Talk:Ultimate X-Men

Wolverine
The last sentence reads "was made a boss in Ultimate Spider-man". This should be clarified, as it seems to refer to the video-geme of that name, but I can not verify this. Surely the statement is wrong in regards to the comic series of that title, for I read all issues and the claim is unfounded. So please, if someone can verify that Wolverine is in the game, link to the game or write "Ultimate Spider-Man videogame", instead of just Ultimate Spider-man. Heinrich krebs (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

9/11
"Ultimate X-Men #1 starts with Magneto's Brotherhood committing gigantic bombings which destroy much of Washington and New York. The events of the issue, published in February 2001, contain chilling similarities with the September 11, 2001 attacks."

I'm going to go ahead and delete this... I'm looking through the first couple pages of the issue, and except for the fact that one took place in New York, I'm failing to see how the attacks resemble those of 9/11. If anyone can shed light on this... etc. Sumogrip 03:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly felt chilled to my very core whent that guy dropped his Go-Gurt. --Chris Griswold( ☏  )  09:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Professor X
"It is constantly hinted that he subtly uses mind control to make his X-Men follow him." Where? And how?


 * The first time this is mentioned (it think) is by protheus. He's egging beast on that Storm only loves him because Xavier makes her beleve she is. I think Storm herself also mentions something about it even before that, saying something likeit's not her style to remain with a group for so long (she has a criminal background). After the Proteus Arc, beast keeps mentioning the fact that Xavier might make them do things with his mind. This is part of the reason he leaves the x-men.
 * Also in the most dangerous game arc Dazzler, Angel and Nightcrawler discuss the possiblity they are not acting on their free will against the orders of Xavier, like they think. He might let them think they are so he doesnt get the blame if something goes wrong. Its a big issue in the series, i dont know how you could miss it? --Robje 21:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Robje is so right, it's like one of the biggest points of the series!

Deaths
I love the Ultimate universe, and I don't expect every character to be as prolific as their original counterparts, but does anybody else get a little saddened by the deaths? A few of my favorite characters never even made it out of a single story arc... :(

This isn't really a discussion of the wiki, just sort of wanted to talk.. but since you're not supposed to do that, how about a simple section in the article for definitely-dead major characters? With a spoiler warning of course... Eh, maybe not. :P

-Hawk
 * I love the Ultimate versions sometimes it really sucks specially they killed Beast/Gambit, they are major characters of X-Men, and their origins are way too different from the original versions, Emma is like a mother, Dazzler is a heavy-rock star, Colossus is gay and long hairs pf the boys.--Hotwiki 09:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

-michael
 * i love the ultimate universe to mostly ultimate x-men i read and like ultimate x men more than

any other ongoing title ,and speak of deaths well ultimate marvel is much more serious about this thing if the dude dies he stays death unless he survives some how not magically bring back to life,like in the classic marvel general thunder ross survived because he was more fantastic four-related than x-men later same thing about hammerhead from the gamit story arc "thief in the night" wich appears in spider-man "warriors" arc but in case of hammerhead it never openly explained how he survived:gambit charged-up his metal skull

and overall i like this version of x-men because it kinda just more realistic and violent less chessy soupopera like the main marvel 616


 * It's legit to love both versions, both IMHO are OK and complement each other, just like many people love Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek: The Next Generation. And BTW, this discussion has been led at least 1000x times ;) Onomatopoeia 16:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Fastball special - triviabit
"As of December 2005, after almost five years and 65 issues, Colossus and Wolverine have not done their trademark fastball special move yet." They does it on the cover of issue 25 (193.216.215.41 17:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC))


 * I know, but the cover doesn't count IMHO. I am still waiting for it to happen IN PANEL :( Onomatopoeia 16:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Magician (Elliot Boggs)
Who is this guy? I know he's new but should he be added to the team list?--Dil 19:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I started his page. Magician (comics)--Dil 20:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Be sure to check out this template page for tips on how to structure a new article. I've found it to be quite helpful. CovenantD 20:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Professor X changing memories?
I noticed the article states: "[Boggs] didn't dwell on his parent's deaths, raising the possibility Xavier changed his memories."  Has this speculation been reported anywhere or is it just OR? I didn't get this idea from the comic at all. Newt 15:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Newt 20:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

-- "It is semi ironic that Nightcrawler is an apparent homophobe" kurt is not homophobic

I see how people could think he is, but he is just sad Colossus kept it from all from him.

