Talk:X-Men (film series)/Archive 5

Legion
Sources that stated that Legion isn't connected to the film series.
 * "the cinematic universe will not worry about Legion. They will not worry about these TV worlds as all. They will just continue in the way that they have been continuing, and there is some great stuff that we are developing. I can just say it's going to be new and different, and yet Legion and our other show, we're not going to get in each other's way." - Lauren Shuler Donner.
 * "Though Legion was initially going to be a part of the X-Men cinematic universe, that’s in some doubt moving forward because of comments Hawley has said in the past."
 * SuperHotWiki (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hotwiki, though your two statements are from reliable sources, the second one is speculative. The quote on the second one is the author's comment. The first one doesn't discount the fact that the series is a part of a larger franchise. Lauren Shuler Donner can be quoted contradicting herself. She, along with others in the creative team often say 'standalone' meaning the tone of the film/show/media. For instance: Hugh Jackman stated: "Not only is it different in terms of timeline and tone, it’s a slightly different universe. It’s actually a different paradigm and that will become clear [when you see the movie]," in regards to Logan. He later clarified what he meant by saying "It’s a stand alone movie in many ways. It’s not really beholden to time lines and story lines in the other movies...."

What this shows us is that 'standalone' etc are terms the studio uses to describe tone, and the product's abilities to stand on its own. They don't wanna get caught in a rabbit hole trying to adhere to the already convoluted timelines of the franchise. Lauren, as quoted above is merely stating that they are focusing on developing Legion as a great TV series, and the films individually as great films. In a seperate interview, she states: "This is far from the X-Men movies, but still lives in that universe" (see interview with The Hollywood Reporter). They continue to use this rhetoric with tone, and different styles.

I have cited six different occasions, with 10 sources, that the creative team behind the franchise has stated that it is going to all be a part of a larger franchise, and that they all share continuity. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * What you aren't getting is a lot of these comments from the creative team regarding Legion contradicted each other. So no. It doesn't matter how many articles you copy and paste, I could surely look for more sources that would contradict your sources. And this isn't about quantity of sources. Unlike Logan, which people already saw is very much connected to the other films and even Mangold clarified what Jackman said in the past. So please don't come up with another debate about Logan. It sounds like you are just trying to say whatever you can say to get away with what you want. Did you even watch Legion? If there's a connection that happened in Legion, people and sites would have probably picked that up and that has yet to happen. We shouldn't publish contradicting comments from the producers and have the readers get confused to what to believe. So for the love of God, stop. The majority of the editors already said their peace that they are opposed for a move and didn't say a word about Legion not being connected to the film series. And please don't comeback after a few weeks only to change something in the article when there was already a consensus from the editors. SuperHotWiki

(talk) 14:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hotwiki, you are way out of line. You cited two sources -- one being opinion-based by the article's author, while each of the examples in favor of the move, come from the producers as well as the series' creator. You can't get more qualified than that. Again, as stated several times above^ you are using rhetoric that is favoring to select editors. You haven't reached a consensus, nor have any of the editors, so you can't use that as leverage towards your opinion. Using demeaning phraseology such as, "copy and paste" resources, gets you nowhere closer to swaying anyone towards your opinion. The quotes on here, are obviously since you do not read the articles that have been referenced without directly quoting them. You cannot say that Legion is not connected to the films, for various reasons: A) You ask if DisneyMetalhead has seen the show....the show isn't even over yet, and you refer to it in past-tense --- are you a clairvoyant?; B) Others more qualified than yourself (a.k.a.: those who have produced the franchise) have stated that it is. The quote regarding Logan seem to be used to solidify the fact that the X-Men franchise as a whole is constantly in-flux with expansions and developments. We don't need to say "people and sites would have probably picked that up and that has yet to happen" - as that too is speculative. There are definitive examples from reliable sources stated. That is answer enough without your speculations. You continue to talk as though you, or "veteran editors" own this page.

