividing it up by decades seems fine to me, rather than listing each event in the title. 70.88.213.74 (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

General Page Makeover

I rearranged a lot of the sections into a more logical order (to me anyway) grouping such things as numbering, title changes and general publishing history together and first, followed by story summaries. I put the spinoff section after that, as it seems strange to talk about the book's impact before you talk about the book itself. 70.88.213.74 (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

TPB List

There are some additions that should be made. Operation: Zero Tolerance was collected as a tpb under the Marvel's Finest banner, and X-Men: Second Coming oversize hardcover is released this week —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.30.145 (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Line-ups part 2

For how often hair-splitting seems to occur in the line-up list, there's a lot of blatantly wrong information still in there.

How Moira MacTaggert could actually be considered a member of the 'all-new all-different' team is a total mystery - just because you're a recurring supporting character in a book doesn't make you a team member. To the best of my ability to recall, there are precisely 7 issues in the listed time frame where Moira is anywhere near the 'front lines', and the only ones where she isn't clearly simply a victim of an ambush are the Proteus storyline. (#s 97, 105, 109, 125-128, last 4 are the Proteus storyline). (If Moira deserves a listing, Lilandra seems similarly notable from the same period).

Rachel is listed as joining the cast in #176, which is odd since her first encounter with the X-Men in the present day is #184. (And arguably she doesn't join the team in that issue).

Kitty Pryde issues

Following #183 she goes to Japan (for the Kitty and Wolverine story), during which she's not really on the X-Men team. (Similarly, Storm leaves the team for a bit following the loss of her powers, despite continuing to be featured in the book).

Representing changes in Kitty's codename as a change in line-up is ridiculous. Just list her as Kitty Pryde, and note her codename changes in a footnote. The line-up certainly has not changed, just how we refer to the character.

A big issue here is what we mean by 'cast'. How prevalent do they have to be to be considered a main part of the cast? Ie, if appearing in all or most of a continuous run of issues is sufficient, Illyana Rasputing should get a listing (~UXM153-160). How long does the run have to be? Thunderbird only appeared for 2 issues, after all. (I can probably figure out how to do some of these edits on my own, specifically fixing the basic factually inaccurate things, but deciding what we mean by listing a character there is beyond my power to decide). --69.209.63.236 (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, having tried to fix things, I'm not sure any good fix is possible if we just mean 'people who appear in the book regularly' instead of 'people on the X-Men team'. I can make a good case for the inclusion of Lilandra Nerami, Illyana Rasputin, Stevie Hunter, and Lee Forrester based solely on the 'appear regularly criterion' for various points in the #100-200 range. By that same token, Cyclops never really leaves the book despite leaving the team in that issue range. (He continues to appear regularly despite leaving the team in #138).

If by 'cast' we mean regular appearance, what kind of guidelines do we have on what we mean by 'regular'? How many issues spread across how many total issues is a minimum? Any reasonable standard is going to need to exclude Thunderbird from listing, since he only appears in *2*.

At least the membership of the X-Men team for a particular run of issues is fairly well-defined most of the time. Might I suggest we present a team roster instead of a cast listing?

As a separate piece of business, what is the purpose of this listing? Is it meant as an in-continuity listing of characters, or a publication history listing of characters? Because #101-137 featured Jean Grey and not the Phoenix Force impersonating her when it was published. Listing Phoenix Force only makes sense from an in-continuity standpoint.

--69.209.63.236 (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

When I rewrote and condensed it recently I was trying to show the main cast changes in the book. Obviously you have more knowledge than me of particular eras so I would appreciate any help you can offer. What I was trying to do was keep it in continuity and show both on this page and the X-Men: Legacy page's cast section, was what characters were appearing in which books at what times, as at several points each X-team book has featured an entirely different cast to the others. Notable examples of this are the Blue and Gold teams of the 90s, Morrison's New X-Men and Austen's Uncanny, and Carey and Brubaker's squads of X-Men.

Another of my goals was to condense the cast section down as it was overtly long and very nitpicky, as highlighted further up the page. I agree that a focus is needed, either on team line-up or main cast. My vote is for line-up simply as otherwise many characters would need to be included such as the ones you previously mentioned but also Carter and Annie Gazkhanian, Charlotte Jones, Renee Majcomb, Gateway, Madelyne Pryor, etc.Garhdo (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've made it into a team roster through 315. Someone more familiar with the later issues will need to do the rest.

Some notes:

(1) Professor X is rarely a member of the team. Thus I've removed him generally. During the Gold Team period it could be argued he deserves a listing. There's also a brief period from 184-200 where he is very occasionally engaged in field activities with the X-Men, but its 1-2 isolated issues, not a consistent trend. If anyone wants to make an argument for his inclusion *on the team roster*, here is the place to do it, but assumption should be against including him unless he's explicitly on the team.

Magneto is similarly never a member of the X-Men team in the #200-225 period, but is instead Headmaster of Xaviers, and is also excluded.

(2) This wikipedia page is for the comic Uncanny X-Men (and under various former titles), not the characters or the team. As such, it should be about the publication and reflect the publication history. Among other implications, I've chosen to omit reference to the Changeling impersonating Professor X and the Phoenix Force impersonating Jean Grey, because both of them had nothing to do with the book *as published* for the issues they are supposed to have appeared in. (The Changeling is of course also omitted because Professor X wasn't actually a member of the team at that time).

(3) For characters whose absences are of brief or intermittent duration, I've tended to leave them on the team roster rather than have a lot of quick team changes. Similarly, in time periods where multiple characters join or leave the team in short order, I've tended to agglomerate all those changes into one change, and thus a character may join or leave the team shortly after the start of the listing or before the end of the listing.