Given how outwardly religious Kurt is in the mainstream continuity, it isn't that big of a stretch for Ultimate Nightcrawler to be somewhat uncomfortable around homosexuals. He also isn't exactly acting homophobic, as much as he seems confused and dissapointed. It's not like he's setting Colossus' stuff on fire, or spitting on him.


 * On the other hand, Kurt did tell the comatose Alison that Peter is "an abomination," and that he "can't even begin to acknowledge what he is." That sounds pretty homophobic. Breakaway 20:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate Collections in soft covers?
Does anyone know if they are planning on putting out more Ultimate Collection of Ultimate X men without hard covers? There is Volume #1, which has THe Tomorrow People and Return to Weapon X, but this site only lists that one and know others, although they have more hard cover ones. Just wondering?

yes Volume 2(year two) will come out just before Ultimate X-Men #85 as seen here, it will be released august 1 st, issue #85 will be released the following week, on August the 8 th.  Speaketh   now   to me!  03:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Relationship to other Ultimate Marvel characters
Anyone wanna volunteer writing up something about their relationship with the Fantastic Four since they did meet in UX4 and the President Thor Arc of UFF. -- whipsandchains 17:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Cameos and off-panel appearances
I removed "Given that Sinister was acting on orders from Apocalypse, some fans believe the apparently dead mutants will actually become the Ultimate version of the Horsemen of Apocalypse," which was added by an unregistered user as it seemed to be weasel-worded OR. The whole part about the mutants murdered by Sinister seems like it could be OR, but I left the rest as it was. Psyphics 15:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Gambit appears in the Savage Land in UXM #1.

please somebody can really specify excatly where

No, in fact, Gambit does not appear in UXM #1.Inmate42 18:34, 11 June 2006

so how is it that the articlemaster trusts some delinquent to add something (UTC)

Scott/Alex ages
I know, when Alex is first introduced in the New Mutants story arc, he's reffered to as Scott's older brother, but in the Magnetic North storyline Bobby reffers to Alex as Scott's kid brother, implying (to me, at least) that Scott is older. Did I misread, or what?67.142.130.41 02:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

iceman was joking as usual alex is older brother just but has a younger mentality

Sabretooth
It says that Sabretooth was a former brotherhood of mutants memeber and I seriously doubt that as Sabretooth is self-hating mutant.

of course not, "sabretooth" signs up with weapon-x and brotherhood for fun

oh and "mastermind" is totaly japanese-styled

This article is HUGE!!!
Any chance of splitting this article, especially the supporting characters like the Brotherhood, Academy of Tomorrow, Other villains, Other characters, and Cameos and off-panel appearances, and creating a List of Ultimate X-Men supporting characters? 60 KB is a tad large. Also, "Dangling plot-lines" reads like original research. --Newt ΨΦ 17:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, IMHO you are right. Like you, I propose splitting it into


 * Brotherhood
 * Academy of Tomorrow
 * Supporting cast
 * Dangling plotlines: actually, it is not original research (I could cite all the storylines which spawned them), but has grown arguably out of hand
 * Trivia: has grown a bit out of hand
 * Relationship to other Ultimate Marvel characters: whole new article
 * Perhaps, a Category:Ultimate X-Men to connect all these new spin off articles?