Consensus is made by ALL editors. Not just you. Also no need for comments of exasperations towards any diety. This is merely a discussion. You are choosing to create issues, by ignoring comments, overlooking references, and viewing your opinion as the ultimate law and order. Relax. This is a tedious matter, but one that needs to be corrected. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that Legion has introduced all the tools they need to connect Legion to the X-Men Universe in this episode. Still no X-Men props, but we do still have two episodes left. I'm thinking we'll see a more clear hint before the credits roll on episode 8. 2001:982:4947:1:8422:2CE7:829A:D4A1 (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Legion Episode 7 spoilers ahead. So we have a British Charles Xavier (the comic book version is American, but Fox made him British because of Patrick Stewart) drawn on the white board in his suit. Walking in the astral plane like James McAvoy's version in X-Men: Apocalypse. And his wheelchair from the movies also appears. That pretty much makes it indisputable that David's father is the Charles Xavier from the Fox movies. Furthermore, the episode also touched upon different timelines. That already makes this show more connected to the X-Men movies than JJ is to the MCU. 2001:982:4947:1:C3D:21F3:47C3:A79 (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Small similarities doesn't imply they exist in the same universe. We need more concrete evidence that it is connected to the films. We didn't include X-Men Legends here because it featured Patrick Stewart, who was the voice actor for Xavier in the game.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm not really suggesting to take action yet, but it's still a rather obvious connection to the movies. They've always said that they want to earn their place in the X-Men Universe from the movies over time, which this is obviously a small part of. We'll see if the season finale, or the teased mid-credit scene do anything else to bring the properties closer together. Otherwise it won't happen until season 2, which is fine. This show was never meant to be as connected as Gifted, though that still doesn't mean they aren't part of the same universe. It's just that the cross-overs are more like Marvel Netflix rather than Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. 2001:982:4947:1:8055:E79C:BE18:1017 (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Support vs. Oppose name change
Since Hotwiki continues to say that 'the majority of editors' oppose the idea on the page -- I went through and counted the users that support it and oppose it. Support: AlexTH,DisneyMetalhead, Nurseline247, 2001:982:4947:1:90A2:C118:3012:6CB6, TotalTruthTeller24, RodgerTheDodger, 92.111.179.110, and myself. Oppose: Hotwiki, Tenebrae, Brocicle, Thomas Blomberg, and Rcarter555 Undecided(?): Freemanukem and TriiipleThreat.

though this is not how decisions are made, by counting editors, this is something that is enlightening and counters Hotwiki's argument that a consensus has been reached. It quite obviously has not.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop counting Burning blue as he/she didn't comment when the formal request for moving the article was started. Or do you want me to name drop the other editors who already opposed to this idea before?SuperHotWiki (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that this isn't really a productive discussion anymore and I'm not sure if there is a point in continuing. Every argument has pros and cons, but if we are just going to instantly dismiss (or counter) arguments then what is the point? I also saw a few comments in there which were obviously aimed at unregistered editors. I'll just point out that some of those type of comments are why I've never registered in the first place, despite following this article (and others) for years. Let's not forget that everybody is trying to improve the page in his/her own way. 2001:982:4947:1:38AB:603E:8130:10E0 (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Burningblue52 has been removed. I scanned through the page rather quickly. Apologies you guys. As far as the discussion becoming less and less productive I'd agree. It's turning into opinions, and most certainly has repeated demeaning comments towards specific editors. Also a reason why I have not yet created a profile, as whether I'm registered or not, there is still favoritism.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * These users also didn't specify if they oppose or support the article move: 2001:982:4947:1:90A2:C118:3012:6CB6 and 92.111.179.110.SuperHotWiki (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record: I'll support X-Men (Fox franchise) or some other variation of that. X-Men (Franchise) might be too vague as Hotwiki has pointed out. What it boils down to is that I think the name has to be changed, but I think all the different options should be considered first. 2001:982:4947:1:90A2:C118:3012:6CB6 would be me by the way. 2A02:A210:9480:1680:70F4:114C:10FF:3396 (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * May I add if you are gonna rename it to X-Men (Fox franchise), it should be 20th Century Fox franchise and not just Fox. Use the complete name of the studio. And if a move gets made, I guess a X-Men in film article would just take its place. SuperHotWiki (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