(4) I've removed cross-over events because the events rarely (if ever) impact team membership. While other characters from other books appear, this doesn't effect the membership of the title's regular team. In all the crossovers I removed (through Bloodlines), there were only two instances where a team roster was different across the cross-over. X-Tinction Agenda has no team beforehand and a team afterwards - but the team forms in 273 after X-Tinction Agenda is ended, and thus X-Tiction Agenda shares the status quo with the pre-cross-over period. Bloodlines is one issue in the run, and Colossus does not appear in that issue. As such, I have listed the Bloodlines issue with the following team roster (since the rest of them appear in the issue). All other cross-overs had an identical roster before and after the cross-over (and issue inspection reveals identical roster during the cross-over, for the sake of being thorough).

(5) I've removed Mimic from 27-29's team roster. Anyone who actually owns the comic can easily confirm that while Professor X states he is to be the new deputy leader (in #27), Professor X reveals just a couple pages later that it was merely a ruse to expose whomever is manipulating the Mimic. Mimic proceeds to fight against the team for the rest of the issue, so he's certainly not a member of the team in 27. Issue 28 treats him as if he's been a member of the team for awhile (?!?), but then doesn't act like a member of the team in 29 (leaves team basically immediately). So effectively he's a member for 1 issue, 28. Really isn't worth mentioning as an actual roster change.

--69.209.61.152 (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

OK sorted the issues after 315 continuing from your changes, removing things like the Skrull infiltrator and tiding the crossovers. The crossovers remaining feature different or expanded team rosters and I have highlighted this fact in their entries. I would recommend leaving these crossover entries as they are as the team membership is changed during them, hence why I have kept them but highlighted the new rosters. I have also reinserted my previous footnote about the expanded cast in the modern issues. However i have not put anything about Changeling, Phoenix replacing Jean Grey, Magneto as headmaster, Kitty's codenames or the Skrull replacing Wolverine as I am not sure if that is more appropriate for an in-universe article.Garhdo (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Dead references

The one and only reference on this page was a dead link, so I commented it out for now until someone more familiar with this material can find a reliable source.

Also, I removed the following comment block because it sounds like someone was just venting when they wrote it.

Khaotika 00:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

X-Men and this article

Three points of business for discussion:

(1)So, the X-Men page, which should be about the *team*, has lots of information about the publication(s) as well. That information should get onto the publication pages (like this one), and off the team page.

(2)Similarly, the lengthy synopsis on this page is ridiculous - that's effectively team history, and the team page has a much more abbreviated synopsis of the entire X-Men team history than this article has for just one publication. I'm not convinced we should eliminate it entirely (although given the existence of another perfectly good article where that information should be, its reasonable), but they should at least be cut in length substantially. Further, the reprint years sections covers stuff X-Men characters were doing in other publications, which makes no sense on an article about the publication Uncanny X-Men.

(3)Finally, highlighting main characters is kind of ridiculous, especially since there doesn't seem to be any real systematic way anyone has gone about doing this. I recommend just deleting this section entirely. We have team rosters with hyperlinks to appropriate characters pages, if people want to know who they are they can click the links. (Woh, i didn't know wikis did that?)

--68.255.105.48 (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've started pruning the plot section a lot.

We now are in the position where this is no longer an ongoing series. It seems odd that the Extinction Team are left as "main characters" in the infobox, but I'm not sure who, if anybody to replace them with. Should we just delete that outright? Morwen - Talk 11:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, I've rationalised it a lot, by savagely selecting lots of it and deleting.

Basically though this is a fundamental problem with Plot sections on this sort of article. Uncanny is - especially since X-Men launched in 1991 - an anthology series, featuring adventures of random groups of X-Men. It's got no consistent overall plot-line over those 50 years, not even to the extent that Amazing Spider-Man might. It relies on you having read other X-titles to follow what's going on. Like, Brubaker's run for example. Explaining what's going on in the space arc of that would require explaining the plot of Deadly Genesis, even though that's not actually part of Uncanny. And so on. I don't know how to do it, if it's even possible. This is a particular problem once you get to the late 1990s and beyond. I would welcome suggestions on what I've done, and whether it's appropriate level of detail (too much? too little?). Morwen - Talk 18:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

main characters section removal

So, I removed the main character section. This has been discussed a bit above, but I'll lay it out here: I can't see how it can stand, in any form. It has an arbitrary subset of characters to have appeared in X-Men, along with some plot details for them that mostly happened in Uncanny but also happened in other books. Yes, important characters, but there are bucketloads of important ones. All the rosters are already listed in the rosters section of the page. If you look at the list it's Xavier, the O5, Polaris+Havok and then the All-New All-Different members who stay after #95. Plus Emma and Psylocke. I can't see any rationale for including those guys but not adding say, Shadowcat or Magneto or Rogue. But why stop there? How can you define "main character" in Uncanny anyway, and have it not come to a list of about 50 of them? The information is still there on the extremely lengthy plot sections we have on those characters. Morwen - Talk 20:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The All-New, All Different X-Men

Going by the covers, the title of the book for issues 94-99 101-103 and some of the issues from 105-up (don't have the covers to those last ones handy) was "The All-New, All Different X-Men" not "X-Men" as the article claimed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.162.208 (talk • contribs)

Per WP:TPYES, Please sign your posts with four tildes (~) Mtminchi08 (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Archive of older posts on the talk page

As several of the posts on this page are rather old, it would be good to move them to an archive page. Everything would still be available for viewing but it would "clean up" the talk page for current topics. Mtminchi08 (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I added the MiszaBot/Archive to this page as it has been over a month with no objections to the archiving suggestion. Mtminchi08 (talk) 07:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)