Onomatopoeia 17:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Citing storylines (primary sources) that spawn "dangling plotlines" does not correct the problem that these are speculative and introduce analysis that we as editors cannot add. Including these as part of discussion of plot without speculation may be able to keep at least some (like the references to Prof. X controlling minds). For reference, read WP:NOR. Most, if not all, of the trivia is unnecessary to most any reader.  The Brotherhood, Academy of Tomorrow, and Supporting cast could be put into one separate article like List of Ultimate X-Men supporting characters, or similar.  --Newt ΨΦ 18:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. If we do it that way, and I think all will be happy. Onomatopoeia 13:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Projects: shorten captions for each character (they are already present in the character Wikipages), outsource info into subpages, general trimming... Onomatopoeia 23:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that per WP:COMICS consensus, the ultimate character pages will most likely be merged with the 616 character articles. It's okay to have a bit of exposition, but not too much anyway. --Newt ΨΦ 23:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Ultimate X-Men (story arcs)
Appears to be a needless split to provide more space to detail the storylines. They should be put into perspective of the entire body of work and summarized in the main article. CovenantD 00:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Keep Seperate Story Arcs too big to be remerged, even if you trim them down to bare bones, and will only grow bigger as time passes. --Onomatopoeia 17:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge CovenantD 00:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Seperate There is precident for this, and both articles have some meat on 'em. --InShaneee 02:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per CovenantD --Chris Griswold 08:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Comment After discussion, Story Arcs could become base of "History of the Ultimate X-Men", if you add relevant artist information and misc sourced metainformation. But not sure whether to merge or keep seperate --Onomatopoeia 17:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per CovenantD and "Wikipedia should not act solely as a summary of plot". I can see absolutely no need for this. --Newt ΨΦ 18:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Seperate, I beleive the Story Arcs page was split from the UX-men page because the page was way to big. Like Onomatopoeia says, the two pages merged would be way to big, and both pages are pretty trimmed as they are now, so there can't be any reduction of data without sacrifice of quality. JQF 23:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No Merge.--Jamdav86 13:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Seperate Just cut them all down, Onomatopoeia has a good example of what is needed below. - Seraph 31 19:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Seperate This article is too big already. TommyStardust 06:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Decision closed with no decision to merge. --Chris Griswold 08:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
We don't need a comic by comic or even an arc by arc summary of what happens in a comic series. That is not what Wikipedia does, and WP policy dictates that we not create articles that are solely plot summaries with no secondary source of criticism or analysis. To go into too much detail is to ignore fair use. --Newt ΨΦ 02:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * WP policy dictates that we not create articles that are solely plot summaries with no secondary source of criticism or analysis. In that case, we can nuke about every comic article in e.g. Category:Spider-Man storylines (e.g. Spider-Man: The Other or The Death of Jean DeWolff) or Category:X-Men storylines (e.g. X-Men: Deadly Genesis or House of M (story)) or Category:Elseworlds Titles (e.g. JLA: The Nail or Superman:Red Son) or even legitimate classics like Daredevil: Born Again. Many articles are 90% and more plot, and the much of the 10% is often trivia. Or should we keep the Story Arcs article, rename it somehow and rather flesh it out with background info from the main UXM page? I dunno. --Onomatopoeia 12:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The limited series articles need to have a bit more than what they do. I personally don't believe they should exist either if they are just repositories for detailed plot summaries, but articles like Spider-Man: The Other could be saved because they were controversial arcs or stories and have lasting effects on the character.  A little cited outside analysis, critical and popular response, themes, and statements from interviews with the creators as to why they changed the character/characters/world in such a way would make those articles much better. Daredevil: Born Again and The Death of Jean DeWolff both attempt to include analysis and/or themes.  Even so, the plot summaries need to be trimmed.  House of M (story) is definitely cruft as House of M could easily contain what is needed from a plot summary and the story article is just an excuse to needlessly expand the plot summary. For whatever reason, the House of M article does not even contain a plot summary nor a heading related to it, just a link to the story article under "See also".
 * Regardless, the comparison you give is misleading, as you mention only articles about significant limited series. Treating every arc of an ongoing series as significant enough to merit its presence in an article (or as an article) just leads to cruft.  --Newt ΨΦ 13:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I just saw your "Articles that need to go" on your user page. Point taken, and although I am a bit wary, I assume good faith: if your want to raise the bar that high, ok. If all the articles really get better, I'll be happy. --Onomatopoeia 13:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the actual heading is "Articles on their way out." I'm interested in bettering articles more than deleting them, especially significant limited series articles.  However, articles that can and will only serve to summarize plotlines from fictional works are against Wikipedia policy.  --Newt ΨΦ 14:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I just whipped this up as a compromise from my side. Still too detailed, too abstract, just right, just not right, comments? --Onomatopoeia 15:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see your analysis of how this compromise fits into the Wiki policy that Wikipedia "should not act solely as a summary of the plot of a work of fiction, but should offer summarised plots in conjunction with sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance within the article, or as part of a series of articles per Article series." CovenantD 16:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you give me an example in another comic book article of how good "sourced analysis", "detail, impact, significance of achievement" looks like? --Onomatopoeia 16:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I just flipped over X-Force and I think that it manages to blend in the story arcs with writer and artist history well in its "History" section. I didn't think of that before. --Onomatopoeia 16:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Those are, unfortunately, difficult to find in storyline articles :-) The Fall of the Mutants has a decent analysis in the first couple of paragraphs (but lacks sources). Superman: Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? has some points in the Notes and Trivia (again unsourced). The Man of Steel (comic book) has an entire section on the impact of the series. Moving beyond the "storylines" articles, I think any of the major articles (e.g. Superman, Batman, Spider-Man) will have a section on the impact the character and stories on popular culture. I just happen to think that the "Ultimate (blank) story arcs" articles are the most egregious examples of the problem most have meeting the policy standard and the most easily corrected, by merging. CovenantD 17:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How about forming everything into a section or article "History of the Ultimate X-Men", like in X-Men, X-Force or The Authority? Plot info mixed with artist info and historical references. --Onomatopoeia 17:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be much better, but also keep in mind the literary present, out-of-universe perspective, and the rest of Manual of Style (writing about fiction) as well as fair use, the former has been accepted by a consensus of editors at WP:COMIC. I would think, though, at this point at still under 100 issues, there's not enough information to merit a separate article, especially when X-Men doesn't have one for its history.  --Newt ΨΦ 19:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So, how about this as a start of "History of the Ultimate X-Men", article or section?