After being called on in the unregistered editor's comments, I think it is important to simply clarify where I stand. Given the information which I provided -- something that all decisions in Wikipedia edits should be based on and that is the facts -- it is obvious that I support the move to change the page's title. It is also apparent that many editors support the move to change the article's title. The question really is what is the appropriate title?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I still do not see why a name change is necessary at all. But I suggest that we get further comments from those who do not frequently edit this page as we do as an unbiased opinion. Brocicle (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

it is clear that there is no consensus among us editors of this article regarding the inclusion of Legion, although one thing that does appear to have surfaced is an elitism among certain "blue link" editors, who are behaving some what territorial and in direct conflict with Wikipedia rules, which is going to result in these editors being reported to the admins. Subjectively, if you take a step back, take your own feelings out of the equation and look at the evidence stated throughout this talk page; there is a very strong case to include Legion and by extension decide on a new page title. so the way i see it is that the focus should not be whether Legion is included on the page (the answer is very clear and the argument for it is considerably stronger than the argument against it), the focus should simply be on what new title we can agree is the most appropriate. RodgerTheDodger (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * RogerTheDodger totally agree with you. They use rhetoric which is demeaning and not constructive at all. Simply to belittle, bully and try to sway the conversation by casting doubt on any other editor than themselves. Definitely against Wikipedia's guidelines. The argument for Legion is much more solid thanks to DisneyMetalhead and obviously verifies the page needs to be changed.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't edit on this page often, but I follow it and wanted to contribute my thoughts. I support a name change for this page, but I would agree that X-Men (franchise) is too broad. X-Men (film franchise) or even X-Men (shared film continuity) etc would be more appropriate titles. I brought this issue up awhile back, actually, and I've believed for awhile that X-Men (film series) fails to describe the nature of the collection of films as a whole. The X-Men film series could be considered just those that are actually titled "X-Men," thus excluding Origins: Wolverine (maybe), The Wolverine, Deadpool, Logan, and a handful of upcoming films featuring non-X-Men characters still set in this continuity. It's a tricky situation, because these could all be considered spin-offs. That said, how far away from the original series do we need to get before it's not a spin-off anymore. Origins Wolverine was a spin-off, sure, but Deadpool 2, for example, will be a sequel to a spin-off (Deadpool) of a spin-off (Origins Wolverine) of the main series. At some point, these films stopped looking like a film series and more like a cinematic universe, similar to the MCU. One of the arguments made against referring to this as a universe/continuity instead of a series was that the MCU was built on a variety of different productions resulting in different films made by different directors, which eventually led to The Avengers, whereas these films are a set of continuing spin-offs, so one could consider them a single series. I'm not sure that argument holds up anymore, though. James Mangold appeared to have little to do with Bryan Singer's X-Men: Apocalypse, and Singer had little to do with Mangold's Logan (different Calibans for one, which Mangold confirmed was the result of a lack of communication between the two directors.) And Mangold has said in a boatload of interviews that he made Logan without influences and factors from the other films, that he wanted to make Logan stand on its own. That doesn't really sound like a film series anymore. For those who are still on the fence about this move, try to think about it this way. I don't think we're jumping the gun here, honestly. You have to admit that this has gone a bit past a traditional film series. Josh Boone's The New Mutants is going to be a really tough sell as a spin-off if it features, as expected, no characters we've already seen. Anyway, I'm rambling. Just wanted to lay down my thoughts. -RM (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The untitled New Mutants film is said to feature Charles Xavier.SuperHotWiki (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * On the flip-side, this has yet to be actually confirmed by the studio. Given this fact, along with X-Force, and Gambit -- what if the reality was no X-Men team members feature in them. As they stand now, this will be the case furthering the argument that this is not merely the X-Men film series anymore.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good argument, RM

