Talk:X-Men: Legacy

Semi-bi-weekly?

"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)

Move

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)

Move - per my nom. --Silver lode 00:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The problem with X-Men (comic book) is that it could be seen to refer to a single X-Men comic book. Therefore it would need to be extended to X-Men (comic book series). A further problem is that not only was Uncanny X-Men called The X-Men up until around issue 101, much of the general public wouldn't know what Uncanny X-Men is, so, without the vol. 2 in the name it could be thought to be the main X-Men series, instead of Uncanny. Ths could lead to much confusion, so it would need to be further disambiguated to X-Men (comic book series) (vol. 2) or X-Men (comic book series, vol. 2) which just reeks of ridiculousness compared to the name now. However people may still be confused and want to know what vol. 1 was, so I shall put redirects and a disambig notice to sort that out. --Jamdav86 10:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

It isn't about a single comic book, it's about a series consisting of nearly 200 comic books. And over half of the franchise's comic books are labelled as X-Men. The key to disambiguation is to remove confusion, and the moves proposed only seek to add confusion. The page X-Men (comic book), if created at all, should be a redirect to List of X-Men comic book series and an explanation should be given for why there are so many different series at that page. --Jamdav86 10:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Quite honestly, it doesn't need to be disambiguated any more. Non-comics person types in X-Men, they aren't going to arrive at this page, they'll arrive at X-Men, on which I put a disambig notice to clarify which is the primary X-Men series. Redirected X-Men (comic book) and X-Men (comics) to X-Men in case someone tries to do it that way in the search box. No need to overly disambiguate, otherwise we'll have the whole Daredevil mess again. --Jamdav86 14:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

It's fine here really. There's a variety of disambig notices around the relevant articles to remove confusion. --Jamdav86 13:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Clean up

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)

Suggestions

• 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)

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)

Issuse titles

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)bhissong

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)

It matters if the it's large because the purpose of a character or comic-based entry is to create an informative yet concise article. Ask just about anyone who does regular edits to comics and comic characters. They'll say the same. I just don't see how listing every single issue title serves any positive purpose for the article. Now, if you think the tpb's shoudn't be there, then that's your perogative, and have the right to delete if you think it's appropriate, within Wiki. standards of editing, and improves the article overall. If this rational still is not satisfying, post it on the comics discussion page and get the opinions of others. Bhissong 15:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)bhissong

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)

I'm lucky? Dude, you can't take things so personally. Silver lode's got a point. If you want to put that much effort into it, think about making it another page and linking it to here. And really, this "Blah you're lucky" stuff is pretty immature. Bhissong 01:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)bhissong

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)

Grant Morision's Run

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)

I removed the notation that "Grant Morrison's run is widely considered to be the finest run since Chris Claremont". It is not. Many X-Fan's still complain about that run. The only people who think that run is that good are Grant Morrison fans who think everything he does is gold. KiplingKat 18:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.29.203 (talk)

Why only Morrison?

Why is this page only focusing on Morrison? Shouldn't Chuck austen's, Peter Milligan's and Mike Carey's run be included?

I think the whole thing should be deleted, It's pointless in being there. Thelaststand.

NPOV

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:XMEN192012 col.jpg

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)

Rename

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)

"almost near-death"

What? 86.143.48.55 (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I know. Unbelievable. Elemental5293 (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

new x-men suits and movie

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)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

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)

Series commentary

Good series analysis at CBR [1]. -Sharp962 (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC).

Issue List

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)

Years in Team Roster List

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)

Re-title

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)

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)

roster section overlong

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)

X-Men Legacy vol. 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

While I agree that Legacy's factual basis is derived from X-Men that doesn't mean that an article on X-Men should not include all volumes. An article on publications called "X-Men" should contain information on all 4 volumes. X-Men Legacy's origin non-withstanding it has evolved into its own title with 2 volumes. A note saying it started in that other publication like journey into mystery and Thor.

An article about comics published as "X-Men" should contain information on every volume of comics published under that name. There's also a difference in that Uncanny has been named that for 32 years and was a book that continued the same theme of the prior publications. X-Men Legacy carried a DISTINCTLY different theme than X-Men.

X-Men vol 1-3 are different volumes of the same publication. X-Men Legacy deserves its own article with a footnote to say it originated from a prior publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgentFelix (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)