(Insert header text here)


 * Main reference: Mark Millar's Interview with Sequential Art

When it came out in 2000, Ultimate X-Men was only the second comic of the Ultimate Marvel line, predated by a few months by its sister title Ultimate Spider-Man. The heads of the Ultimate Universe, Bill Jemas and Joe Quesada, at first tried to hire Brian Michael Bendis to write this title, but he declined. . They then contracted Scottish writer Mark Millar, best then known for his run on The Authority. He reinvented the X-Men in a more mature way, saying: "You're not competing with Cartoon Network on these books; you're competing with Buffy. (...) Superhero comics aren't adult, but they shouldn't be written for five year olds either."

Millar's first arc was The Tomorrow People (UXM 1-6), in which Magneto's Brotherhood declared war on the human race, causing the US government to hunt mutants with Sentinel robots. Professor X forms the X-Men, unaware that recruit Wolverine is a sleeper for Magneto and has orders to kill him. Return to Weapon X (UXM 7-12) featured the X-Men kidnapped into Weapon X, a concentration camp which turns mutants into mindless killers, and with Nick Fury trying to save them. World Tour (UXM 15-19) featured the X-Men try to catch Proteus, the psychotic mutant son of Charles Xavier and Dr. Moira MacTaggert, and having to use deadly force to stop him. Millar himself said: "The Tomorrow People was my Michael Bay movie, Return to Weapon X was my John McTiernan movie and World Tour is essentially X-Men meets Magnolia".

Common to the first 19 issues that the tone was harder-edged, featuring morally ambivalent X-Men, such as Wolverine seducing underage Marvel Girl, Cyclops defecting to the Brotherhood (The Tomorrow People), Professor X mind-wiping Iceman to make him forget his date, both Marvel Girl and Nightcrawler killing in self-defense and Storm trying to murder John Wraith (RTWX), and at last portraying Professor X as a neglectful father and husband (World Tour). Millar also planted a plot point which would be a point for discussion for years to come: whether Colossus was gay or not.