This article focuses on films, and there is not really a discernible series anymore. I would support moving to X-Men in film to broaden the scope but still limit it to films. We can also have an X-Men in television article. Both of these articles can talk about the X-Men in each media regardless of continuity. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So then the question becomes whether Deadpool, Logan, New Mutants, etc. would have any relevance in an X-Men in film article. I thought the whole idea here was the create an article that discusses the continuity begun with X-Men. -RM (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd support a move to X-Men in film. They would be as relevant as they are here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's sort of the point I'm making... It's not clear whether the "X-Men film series" includes just the X-Men films or everything in the continuity. What classifies a film as an X-Men film? A single X-Men being in it? If so, why isn't Iron Man 3 considered an Avengers film? If not, then Origins, Wolverine, Deadpool, and Logan really shouldn't be included here, or at X-Men in film. Indeed, they would be as relevant as they are, but are they relevant here in the first place? -RM (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Again what makes you think Deadpool and Wolverine aren't X-Men? They are X-Men characters. Check X-Men in other media, those films are listed there so as Legion, Generation X, the Deadpool videogame and the untitled Fox Marvel television show.SuperHotWiki (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Would X-Men in live-action make sense as a title? That way it still includes all of the X-Men movies that technically are not X-Men movies (Deadpool, Logan, etc.) and also includes the tv shows, but would exclude any animated films and other media. RodgerTheDodger (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I support the name change, but feel it needs to be more specific than X-Men in film or X-Men in TV, as Mutant X would fall into this category. The discussion here is for the films and TV series that share continuity. Until the studio announces a name for it, which they are currently avoiding, we must find a descriptive word/phrase that classifies them all. X-Men (film franchise) or X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise) is specific and includes all the discussed titles.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The writers of Deadpool referred to the collection of films as the X-Universe here. In context, it's not clear whether it's an off-hand title created to refer to the films during the interview, or if it's something official (though it's probably the former considering I can't find the same name ANYWHERE else online). It could be something to go on. Alternatively, we could refer to it as 20th Century Fox's Marvel continuity. It doesn't exclude animated works (considering that this continuity could potentially include an animated series at some point), but makes it clear that the films/tv shows/other works referred to within would not be those produced by Marvel Studios/Disney/Sony/etc. Additionally, if we call it a continuity or a universe, we won't be stuck wondering whether to include "Hypothetical Film A" and "Hypothetical TV Show B" which are based on X-Men comics but not set in this continuity. They would be covered under X-Men in other media. Thoughts? -RM (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely need to be confining by being specific enough. Otherwise we end up in a rabbit-hole with X-Men animated television and films and everything else.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that this discussion has become more constructive. Rmaynardjr, I like your points you make concerning the name needing to be inclusiving enough for the Fox X-Men continuity. I too have seen the Deadpool writers reference the films as the "X-Universe". It's self-explaining and makes sense, but since it is only used once, it can could just be their description of it. I think something as simple as X-Men (cinematic franchise), or what has been suggested by another editor - X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise) is a good direction as it includes the timelines/continuities/etc, and it is specific enough that readers can see that it includes TV/film/short-film continuity of the X-Men. Should the studio come out with an official name for the "universe" then we can create something "official". But with the inconsistencies and issues of the page, needing to be updated to include all that is applicable - we definitely have to be specific!