Talk:X-Men (film series)/Archive 8

Deletion of RfCs (multiple) review
So now that that mess of an RfC has been closed, what's the next move? All editors and users are welcome to comment given this is not an RfC.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Deciding/agreeing on a title for it to possibly be changed to before opening that discussion again Brocicle (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Perhaps if we call in 'all' editors who had any comments on it before, we can come to a more defined RfC.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still against changing it BUT if it comes to a decision to indeed change the title I'd be most happy with X-Men (Fox franchise) Brocicle (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed on X-Men (Fox franchise). --  Alex TW 05:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also agreed on X-Men (Fox franchise). Freemanukem (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah X-Men (Fox franchise) would be acceptable. On the other hand X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise) actually wouldn't work since Legion for example is on FX. FX is still Fox though. 193.173.216.106 (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well then it's settled: X-Men (Fox franchise) is what we all mostly agree would the most appropriate title for a rename. Let the following RfC be about this. Impending IP (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my support to Anythingspossibleforapossible's suggestion of X-Men in film
 * This comment above is not me, I do not know who it is. Whoever it is, do not pretend to be another user of Wikipedia. That is very mcuh frowned upon. Impending IP (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Name change to X-Men (Fox franchise)
X-Men (film series) → X-Men (Fox franchise)

– This discussion was begun by Impending IP on 31 March 2017, and should have been concluded on 6 April 2017, if not for the actions of User Tenebrae removing the infobox. As The People below have Supported a Move to X-Men (Fox franchise); I am adding a new infobox which I hope shall not be removed again until such a time at this page can be moved. The discussion will conclude seven days from now on 14 April 2017 @ 19:46. Nurseline247 (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Why does User:Tenebrae think it's okay to delete the RfC infobox, when it was nearing a consensus? We all were following an admin's suggestion about how to resolve the issue, and yet they still feel they have the authority to direct the conversation and lead it into whatever it is he is trying to do. So backwards. Another case of WP:NOTHERE.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Support
Current Number of Supporters: 13
 * Alex 'TW
 * Freemanukem (talk)
 * 193.173.216.106 (talk)
 * Note: Adding himself to this list is the only edit the above IP has made. This IP has not discussed the issue below and has never contributed to the article. I find this a highly suspicious "vote". --Tenebrae (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Impending IP (talk)
 * RodgerTheDodger (talk)
 * DisneyMetalhead (talk)
 * Mike210381 (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Total-Truth-Teller-24 (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2017 (ROI)
 * Nurseline247 (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 50.232.205.246 (talk)
 * Anythinspossibleforapossible (talk)
 * 2001:982:4947:1:319D:101A:2A16:7C00 (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: Adding himself to this list is the only edit the above IP has made. This IP has not discussed the issue below and has never contributed to the article. I find this a highly suspicious "vote". --Tenebrae (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You do understand how dynamic IPs work, right? --  Alex TW 10:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand perfectly. I also under how sock-puppetry and WP:VOTESTACK work. --Tenebrae (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Then open a sock report with your proof. Go ahead, we'll wait for you. --  Alex TW 10:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You know perfectly well that these possible IP socks could be anyone here and that it's completely impractical to open individual sock investigations into a string of different editors trying to find out who it is. But admins have been around long enough to know suspicious editing when they see it. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So, you have no proof, other than your own conspiracy theories. Cheers. --  Alex TW 11:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice try. You've already distinguished yourself as an uncivil editor with your blatant name-calling in the previous, closed discussion. Now you're doing it again, taking legitimate concerns that any experienced editor would have and trying to demean and belittle such an editor by labeling him "conspiracy theorist." Don't bother to address the fact that editors who have never added a single comment to the discussion are suddenly "voting." No, better to attack the messenger. Cheers to you. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If it was a legitiment concern, you would do something to fix it. Instead, you decide that their opinions are worthless. Uncivil? Hah! (Did Bush do 9/11?) --  Alex TW 11:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're using derisive laughter and comparing me to 9/11 conspiracy theorists? More incivility. But that's what what we can expect from you. And, yes, It's a "legitiment" concern, as you put it. I'm sorry that someone who sees conspiracy theories whenever someone doesn't agree with him won't accept the simple truth that it's impractical to open multiple sock investigations when anon IPs make a single edit and could be anyone in the support list. You either don't understand that, or you understand it very well and are choosing to WP:IDONTHEARYOU. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OH. MY BAD. I MADE A TYPO. Look how puny that is to point out. Thanks, Bush. --  Alex TW 11:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And now you're screaming. Cheers. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I blame Bush for that. Jet fuel can't melt my voice. --  Alex TW 11:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Now you're off-topic. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Obama. --  Alex TW 11:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Now you're just being WP:DISRUPTIVE. Talk pages are for discussion of improving the article. They're not for heaping off-topic sarcasm on other editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * When Trump shuts down open access to the internet, will it matter? --  Alex TW 11:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see you're going to continue to be disruptive. I'm sorry you think that's proper behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ditto, brah. --  Alex TW 11:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I've stayed on-topic and haven't insulted or name-called. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * haven't insulted or name-called I thought this was a talk page? Not a place for stand-up comedy. --  Alex ''[[User
 * I am the editor in question and yes I have a dynamic IP. If you look back on the talk page and editing history for this page you should be able to find similar looking IP adresses going way back. I've been following this page since forever. I have no idea what you are trying to do here by pointing at me as being 'suspicious'. I said it during the last RfC and I will say it again. Stuff like this is why I stay far away from becoming a registered user on Wikipedia. This is absolutely ridiculous.
 * Edit: Actually I've really had enough of this. I will probably refrain from using this talk page or editing the article in the future. You have spend ages during the last RfC talking about how this whole thing is not about votes, yet you are spending an aweful lot of time trying to invalidate people who do not agree with you. That's not how a discussion works and frankly it is really bad form. 2001:982:4947:1:51EB:8242:44AE:B70D (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You add a support "vote" without taking part in any discussion or giving any reason. Anyone who's been around here long enough knows what that's most likely about. It's so easy for IPs to try to stack the deck. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Tenebrae, you do not take precedence over what other users have said... stop putting your comments before other users. You should have placed this^ below my comment from yesterday. Also stop accusing simply to cause doubt on other users. Whether they are registered or not, all users are valuable contributors to the discussion.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/2001:982:4947:1:51EB:8242:44AE:B70D, your comments are valued by the rest of Wikipedia users, outside of User:Tenebrae's circle of elitism. Despite that user's comments, all users are valued regardless of how long they have been an editor. For all he knows you've been an editor longer than he. Even though he's been an editor for 12 years as he likes to brandish within his comments, extremely out-of-line behavior to constantly be casting doubt on other editors. Not right. Any editor can see his actions throughout these comments.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae you did this on the previous discussion. The reasoning behind your suspicions are uncalled for, as RfCs are uploaded to a list.... those users very well could have simply gone there and read about the RfC. The name change is a discussion open to any and all editors. Any editor can voice their opinion. Just because it is no the same as yours, doesn't mean it's suspicious....--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC) <-Ohp, look I'm an unregistered editor. Call the admins :O, quick!