(Further good UXM references:
 * UXM and Brian K Vaughan
 * UXM and Brian Michael Bendis)

--Onomatopoeia 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Was bold and added it all. A little more sourced background info is never bad --Onomatopoeia 23:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I did a little copy-editing and cleaning up, but overall I like it much better than what the story arcs page has and it's far more informative. I applaud your efforts and await further discussion. --Newt ΨΦ 04:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. We still should at least add the artists somehow. --Onomatopoeia 09:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the table drawn up by Onomatopoeia to be a very neat, consistent summary of the plotlines. It may be not purely encycolopedic to summarise the plotline without critical or analytical commentary, but another coloumn could be added for this. If that means that each story arc section ends up being a little chunky, then a listing kind of style as per the UXM (story arcs) section could be included.
 * It's very disconcerting to read a little bit of plot for a given artist (Millar's run goes into plot detail) and then have gradually less plot detail and higher level commentary on notable features in subsequent writer sections.
 * As it stands right now, the main page has a very poor and inconsistent level of detail of the story arcs - all of them should be either be higher level, containing only info on the artists and writers, allusions to real life (a big part of the ultimate universe) and notable deviations and innovations from the mainstream universe. If not that, then the story arc page should be merged - story arc information (if it exists at all) should be in one article only, not a little bit in both. Starseeker shkm 07:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sales
I'm curious about the remark regarding sales during Millar's run. certainly it sold a lot, but I find it curious that it says it was "a big commercial hit, consistently outselling its sister titles, New X-Men, X-Treme X-Men and even Uncanny X-Men". I'm pretty sure New X-Men outsold it, and the phrasing "even Uncanny X-Men" implies that it was a high seller at the time, when Joe Casey's run was noted for driving the title out of the top twenty for the first time in over a decade. The citation provided also isn't that clear, as it's just a link to a list of sales charts from the past five years or so. WesleyDodds 01:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right, I just looked it up. NXM outsold anything X-Men related, and UXM (during Millar) was generally 2nd. --Onomatopoeia 09:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

World Tour
As a person who lives in Brittan some of these so called bloopers bug me. I have been in a few pubs with children as young as 9 or 10, they don't get alcohol for obvious reasons but they can get in and the bar tender will just keep a close eye on them. Also the one about the flag on the t-shirt/sweater being the wrong colour, it's called fashion, the do weird and wonderful things to the flag sometimes, I've even seen this in American where they modify the flag for fashion.