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Cinematic is subjective. So the cartoon series and videogames aren't cinematic? According to who? You? Again we aren't naming this X-Men Cinematic something something because its not an official name.SuperHotWiki (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hotwiki, your comments are always so demeaning. For your convenience I looked up the definition of cinematic: of or relating to motion pictures (cinematic output); having qualities characteristic of motion pictures (the cinematic feel of their video). Regardless of what word editors decide to use, the word 'cinematic' doesn't ONLY deal with theatrical releases. Rmaynardjr -- your questions are exactly what I have wondered about this page since I started looking into editing on Wikipedia. With all the spin-offs and future projects, what makes them an X-Men film, especially when/since some of them don't have the X-Men team in them. Gives us the reason why this page is inaccurate.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. And as I said before, cinematic specifically refers to film, as in of the cinema.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To reply to this and your comment further up, I would agree we shouldn't call it a cinematic universe unless it's specifically named so. For now, universe or continuity are probably our best bet. In regards to your other question, I think we need a clear answer to the prompt, "What makes a film an X-Men film?" You say Deadpool, The Wolverine, Logan etc are X-Men films because they are based on X-Men characters, but Iron Man is an Avenger, yet we don't refer to Iron Man 3 as an Avengers film. We say it's an Iron Man film, in the same way I would say The Wolverine and Logan are Wolverine films and Deadpool is a Deadpool film, all of which happen to be set in the same yet-unnamed continuity. So what actually does make a film an X-Men film? Because at this point the only logical way I can see to discern X-Men films from other films is the presence of the word X-Men in the title (plus X2, which is sort of a weird exception). But if I'm missing something, fill me in. -RM (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Predominately, this article is about the X-Men films, followed by whatever else comes after in support of it, like games and books. TV series isn't really strong enough, as is the whole concept of this whole Fox-produced universe. The Fantastic Four crossover fell through, and except for a few people, it doesn't really seem the X-Men film universe doesn't really have a strong foothold like the MCU. Even if this on the run spin-off does do well, it's not really enough. And then there's the problem with Legion. It's just kind of a loose film universe with tie-ins. There's nothing really major about it at the moment to consider renaming. Not even the spin-off films really justify it. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So you oppose the article move Anythingspossibleforapossible?SuperHotWiki (talk)

18:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is currently "predominantly" about the X-Men films, because that is what the title of the article is. With a change in name, the TV series get their own section, thus allowing greater details surrounding the continuity as a whole. What needs to be decided is what we can call the franchise and be correct in doing so. Just looking at the films as you pointed out, with six X-Men-titled films, and four "spin-off" films from that mainframe series, as well as five further "spin-offs" and ONE X-Men title on the way -- that greatly changes things. With all these expansions within the franchise - this article is out-of-date. Not to mention the fact that the producers have stated the studio will more greatly do so now that Wolverine is out of the picture (i.e. X-23, Alpha Flight and Exiles films in development). It needs to be updated.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Given the questionability of many words such as 'series', 'franchise', 'universe', 'cinematic'... why not X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise)? So specific that it clarifies what this discussion is getting to, and is broad enough to only include the studio's productions.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Am I the only other editor that thinks this would easily solve this discussion? --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

So it would appear, by looking over the complete discussion, that there is enough factual evidence to include Legion onto the page, so the focus now is that the page title is no longer accurate, so the only question left is: What should the page be titled? I have been through this complete article and have created a list of every proposed title I saw mentioned (if any are missing, please add them)
 * ''X-Men (cinematic franchise)
 * X-Men (cinematic universe)
 * X-Men (film franchise)
 * X-Men (film universe)
 * X-Men (Fox franchise)
 * X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise)
 * X-Men (franchise)
 * X-Men (in live-action)
 * X-Men (shared film continuity)
 * X-Men (X-Universe)
 * X-Men Universe
 * X-Universe''

