Talk:Spider-Man and the X-Men

I just started this page. I am working on adding the volumes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelskit (talk • contribs) 04:45, 18 February 2016‎

Speedy deletion
"Spider-man and the X-men" is not a title of anything but just two character names mis-capitalized. The topic is a single six-episode story arc in a Marvel Comics series. WikiProject Comics does not have an article for every single six-issue story in the history of comics — that's trivial facruft in the extreme. As the earlier tags stated, this has context and is of no notability whatsoever.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Disagreed. Its a continuation of one of the main X-men series. It's very relevant. Rachelskit (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (i just started this page. maybe help out instead of deleting) --Rachelskit (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe read the basic rules of grammar, footnoting, categorization and writing before editing Wikipedia. In case you don't know, you can't remove the multiple-issues tag until the multiple issues are corrected. --Tenebrae (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Violation of WikiProject Comics guidelines
WikiProject Comics is very clear in that we do not do issue-by-issue synopses. Rachelskit is edit-warring in violation of this guideline. If an editor believes than an exception to the rules should be made, he needs to seek consensus on this talk page, rather than edit-war in violation of WP:BRD. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your opinion about this article being fancruft, irrelevant and that the synopsis is not within wiki guidelines. It is not an issue by issue, but a general series overview. So maybe you should stop edit-warring. Rachelskit (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * And maybe you should start respecting that this is an encyclopedia and not a fan page about some of your favorite characters. Ony a hardcore comics fan and not the average Wikipedia reader can even comprehend what a sentence like "They both fall for Shark-Girl, who they believe is on their side since she's not a mammal" is supposed to mean or what relevance it has. And of course, hardcore fans never believe what they do is fancruft. And to suggest that what you've created is not an issue-by-issue synopsis, simply missing the issue numbers, is the height of disingenuousness. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I have toagree that the synopsis goes into too much detail and, more importantly, makes too many assumptions about what background knowledge the average Wikipedia reader should know about the characters—meaning, I find the sysnopsis hard to follow. Really, there doesn't need to be more than a couple of very generalized sentences. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Tenebrae is correct. What you added was a step-by-step breakdown of each issue that wasn't even written that well (and then... etc.). A summary looks at something as a whole and condenses it, dealing with the bigger picture and not going into all the exact details. You may think that the current summary doesn't have enough detail, but I am afraid that this is how basic writing works. And large amounts of dense, complicated, in-universe descriptions that the average reader will struggle to follow is what we refer to as fancruft, and it also is not alowed. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As someone who often has to rewrite synopses for films, TV episodes, comics, etc., I feel very strongly about this. Whether we use the word "fancruft" is not very useful, because that's just a characterization, and as such, it carries with it a negative connotation. What's more useful and relevant is whether the synopsis is properly restricted to a simple and clear explanation of the plot. It is not the role of a synopsis to explain every little scene, panel, gag, etc, but to simply summarize the key aspects of the plot so that the reader can understand it: What the conflict or conflicts are, who the main characters are that embody it (restricting those named in the synopsis to only those who have to be named in order to explain the plot clearly to the reader), what the resolution is, etc. If the synopsis does not do this, then it's not well-written, and this one clearly isn't.


 * Take this sentence for example:


 * "'Spider-Man, against Storm's wishes, becomes the newest faculty member at the Jean Grey School for mutant superheroes.'"


 * This isn't clear, because it doesn't explain to the reader who Storm is, why she's against Spidey's hiring, or why her feelings on this matter are relevant. Is she the headmaster? The school's president? A concerned teacher? A popular custodian with a spider phobia? And why is it against her wishes? A clear sentence would be written this way:


 * "'Spider-Man is made a special guidance counselor at the Jean Grey School for Higher Learning, against the wishes of staff member Storm, who feels that hiring a masked, non-mutant outsider whose identity is unknown to them poses a security risk.'"


 * Keep in mind that this should only even be included if Storm's feelings constitute one of the central conflicts of the miniseries, and/or is actually resolved by its end. I don't know if it is, since I'm not reading the series, and I'm just using this as an example (one for which I downloaded the first issue as reference). Bottom line, only details necessary to convey to the reader the plot, character arcs and themes (if any) should be the ones included, and those ones should be explained clearly, with some expositional wording employed to explain who the most significant characters are. Rachelskit, I applaud your desire to contribute to WP, but neither the current synopsis nor the version from your last edit exhibits these qualities. Tenebrae, I would humbly suggest your word future criticisms according these criteria, and avoid terms like "fancruft", because a term like that doesn't explain what's wrong with the writing. Nightscream (talk) 01:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Nightscream, Thanks for the advise. I agree with your input. I'm not the best editor, but that's the beauty of Wiki. Somebody does initial research, get the references and starts the page, and then better writers brush it up. Doesn't make sense to just delete an article is its not well written or not to your liking. Rachelskit (talk) 02:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * To set the record straight, I did not delete Rachelskit's poorly written synopsis but trimmed it, as anyone can see for themselves here. I thank the several experienced editors here who helped do likewise. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I assume the article is doing better now compared to when I was inactive. From what I read I definitely agree we don't do issue to issue. Just summarizing the plot is all we need. We got wikia if we want to know or edit about the particular issue plots anyways. Jhenderson  7 7 7  00:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I got to this rather late, but I agree with Tenebrae. An issue-by-issue synopsis is beyond the scope of the article, and this synopsis assumes the reader has preexisting knowledge of these characters. DrRNC (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)