 * Schmeater (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2017

Oppose
Current Number of Opposers: 3
 * it should be moved to X-Men in film. So obvious oppose here! - TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose X-Men films deserve their own article. So do X-Men TV shows. So do the X-Men videogames. This attempt at shoehorning OR / synth "continuity" is fancruft. This is an encyclopedia. Create fan pages somewhere else. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Tenebrae, and based on the fact that the proposed title is not at all intuitive. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments
There was the Fox Kids cartoon, and then the Fox Generation X TV film. It should just be renamed to X-Men in film. Batman in film and Superman in film cover different series and they do just fine. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point! Brocicle (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Better suggestion indeed! Let's move it to X-Men in film now!TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, let's not move it now. You have no consensus. Sheesh. --  Alex TW 19:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that that still doesn't clarify the continuity issue at hand. That's the current problem. The Fox produced TV show Generation X is long-forgotten and not a part of anything. A page of X-Men in film, could be helpful similar to Batman in film etc, but the move here is to create a page specifically about the X-Men (Fox franchise) as that is what this page is already about.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Generation X was simply being overlooked in favour of the films that were done theatrically. This page should have always included that and been called X-Men in film. The bigger picture here is what kind of universe is this? The series is first and foremost, X-Men. By putting anything into brackets, you automatically make it look like it's purely covering X-Men on its own, defeating the purpose of every person who needs this to reference the fact that this is some X-Men Cinematic Universe, but it's not called that. It's not called anything. It's made up of X-Men films, then Wolverine films, who's already established as an X-Men character, then Deadpool's just on his own. Even with X-Force, can this really be connected as a series? It will just be an "Deadpool and X-Force" universe with little ties to X-Men. Finally, there's the Legion series that has gone on record that it has no ties. It's just some confused series based on the main character's mind. All I see is an unclear universe set up by Fox and some others involved. It'd be even worse if they did that FF crossover. If you want to be clear call it X-Men (theatrical film franchise). Otherwise it should just be the same as Batman in film, Superman in film, and Spider-Man in film. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, both titles risk including or excluding content where it would be inappropriate. X-Men in film would leave out any potentially related TV shows, and given the hinted connections between the films and Legion (and potentially Gifted), it would be appropriate to think proactively and allow room for potential non-filmic works to be included in the same article if and when the need should arise. It also would include X-Men films that are NOT a part of this continuity, should they ever be made. Meanwhile, as User:Anythingspossibleforapossible points out, X-Men (Fox franchise) risks including any works based on X-Men comics, which would cover the TV film and animated series from the 90s. As an alternative, with a very minor change that I think could remedy all of the above discrepancies, how about X-Men (2000s Fox Franchise), making it clear that anything that came before the 2000 X-Men movie is not being covered on the page and anything connected to that film in any way (be it a sequel, prequel, spin-off, TV show, etc.) can be included. -RM (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Anythingspossibleforapossible take a look at the extensive references I mentioned previously in this conversation here which goes on record multiple times from multiple sources from the creative team that has made all the movies, and now Legion and The Gifted. The studio has very loose continuity from film to film - but so does James Bond. The films and two TV series discussion are all part of the same 'franchise'. There are multiple uses of the word "franchise" as also discussed in this section. If you're going for one title vs the other, I would draw your attention to Batman in film. It covers every single Batman interpretation, but there is still the DC Extended Universe page which is specific to the franchise's continuity. I would say that the X-Men could and should do a similar thing. First and foremost the discussion is "What do we call this continuity franchise?" -- then I think a larger page that covers other interpretations (i.e.: Generation X, the animated series, animated films etc.) similar to the pages you have pointed out, would be productive and helpful.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@RM X-Men in film wouldn't leave out any potential in film, maybe the problem is that, it would be too vague, which apparently X-Men (film series) is. If describing a title by just using the films then Marvel Cinematic Universe would confuse people into thinking it only covers movies, when it covers a majority of media. So this leads into what I have to say to DisneyMetalhead and RM, as well, that I think if we need a title to cover the fact that where this franchise starts and what it could cover without it being misleading into only one type of media would be X-Men (2000's Fox franchise). It doesn't really sound like a fan name, instead sounding neat and tidy without trying to compensate for an official title we don't have. Of course, there are films after that decade, but it still serves the same function. My other options are X-Men (Bryan Singer series) or X-Men (Singer/Kinberg series). The former makes it explicit in every way, since Singer's been a part of both trilogies and the Gifted series. And if Singer's comment is anything to go by that Legion would connect to the movies, then that makes his role even bigger. Without a doubt, he's had one of, if not the biggest, role in the series. He's been there since the beginning and he's now still a part of it. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate what you are trying to do and say. I really do. The issue is that Bryan Singer, though he has been involved in the films - is not the creative mind of the projects in development. He has been a part of the trilogy films, but the Deadpool, Gambit, X-Force, and New Mutants titles he has no connection with. That's not to say that he may or may not return in the future. The real proposition would be to make this page have a title that fits it, and yet is not too constricting. With Legion "connecting to future films", and the show's creator/writer/producer/director Noah Hawley stating that the series will continue to explore film connections -- that also puts a stint in the Bryan Singer idea. I like your idea for a X-Men in film page. That would be similar to Spider-Man in film, or Batman in film, or Superman in film -- but what is distinct about each of those pages is that it also has a link to pages specific to continuity (i.e.: DC Extended Universe, and Marvel Cinematic Universe). Since we do not have an official title from 20th Century Fox yet, the discussion is as basic as "what do we call this franchise that clarifies the continuity, but also doesn't sound fan-made or limit its future?". It's a tough decision which is why this discussion is so long and such a huge debate with all the editors. X-Men (Fox franchise) is specific, as it includes 20th Century Fox, FX, and Fox TV installments -- all under the parent company 21st Century Fox; and can specify in the introduction paragraph that it is a film and television franchise which began with X-Men (the movie). That clarifies confussion regarding Fox produced cartoons and Generation X. Now once that's completed, I would fully support a second page that is "X-Men in film" which covers every interpretation of the characters. It'd be insightful, a history lesson to readers, and interesting as well. But the current page needs a re-title which fits the "film franchise" itself (the word 'film' being used loosely non-exclusive to movies, but also to TV shows as well). --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The fact that editors can't decide if Generation X (or perhaps even Mutant X, since there was a Marvel comic) should be included illustrates how OR / synth this whole proposal is. Editors previously debated on this page whether the the film Deadpool belonged, since one editor spotted background posters or some such advertising X-Men movies. This attempt at shoehorning OR / synth "continuity" is fancruft. This is an encyclopedia. Create fan pages somewhere else. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that Generation X is not a part of the film series. Let's be real - that is not what Anythingspossibleforapossible stating. What the editor was clearly saying is that the title of X-Men (Fox franchise) could be misconstrued to include the cartoons and that one-off show from the 90s. The purpose of this discussion is not 'fancruft' as you keep saying. What's being stated is that the current title is inaccurate as there is more than just X-Men movies, (i.e.: Wolverine and Deadpool....and upcoming Gambit and X-Force and New Mutants), as well as the TV shows. If you're going for completely accurate encyclopedia - it is outdated. Strictly speaking no producers have ever called the series X-Men....so the title is wrong there too. A title which includes all of the above until there is an official title is what we're aiming for. The Legendary studios' produced MonsterVerse used to be listed on here as the Godzilla-Kong series...which is not an official title, but a classification for reading purposes. No fan-paging here. Just constructive purpose.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not that we're deciding whether to include Generation X. We're trying to ensure that whatever title we suggest will cover only those works which are a part of this continuity. "Continuity," by the way, is not "fancruft." Everything is naming itself "universe." (MCU, DCEU, Arrowverse, Monsterverse, etc.), but that's not what we're suggesting. No one is suggesting anything with the word universe. A continuity is simply the existence of something over time, a continuous story told across several different series of different types of work. May I also point out that, while you are welcome to make accusations (and accusations and accusations and accusations) of fancruft, we're not suggesting a major change in content to this article, only its title. "The term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality, or original research." (from WP:Fancruft) You don't seem to have a problem with the article itself, though, and everything in the article is verified, cited, neutral, etc. So I'm not really sure how naming the article X-Men (Fox franchise) or any slight variations thereon could be considered fancruft. We are taking very conscious efforts to avoid titling the article with anything that may sound unencyclopedic or fannish, and although that title is not sourced, neither is X-Men (film series). -RM (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The X-Men movies are "films", and If you go to a dictionary and look up the word "series", you'll see its primary meaning is "a number of things or events of the same class coming one after another in spatial or temporal succession." That doesn't say they have to be thematically the same, or have the same director or producer or anything else. The "class" in this case is "films starring the X-Men", so any bunch of X-Men films is a "film series". That said,  the synonym "X-Men in film" certainly works. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Mutant X is not an X-Men show. Tenebrae, please stick to on topic. Generation X uses X-Men characters, that's why I've bought it up for the reasons I already bought up. This is utterly ridiculous. You can take that as a fact, not an opinion. I know there's people that probably think this is a necessary discussion, and in some reasons I agree with them, but X-Men (film series) still says it all to me. This page is nothing more to me than a list to me anyway. There's nothing that really says this is a universe page, outside of the fact we're listing films. And, personally, this whole Legion and Deadpool debate is ridiculous as well, as they're are weak connections. Yeah, Xavier is mentioned in Legion and Deadpool makes references to the X-Men, but outside of that what's really connectiong. Simon Kinberg sketchy connections? -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say Mutant X was an X-Men show. Read what I said carefully, please: "The fact that editors can't decide if Generation X (or perhaps even Mutant X, since there was a Marvel comic) should be included illustrates how OR / synth this whole proposal is." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well said, Anythingspossibleforapossible. Glad we're staying on-topic. However, the title of X-Men (film series) has never been an official title, and is out-of-date. Something that can be confirmed by all sources is the fact that each of the installments (titles - whatever you want to call them) are a part of the same 'continuity'/franchise as a whole. With Nathan Summers/Cable's introduction in Deadpool 2 - there will be another connection to the X-Men trilogy movies. Regardless of how tonally different Deadpool is, it still is the same franchise. That's the issue at hand, and again if you read the extensive references I provided earlier on this page - you can see plainly that Legion is as well. It shouldn't even be a debate. RM awesome points for debunking the whole 'fancruft' nonsense.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey everyone, 50.232.205.246 has a pretty good thought I hadn't thought about. Let's look outside of this page and the whole argument that X-Men (Fox franchise) isn't an official title. The MonsterVerse DID used to be titled Godzilla-Kong (series) or franchise or something to that effect. That was definitely not an official title, as it is really quite short-hand looking, even. Another example would be the Universal Monsters (2017 film series) page -- again not an official title, and arguably a very poor title for the page, but that's besides the point -- what I'm saying is that the debate on whether the page should wait for an official title for the franchise or not just got shot down. Wikipedia has 'unofficial' titles all the time. It's done simply for sorting, organizational, and reading purposes. That's it.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Just wondering: the general consensus at the moment seems to be to move this page to X-Men (Fox franchise). When exactly would the page be moved? How many people do we need to agree upon a move? Also, @DisneyMetalhead: Ditto. Couldn't have said it better myself.Impending IP (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In general it seems about seven to ten days-ish...from what I've seen. In addition to the already stated film serieses that I've stated here are some others that have been given an unofficial name simply for organizational, sorting, and reading purposes: Has Fallen (film series) - yeah it's in the titles, but no official statement has been made by the studio; Robert Langdon (film series) - yeah he's the main character, but again simply titled that for sorting purposes. Still other film series don't even have a page (see: Blade Runner which includes Blade Runner, Soldier, and Blade Runner 2049). It's the incorrect title we are trying to fix, for reading purposes here. The X-Men is more than just a film series now, and has been since the first Wolverine movie.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Nothing gets moved unless we do a formal move request, which this is not. Go to WP:RM to see the template that has to be used, etc. What's going on right now is an informal discussion and not binding. Indeed, I'm not sure why we're having it rather than getting straight to the formal move request.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We are following the direction from the admin Black Kite to get a more defined viewpoint before the RfC starts. Whoever does start the RfC, they will definitely have to do so at the very bottom of all this mess.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like a fan comment, but while I haven't watched Legion, from what I've read, which is on Wikipedia, is that they have to earn it. Nothing to me has really been connected other than subtle (and I stress subtle) connections. It doesn't even seem they were going for an X-Men connected series when coming in. It's just something that has come later. Just because there are allusions, doesn't mean it's all connected. People are trying to connect Wolverine and the X-Men to Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes, simply because of what one of the people involved said, yet outside of that, there's no connections outside of the fact that some of the characters are voiced by the same actors. You can't dispute the evidence that Arrow and The Flash aren't connected. You can dispute the evidence that Legion isn't connected to any film because there isn't anything strongly connecting them. The timeline is also ambiguous from an interview I saw on Popcorn with Peter Travers. For all we know, the Xavier in Legion could be an entirely new version. Just call it X-Men (Fox franchise), it makes no sense to me calling it that, but if it brings and end to this, then so be it. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Anythingspossibleforapossible - just because I'm a fan of the franchise, doesn't negate the fact that all of these references here: Talk: X-Men (film series) state plainly and simply that the series is in the same franchise. The reason season one was so vague (from what I've heard I haven't seen it completely myself) is that the character is an unreliable narrator with psychosis. This way if it was a success on its own - Fox could connect it to their films, if it was a dud, then they could abandon it and say it was its own series. Read those references and then tell me they aren't in the same continuity.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that anyone has to say, "Read those references and then tell me they aren't in the same continuity" demonstrates explicitly how subjective and POV this whole "continuity" notion is. And with anything where different editors can interpret things n different ways without reliable secondary sources as confirmation is WP:SYNTH, which is disallowed. Please look that up. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. But I would like to add that the TV stuff is simply weaving in and out of the movieverse. This seems like a film series first, TV series second. Also, unreliable character narratives such as Deadpool and David Haller don't really mean anything to me, but I'm just going along with things now, mostly to bring some result to this. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the name X-Men (Fox Franchise) would be sufficient if the article explains that it pertains to properties that were created as a result of the franchise that was started with X-Men (2000). 92.111.179.110 (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed 92.111.179.110. The introductory paragraph should state that the franchise is a franchise of live-action feature films, and TV shows that began with X-Men, and is based on the Marvel Comics superhero team of the same name. Puts to rest the argument of whether Mutant X, Generation X, or animated productions could be misunderstood by the proposed title. Thanks for your insight.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * just to add, don't forget to make an own section for the comic books, tie in videogames, novelizations and the soundtracks, anything that features Fox's logo. You don't want to give the impression that it is just the movies and TV shows produced by Fox.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point, Hotwiki. Probably in a section titled 'In other media' or something to that effect, as done on other pages.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not in other media. Again that would look like you are heavily emphasising on the live action movies and TV, I thought it's gonna be the entire "Fox franchise" and not just a selection of products, right?. See the article of Marvel Cinematic Universe, where soundtracks, tie in comics, books got their own section and not just a sub section under in other media.

You might as well renamethis to "X-Men in live action adaptations" if you aren't gonna do that. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your suggestion, and can appreciate that. If it is done similar to how the MCU has organized things, then there shouldn't be any issues.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Mutant X does not need to be in this discussion, because while it is inspired by X-Men, it has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Tenebrae was simply making a complicated discussion even worse. How many people actually think Mutant X is set within some kind of X-Men universe? -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Just so this doesn't go into an Mutant X discussion, I was being rhetorical. They're not even called mutants. Professor X, Magneto, or any other character from the X-Men comics, etc. was never going to appear in that show, because it's unrelated. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No one does. That's what I got from DisneyMetalhead's comment. No one thinks those crummy TV fails, nor the cartoon are a part of the Fox franchise's continuity.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Didn't expect to see another RfC so soon after the last one, but I'll add my support for X-Men (Fox franchise). 2001:982:4947:1:319D:101A:2A16:7C00 (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Following the RfC review, and a much more concise argument, the new RfC can move forward.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Just here to put in my support for changing it to X-Men (Fox Franchise) or whatever following that template that was listed above. If I could say, though, in interviews, Kinberg, Singer and Donner all tend to say X-Men Universe, perhaps a rename to X-Men Universe (Cinematic) is a possibility? If not, I'm down with the other name, but a rename and restructuring is a good step. --Schmeater (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Two points RE Wikipedia guidelines / practices

Two points have been getting lost in this debate. One is natural disambiguation, which states we should use the simplest and most natural parenthetical term. "Fox franchise" would be natural only if there were multiple X-Men franchises, in order to differentiate the article from, say "Paramount franchise" or "Disney franchise".