So now we should identify, with solid reasons, which title is the most appropriate. RodgerTheDodger (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. We have established such and are now dealing with making a correct title. I could support X-Men (cinematic franchise), X-Men (film franchise), X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise), or X-Men (franchise). Reasons being is these sound like "unofficial" titles, and yet they are specific and inclusive enough to draw a conclusion. The rest sound like "fan"-names.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It's difficult because the majority of this page is simply X-Men. There's six solid X-Men films against four films that feature an X-Men character. When you think about, "film series" says all that needs to be said, without trying to get technical about it. "X-Men in film" could work, where it could cover the X-Men as a whole and then the individual characters. Or this page could be for just the X-Men films and then a separate page for everything else. X-Universe is just stupid, though, in my opinion. The Marvel Cinematic Universe started as the Marvel Cinema Universe, so I think we should maybe wait for something more concrete. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I stated this in reply to another edtor's comment as well: The article is currently "predominantly" about the X-Men films because that is what the title of the article is. With a change in name, the TV series get their own section, thus allowing greater details surrounding the continuity as a whole. What needs to be decided is what we can call the franchise and be correct in doing so. Just looking at the films as you pointed out, with six X-Men-titled films, and four "spin-off" films from that mainframe series, as well as five further "spin-offs" and ONE X-Men title on the way -- that greatly changes things. With all these expansions within the franchise - this article is out-of-date. Not to mention the fact that the producers have stated the studio will more greatly do so now that Wolverine is out of the picture (i.e. X-23, Alpha Flight and Exiles films in development). It needs to be updated.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Does the fact that we have Back to the Future (franchise) change the outcome of this debate? I always thought it was strange that we had to go with The Land Before Time (series). Both pages feel like they have to cater to everything. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would think so. Any other film series' page is retitled to cater to the needs of the article. For example: the Alien film series is titled "franchise" because of the shared continuity of the original series, and the newer prequel series, as well as the non-canon spinoff AVP films. Meanwhile the various Spider-Man film serieses are lumped into one article page that brings those seperate continuities on one page to read together - in order to see the film production progress throughout film history. This would be superfluous to do with the X-Men movies - as proposed by SuperHotWiki below - being that these films and TV shows are all produced by the same creative team, and all share continuity as well. Good point to bring up, I think.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * X-Men (film series). Simple, to the point. "Shared film continuity" is fan-speak. "Live-action" could include stage shows and ice shows. "Cinematic" is WP:EUPHEMISM for "film". "X-Men Universe" and "X-Universe" are fannish neologisms. Anything with "franchise" will make the article too broad and lengthy and we'd end up splitting it anyway. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There's more to this page than just the X-Men film series!! That's the whole point I've been trying to make! I agree with most of what you said about other title options, but the one you didn't mention was "continuity," which would be a correct way to refer to this collection of films (defined as the unbroken and consistent existence or operation of something over a period of time). These are not just X-Men films, and we need to account for that. -RM (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, I did mention "shared film continuity" in my comment, and I referred to it as fan-speak that is essentially meaningless to non-comics-fans. As for other topics covered here, once articles get beyond, I believe, 50K, we're supposed to consider splitting them up. The films alone are an article in themselves.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If mixing this up with the non-film materials is the problem then get rid of them. Instead of forcing this to be something else. The tie in novels, videogames, comic books are probably already mentioned in the other film articles. SuperHotWiki (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I could support SuperHotWiki's comment here, in that a section that summarized "tie-in material" isn't essential though it enhances the page as a whole, but the need for 'film material' should include the TV series. They are filmed with the intent to be in the shared continuity and thus must remain. Tenebrae, the TV series being integrated into the page - which is the discussion discounts the validity of a "X-Men (film series)" page title.