What really gets me is Mark Millar is Scottish (like my self) and he gets Land's End and John o' Groats mixed up but that’s not the point, the point is/was that the other 2 aren’t really bloopers as such. ≈ Seraph 31 13:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally don't see any need for the bloopers section of the article. It's trivia and thus by definition it's not notable. --Newt ΨΦ 13:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Trivia is notable, there is even a section devoited to Trivia for now. ≈ Seraph 31 13:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Trivia is called "trivia" because it's trivial. That means that it's not notable. Additionally, good articles don't have trivia sections. --Chris Griswold 13:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Next writer?
I'd like to know if there has been appointed a writer after Robert Kirkman's current run? It seems odd that there are no rumours or news, not even on Marvel's official site. And, like me, there may be others who would like to know who's the next writer to helm this title. GofferOffer 20:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge Syndicate (comics)
Non-notable minor character article that serves as a repository for plot. Should be merged into this article. --Newt ΨΦ 22:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Merge per my nom above. --Newt ΨΦ 22:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect precious little to actually merge. --InShaneee 22:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Leave it, it may yet develop further. Leave it be for now. Dac 01:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you'd like your vote to count, please sign it. --Newt ΨΦ 15:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect - If this character develops, he can have his own article, just like Kong from Ultimate Spider-Man. I have to ask though, is this character much less notable than Magician (comics)? --Chris Griswold( ☏  )  09:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Firstly, Magician may need merging as well. However, there was a lot of hooplah in the promotion of Magician that he was the first new X-Man to be introduced that didn't have an main continuity counterpart (though, if Syndicate is part of a clandestine X-Men group, he would actually predate Magician).  Anyway, there is likely more secondary source material for Magician than there is for Syndicate.  --Newt ΨΦ  15:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - but condense. I agree with Wikipedia not being a plot summariser, but the Syndicate character my develop further. Brad T. Cordeiro 17:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment and if he doesn't then we'll just have this article assuming he does. Why not merge it and make a bigger article if it's needed? --Newt ΨΦ  21:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment if he doesn't, we'll have a small article on his powers and a small amount of story. I'd rather that, than merge it and re-separate it later. Brad T. Cordeiro 03:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Leave it I agree with Dac. Originalsinner 02:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Leave it Syndicate will be seen again, he is a character, so why merge? As for Magician there will be a whole story-arc about him, so that is worth keeping for now. Lewis the Ger 17:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Not every character needs its own article and merely being a character does not make it notable enough for an article. Would it make sense to have an article about Tyler Durden outside of Fight Club?  Syndicate has appeared in two or three Ultimate X-Men, there's no need to make a separate article for him. --Newt ΨΦ  20:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Note merge
All the relevant material is contained in this article. There's no reason to maintain a seperate article, as per the guidance at Notability (fiction). Hiding Talk 20:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Current roster & Notable former members
Every team from almost every comic has a Current roster and Notable former members roster. Even the Ultimate Brotherhood of Mutants has one and the Ultimates. Why don't the Ultimate X-men or the Ultimate Academy of Tomorrow (I'm not even sure that needs an Ultimate pre-script) have these list? I'm sure they used to but no longer. Right now we have a list of every X-men member ever, like Beast, who is dead. ≈ Seraph 31 16:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * First, we do not differentiate between current and former, because we use present tense to describe fiction. (See WP:CMC/EG.) Second, this article is about a comicbook series and so its infobox does not support team information. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 17:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah this article is about a comic book series, a series that focuses on a team of super-heroes... there should be an infobox about which characters are on the team and which have left. The Ultimates article is about a comic book series but also inclues a infobox (I hope I'm useing this tearm right) about the team at the series center. ≈ Seraph 31 14:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Ultimates article is about a team of characters who appear in several comic book limited series. This article is about the series Ultimate X-Men. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 16:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure over at the Ultimates talk page they have said that The Ultimates article is about the comic book series named after the team. Looking at it your way the Ultimate X-Men have appeared in all the same comics as The Ultimates at different times. Every other X-Men comic has an infobox about the team as well as some history about the comic it's self. Uncanny X-Men is good example, it doesn't have past characters but it does have a list of the Main character(s) as well as a detailed history of the team. What we have is a list of Writer(s) and Penciller(s) when what we should have is current Writer(s) and Penciller(s) with one of those Succession boxes (I think that's what they are called) on each of the writers pages. ≈ Seraph 31 17:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "I'm sure over at the Ultimates talk page they have said that The Ultimates article is about the comic book series named after the team." Don't be so sure. And you aren't looking at it my way; the Ultimates have had two limited series that featured them: Ultimates and Ultimates 2. Both are covered by the article, in addition to Ultimate War, the Ultimate Extinction stuff, and assorted appearances in other comics. The Ultimate X-Men article treats all other appearances of the team as ancillary to the series. I don't really get what you are saying about writers and pencilers. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 17:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The focus of Wikipedia is on real-world impact of the subjects of its articles, be they bits of pop culture or forces of nature or anywhere in between. Shifting the focus of this article, which is relatively well-defined, would be a detriment. --Psyphics Ψ  Φ  19:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As you can see I upated the infobox, I'm sure you can change it back if you are that dead set against it. It's up to date as far as I know and the page now matches the other X-Men titles with the exeption that it's not in normal continuity, this means the main character(s) are The X-Men plus the names of who the X-Men currently are. ≈ Seraph 31 12:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate X-Men 77
Professor X's suppossed love for Jean is not to be mentioned? Zuracech lordum 14:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits by anonymous ip addresses
Is no one observing this page? Two edits that created a "future developments" section and messed up the "collected editions" occured within the last month. I'm talking about this and this. I hope that there are other conscientous editors who will avert such vandalism in the future. Zuracech lordum 12:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Character Pages
Does anything else think that Ultimate characters deserve their own character pages, just like their mainstream counterparts? My thoughts regarding this idea are thus:
 * Ultimate characters have enough character development and differ enough from their 616 counterparts to warrant their own pages;
 * the 616 character pages are huge, and separating 616 from Ultimate would make those articles shorter;
 * the 616 articles are not detailed enough about the Ultimate characters; and,
 * Ultimate X-Men is a title that sells well in its own right and has had enough issues to warrant separating its information from the X-Men page, and thus characters should follow.