But more important is readers first. I would suggest that the average reader wants to know about X-Men films or about X-Men TV shows or about X-Men comics or about X-Men videogames. Only hardcore comics fans want to see some grand, unified continuity such as "X-Men (Fox franchise)". Unless a reader is well-versed in studios and networks, he or she is not going to naturally look for X-Men (Fox franchise). He or she will look for "X-Men in film" or similar, "X-Men on TV" or similar, "X-Men videogames", X-cetera. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Tenebrae you are making this way beyond complicated. The opening paragraph will clarify what the page is about. The 'average reader' who wants to know about the Alien movies probably isn't interested in all the other stuff and yet the page is titled as a franchise. This title-change move is to be more accurate than the page currently is. Once the studio releases an official name (if they choose to do so) then will the page have an 'official title'.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

IJBall, the title is definitive enough for this movement. Also an introductory paragraph will summarize that the franchise is 'a series of live-action films and television adaptations, sharing continuity, based on the comics by Marvel'. Simple enough. If your argument is that the title doesn't cater to every reader -- explain to me why the Has Fallen (film series) and Robert Langdon film series have the names they do, and how they are intuitive? --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's a terrible choice for a disambiguator – totally non-intuitive: Tenebrae is correct on this. If the insistence is that all the various offshoots be kept in the same article (and I agree with Tenebrae on this that they should be split up into separate articles), then a far better choice would be X-Men (media franchise)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not the current issue. The issue is the page is about the continuity of films/TV shows that 21st Century Fox has made through its subsiduaries 20th Century Fox, Fox Television, and FX - and the current title doesn't reflect that. This page needs to have a better title for that purpose. If you want to make another page that breaks things down even further - titled X-Men in other media, or X-Men in film, or X-Men in television, etc - then do so. This has been done likewise with similar pages such as Batman in film, Superman in film, Spider-Man in film -- but each of these also has similar pages about a specific series therein.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly the issue I'm talking about: "the page is about the continuity of films/TV shows." General readers do not care about your OR/SYNTH "continuity". That is purely a fanboy concern. This is not a fan page, General readers want to know about X-Men movies or X-Men TV shows. Only hardcore comics fans and not the general public cares about your "continuity: theories. --Tenebrae (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Tenebrae, you continue to demean other users who don't agree with you. That is a display of incivility. You accusing users of being 'fanboys' is irrelevant to the conversation. As the RfC survey points out there is plenty of the 'general public' that cares about classifying franchises and their continuity. Despite the declarative statements you make - without reference or research supporting your claims. No one here is trying to break rules. So stop claiming so in your messages to admins.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Re the comment that (Fox franchise) would only be natural if there were several X-Men franchises: Well there are. There is the comic book franchise that Marvel runs (with its own tie-ins etc.) and then there is this franchise. 80.57.35.149 (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow. You misinterpret the word "franchise" and much else. Comic books are a different medium that films. Videogames are a different medium than films. They're not different "franchises". --Tenebrae (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There are two different companies making products based on the same set of characters and the X-Men IP, but that doesn't mean it's just one franchise. The entire point of this discussion is that the 'Fox franchise' isn't just limited to movies, but also incudes things like games, comics, novelizations and videogames. Similarly Marvel isn't limited to making X-Men comics. 80.57.35.149 (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, you're making my point. Rather than have an article about X-Men in film, and one about X-Men on TV, and one about X-Men in videogames, etc., you're trying to put films, TV and videogames all in one article and write OR / SYNTH about "continuity", as DisneyMetalhead puts it.--Tenebrae (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, you're only making a mountain out of a molehill. By creating friction within the comments sections, as can be seen throughout these discussions^, you are again violating rules yourself. Cease being so volatile to your fellow editors. Just because some of us don't register a username does not mean we are the NWO. Watch your rhetoric when you try to use others' comments against them. Admins will see your confrontations and see they are ill-ordered. For the record there are multiple companies producing X-Men material as editors have stated: Disney/Marvel, and Fox. There are also animated series/franchises, vs the live action franchise. There are indeed multiple franchises so that argument falls dead. If you find editors' comment suspicious then do something about it. User:IJBall was never a part of the discussion prior to mentioning you by name -- and I'm not suspicious at all, seeing as I know that RfCs are filed under lists for all users to edit and voice opinion.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: I have never before seen a move discussion in which editors played so fast and loose with protocol and guidelines. This informal discussion began March 31, with whatever local notification there may or may not have been. And then suddenly an editor who's only been here since September, with fewer than 500 edits, belatedly declares here that this existing conversation has really been a formal move request all along (and triggering an article-page bot here)! That is not how it is done. We've already had one discussion tainted by WP:VOTESTACK. Now we again have improprieties. I do not understand why the mostly new editors behind proposal are so hellbent on it that they consistently refuse to play by the rules. --Tenebrae (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Tenebrae, there have been no 'rules' broken. Your attempts to paint that picture are fruitless. This RfC was done correctly and in good-faith. The page is out of date. That's the issue we are fixing. Not going to convince you that it's the right move (OBVIOUSLY), but it is what the rest of us are doing.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a neutral notice to every registered editor on this article's page and this talk page within the last year. Normally this would go on the editor's talk page, but this editor has forbidden me from posting there. Nonetheless, what's right is right and I am pinging him to notify him here of this same message being given to others.: "A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series). Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week." --Tenebrae (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Man your 'notes' and new/added/renamed/sub-sections are all over the place. It's like you start five conversations all throughout one discussion. Pick a spot to talk about ONE topic, and stay there. Your structuring is a poor reflection of what twelve-years would and should teach. Oranization needs to be improved here, Tenebrae. Your behavior, your arguments, your lack of citing sources, your rhetoric with others, and your elitism is unruly, and precedes your reputation now to all editors involved. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorting the films in different categories?