 * I agree with Tenebrae and SuperHotWiki: why spend so much time trying to change a descriptive term that works fine for the users of Wikipedia? "Film series" is unambiguous and is understood by everyone, including those who aren't obsessed with Tinsel Town hype. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be a fan site, but to be a serious and timeless encyclopaedia. In a few years' time, the PR people in Hollywood will have grown tired of their current pet words "franchise" and "universe" and will come up with something new, and immediately there will be Wiki editors - especially of the unregistered, temporary kind - who will clamour for Wikipedia to adopt those new terms, because "that's what it's called". Let's stick with "film series"! Thomas Blomberg (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thomas Blomberg your comment appears to be painting a negative picture of editors who you perceive to be 'less than' yourself. Wikipedia is meant to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA (you spelled the word wrong in your comment fyi), and in such needs to be accurate. By finding the all-inclusive and correct descriptive term for a shared continuity of 20th Century Fox produced X-Men media that is correcting and enhancing the page. In no way is that 'Tinsel town hype', nor a status that renders the legitimacy for 'fan site' references. Fansites can call the franchise whatever they like. Times change and fads come and go, but to remain current and accurate I brought up this topic once again because by the page's current title - the page is also incorrect. Remember that you, and no other editor own or dominate a conversation on a talk page, nor do you own this page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear DisneyMetalhead, "encyclopaedia" is a perfectly correct spelling. Please check the Wiki page Encyclopaedia as well as American and British English spelling differences. The "ae" spelling was simplified to "e" in American English during the 19th century, while it is still the most common spelling in British and Australian English. As for the rest, we simply have different views.Thomas Blomberg (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Move for Consensus
The overall consensus seems to be that the title of this page is indeed incorrect as it is currently named. The only question is what is the title we want to push for, to move the page? I say: These three titles classify the page's topic, the production team, the continuity and remain "unofficial" in nature until the studio classifies the series with an actual title.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise)
 * X-Men (franchise)
 * X-Men (film franchise) or
 * X-Men (film universe)
 * There's no consensus, another editor just opposed the article move. So you aren't in the position to dictate things especially moving this article.SuperHotWiki (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, It looks as if we're far from establishing a concensus. Also remember the initial move request is still open. We should wait until the request closes and if the closing admin doesn't find a consensus to move, then you could either leave the WP:STATUSQUO or open an WP:RFC.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You are constantly reverting the multiple additions of Legion from multiple editors, so I'm not exactly sure that you're in a place to talk about consensus and dictating content in the article. --  Alex TW 23:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I still say we put in a request for further comment from admins and editors who do not regularly contribute to the article Brocicle (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the RfC. However, it would need to be in a new section that is way tidier than the current discussion, that summarizes the points in a neutral fashion. This is a complete mess. --  Alex TW 02:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It really is. While I'm having trouble following I'll give it a go to summarise neutrally for and RfC. Brocicle (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Amazing, thanks Brocicle. --  Alex TW 03:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Alex The Whovian, don't change the topic as you use that tactic to further distance what this discussion is about. I am the not only person in this talk page who said that Legion isn't connected to the film series. And I surely won't allow a poorly sourced edit which was by the way, was also a copy & paste information from another Wikipedia article to remain in the article. Like I said once, the connection from the Legion is established that it is set within the continuity of the film series in the last two episodes, or if it just referenced the films, then anyone is free to include Legion here. But that has yet to occur. Again, we are talking about the consensus here not that show. Please stay on topic.SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Dictating what can and cannot be said in a discussion. A discussion is allowed to go any way it pleases. You don't own this page, this discussion. Seems the change in topic did work, though, got you onto a 800-char post about Legion. (By the way... AlexTheWhovian, no spaces. ) --  Alex TW 02:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not when you are dragging my name. Anyway there another sections in this talkpage to discuss Legion. You should do it there. Again, please stay on topic.SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I created this sub-section to move closer to a consensus. I am not in the position nor the 'power' to 'dictate' what happens. Merely trying to move the discussion forward, HotWiki. As AlexTW stated you are repeatedly reversing edits that other users have compiled, all in favor of your opinion. Given the amount of sources declaring that Legion is in continuity with the films, I think that your reverts are deconstructive. Legion being in the continuity is completely relative to the conversation. The discussion is for a move to change the page's title, because the X-Men produced by 20th Century Fox have moved into Television Series, in addition to the film series. Now that we've established we are all "stay[ing] on topic", lets discuss the page's potential name change - with accurate constructive alternatives.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Move to archive current page