What do you think? It would be a pity to let Ultimate characters be nothing more than dots on their 616 characters' pages. Mihara 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree.
 * Having a separate Ultimate character page would mean requisite a similar character page for all other versions i.e. Astonishing, Uncanny, New X-Men and so on.
 * While the Ultimate Universe is separate from the main universe, the characters themselves are still an extension of their main counterparts. For example, the article on Jean Grey is supposed to be about the character Jean Grey, no matter which universe she exists in. It is meant to cover Jean Grey in her entirety. By the same token, the Golden-Age and Silver-Age Batman do not have separate pages.
 * There is relatively nothing apart from fictional character history that can be written for such a hypothetical "Ultimate" character page. This would be noted and the articles would be speedily deleted.


 * That said, there is no harm in trying. Go ahead and create character pages for the main pivotal ones and I'd be glad to help out. Find some genuine material on the Ultimate universe and use that as a basis alongside interviews of the writers of the series.


 * The easier solution, of course, would be to improve upon the "Ultimate" section within the character pages. Zuracech lordum 23:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I Disagree that ultimate characters need there own page. Some do have there own page but these are becaues they have no 616 counterpart or in the case of Nick Fury, well he's compleatly diffrent from his counterpart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Marvel#Character_pages_not_merged ≈ Seraph 17:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Characters that differ EXTREMELY from their 616 counterparts, should have thier own page, such as ultimate cable, he should have his own page, considering that he isnt even the same person.  Speaketh   now   to me!  03:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not only should they differ extremely from their 616 characters, but also have a long enough history. Luke Cage is a lot different in the Ultimate Universe, but has only appeared in 2-3 issues and is relatively unimportant.  When Cable's ultimate history takes up more than a couple paragraphs, that character should get his own page.  Notthegoatseguy 21:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Characters should not be given their own pages. If the main pages ever become too long, the "Other Versions" sections should be slpit in entirety as per the Category:Alternate versions of fictional characters convention. -- 69.182.73.240 00:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

creative teams
Should that be in the info box?, not that im againts it but it just doesnt look right, should that have its own section, giving more detail on what each person actually did, including character creations/deaths/and manipulations(attitude or powers), arcs, significant events, location introduction(i.e. savage land). and if your gonna say, "Well if we do that here we would have to do that every where". no WE wouldnt, but someone who cared should.  Speaketh   now   to me!  03:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Xmlegends.jpg
Image:Xmlegends.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 08:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ultimate X-Men. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051101013607/http://www.newsarama.com:80/Bendis_UXM.htm to http://www.newsarama.com/Bendis_UXM.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ultimate X-Men. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20051101013607/http://www.newsarama.com/Bendis_UXM.htm to http://www.newsarama.com/Bendis_UXM.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051124054319/http://www.newsarama.com/marvelnew/UltWeek/images/UXM/UXMBKV.html to http://www.newsarama.com/marvelnew/UltWeek/images/UXM/UXMBKV.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061210044700/http://www.newsarama.com/marvelnew/ultx_men/kirkman.htm to http://www.newsarama.com/marvelnew/ultx_men/kirkman.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)