So it looks like an editor made me a drastic change in the article, which he or she sent as a "minor" edit. That was a minor edit at all! Categorizing the films into "X-Men", " Wolverine" and "Deadpool". These are all X-Men films and mind you, there was no actual X-Men team in First Class, so that questions the film itself being a "X-Men" film - if we really have to categorize each film. Sort them by the order of release like we've been doing for many years now. This change just messes up the article in my opinion.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And please, keep all the films under development stage/pre-production stage in films in development. And please stop labelling sections with "future". I thought there was already a consensus that "future" isn't an appropriate name for a section.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed with order of release. Brocicle (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi TheVeryHotWikipedian and Brocicle. I didn't make the edit but I am wondering whether it would be worthwhile to categorise the films into "original trilogy", "prequel trilogy", "Wolverine trilogy" and "Deadpool film". I think that there is significant similarities within the categories and significant differences between the categories.. in terms of story, cast, crew, etc.. and Fox, Singer, Mangold, Reese&Wernick categorise the films when they talk about them. The Star Trek, Star Wars and American Pie articles categories their films so it's not that unusual. What are you thoughts about doing it with this article? Thanks, New9374 (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)¥


 * it is easier to read and follow if they are listed by the time of release, unlike if we divide them in different sections/categories.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it makes it harder to follow if they are listed by the time of release. Take a look at the three most recent films: "X-Men: Apocalypse", "Deadpool" and "Logan". The plot and development of "X-Men: Apocalypse" is unrelated to "Deadpool", and the plot and development of "Deadpool" is unrelated to "Logan". If we divide them into different categorises, then it'd be easier to follow because, for example, the plot and development of "X-Men: Days of Future Past" is related to "X-Men: Apocalypse" (just read the plot and development.. "Set after X-Men: Days of Future Past", "a sequel to X-Men: Days of Future Past", "complete a trilogy that began with X-Men: First Class"). What do you think? Thanks, New9374 (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Its not hard to follow. The Wolverine films are set in different time periods and yet you want them in the same sections? Stick with this one.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be order of release, easier to follow. Brocicle (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Logan Noir
Is a black and white version of the film Logan. It is not an entirely new film and is just a black and white version of the film. So User:TotalTruthTeller24, save it to Logan (film). × TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Better formatting for recurring characters section
Tidy, less crowded and stays true to the section title which is "recurring characters". Save the cast members for it's own separate article which already exists.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Disagree. This formatting makes it much more difficult to, at a glance, tell which characters appeared in a certain film.  It also eliminates the ease of seeing films that the characters WEREN'T in.  I believe it should stay the way that it is. Rcarter555 (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No its not. Again there's a separate article for the cast members. The older table looks like a mess and doesn't stay true to the title of the section which is recurring characters.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't know if certain editors are unaware but this section just got complaints for being crowded and uneasy to read. With 1 editor stating to just remove the table. This is a quick solution without removing the whole table and making the table easier to follow.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hotwiki once again thinks their suggestion is the best. Your suggestion looks sloppy and fanboy-listing up the waz-zang. Seriously looks like something someone could write in their notebook counting their high school crushes. Big heck no to this format. Too much wording/too much info; too much everything.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)