As this page is too bulky and hard to follow at this point (and repeatedly off topic), I request that the current talk page be archived, per Wikipedias guidelines, and we re-start any unresolved/ongoing conversations with fresh eyes and with a focus on facts (not feelings). There are new editors and old editors, with many regretting being part of this conversation (myself included), but we are all editors with an interest in the X-Men, so we all have something in common. So I request that this talk be added to the archives, we forget about any hurt feelings or mistakes any editors have made and we move on with clear and open minds. Please state your support and if all are in favor then we can proceed with archiving RodgerTheDodger (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really how archiving works. Archive the old discussions that have not had new comments for some months, not new ones that are still being discussed as we speak. Brocicle (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is unbelievable how this conversation has developed. One of the many reasons I will not register as an editor on this site. Too many hard-core fanboy situations go on. Personal attacks, and arguments from the comfort of your home behind a computer-screen. It really needn't have gotten so off topic. I think RodgerTheDodger was merely stating that if the page were 'more clean' it'd be easier to follow the opinions and reasoning. Though the general stasis of archiving is for that purpose, it could be helpful here. The varying opinions have become nonsensical and completely off-topic. How is anyone supposed to come to a conclusion here-in? New sub-heading sections keep being added by those who are opposed to the move. The discussion should have ended at the RfC request, and then a decision would have been made by an admin. As-is this is getting nuts. Disgusting is how I would describe this thread.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you 50.232.205.246, that was my point. I understand that technically archiving is for when the page is too large in size and for when conversations are dead, with no new comments. Although the page is large, conversations are clearly not finished. But this page has got out of hand. I feel that it would be beneficial to all involved, if we wipe the slate clean and start the conversations again, clearly, without emotions, with the intention of reaching a resolution. As a lot has been said I believe that this conversation should be saved and therefor I am saying to archive it instead of just deleting it. I am trying to be a team player here, with a focus on reaching a resolution to these questions regardless of whether or not it is the resolution that I believe is correct. I am happy to accept other opinions, when backed up with facts, as I was with my initial post about including a section on continuity; I may feel that it is beneficial, but I accept that there are so many continuity problems throughout the franchise, that the order of continuity is purely subjective and as so, does not belong on Wikipedia.... it's not what I want, but I respect that it does not have a place on this page. So my suggestion of archiving the page is not to ignore the guidelines, but to try and help move things along in a more productive direction. We are all here to improve Wikipedia, I hope you can see a benefit to this. This does not make anyone's opinions redundant, but instead gives everyone a chance to clearly and concisely state their points, with facts, so that the conversation can clearly be followed and resolved. RodgerTheDodger (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but archiving is already set up - you'll see this if you look at the top header for the talk page. We archive once a discussion has concluded, that's how the guidelines work. --  Alex TW 02:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Gifted - detailed ad nauseum
So why is Gifted so over detailed when two other editors just suggested that the tie in materials shouldn't be too detailed. Then I removed the excessive info about the Tv show then someone reverted my edit? Again this is for the film series. The tie in material section should mention why the tie in materials are tie in to the films and that's it. No need to mention the whole premise and when it was announced. There's other section for that one such as X-Men in other media to be detailed ad nauseum, but not this article.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * if we are gonna allow this to Gifted, then don't blame me if I give more information about the other Tie in materialsto even things out for the section. So please, no special treatment to Gifted. Every tie in material should be treated the same.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Calling User:AlexTheWhovian to further explain himself about keeping Gifted being "detailed ad nauseum" especially it's just one of the many tie in materials, instead of threatening me of things in my talk page which I don't appreciate. Again if you don't see the difference of this article to X-Men in other media, then that's your problem.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You keep using that term, but out of place in the sentence here^. One reason that TV shows would have more detail is to be congruent with the rest of the page (i.e.: See the formatting for the film sections). Likewise look at the MCU TV series sections on that page. Because they are actual installments in the franchise, they need a little more detail. That's what I say.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)