Talk:X2 (film)

Citations for use
Here are the production notes. Bizzarely, this was promotion for X3, but it was never fixed. Alientraveller (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

&mdash;Wildroot (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hello everyone, my hope is to get the status of this article upgraded to a Featured Article status, but to do that, I'm hoping for some feedback and help. As such, I will shortly be nominating this for peer review. Thanks! SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 10 April 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is not consensus for a move at this time, and a rough consensus to keep the page at the current title. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

X2 (film) – X2: X-Men United – Based on WP:COMMONNAME, WP:SUBTITLES and WP:RECOGNIZABLE, as X2: X-Men United is more recognizable in reliable sources than X2, as well as these 3 other bullet points: 1. The film is an American U.S. film and made in the U.S., where its' title is X2: X-Men United with subtitle included, therefore we should use the country of origin as the title of origin. This is an example of Precision and Conciseness of WP:CRITERIA. 2. The Director of this Film himself states that the subtitle makes sense for the film title, and he is the film's creator. Each of the X-Men films have "X-Men" in the titles. 3. As per MOS:FILM Naming Conventions, specifically AACR2 7.0B1, the title card of a film's starting title sequence does not always state the proper film title. I will give 3 examples of such occurrences. The in-film title card to Fast & Furious 6 displays "Furious 6", which is clearly the wrong title (as per the studio); The X-Files: Fight the Future has a title card that only displays "The X-Files", the name of the syndicated TV show, even though "Fight the Future" is the name of the first film and "I Want to Believe" is the name of the second film; Van Helsing has no title card, yet that movie is obviously not nameless. This should be used as precedent. So we must look to the containers or containers (labels) (which is the second order of preference per AACR2 7.0B1) from the official VHS/DVDs/Blu-ray Discs in the U.S., which display and show that the subtitle is part of the original title to the film. The 3-Movie Trilogy Pack - which shows the correct U.S. film titles as "X-Men" - "X2: X-Men United" - "X-Men The Last Stand" 4. The UK title of this film is "X-Men 2" and in other parts of the world it is known as "X2", yet those are not the original U.S. titles. We can make a note of these other alternative international titles in the intro paragraph. But we cannot mistake those for the article title as those are not official names of the film and only variants.

Points 1 and 2 take root under Official Names.

Please take a look at the many different packaging styles in the country of origin, the original and not international variant packaging, they all have the subtitle displayed exactly as the other films of the series, clearly showing it is not a marketing slogan: Link 1 | Link 2 | Link 3 | Link 4 | Link 5 | OST Cover

The subtitle is not at the bottom of the covers or cases as in the case of a marketing slogan; the subtitle is directly underneath the "X2" title, therefore showing this is part of the title and not a throwaway slogan such as "in space no one can hear you scream", which would be displayed away from the title such as at the bottom of a DVD case. Clearly, X-Men United is not a "slogan", but a subtitle same as The Last Stand is to X3; or First Class, Days of Future Past, and Apocalypse are to the rest of the series, and deserves another look.

Please consider changing this article's film title to its' most recognizable common title from the country of origin stated by the director himself. Cheers. Wufan10304 (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey/Discussion

 * Packaging and other promotional materials have no bearing on the title as given onscreen. The director, the producers and other creative stakeholders could have made the onscreen title "X2: X-Men United" but did not. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Just so we're all on the same page, here is a screenshot from the DVD. This is the onscreen title of the film. There is no subtitle.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Right, and just as I stated in Point 3, "the title card of a film's starting title sequence does not always state the proper film title". Which is why the suggestion to use the "containers (labels)" as the second preference of that same rule applies and allows, in the film's country of origin would supercede that. You keep saying "there is no subtitle" but this is speculation, as my RM argues. Wufan10304 (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no subtitle on the screen. Perhaps you should look at the closed discussion from 2015 as to why consensus is to keep the onscreen title, which is also the title registered with the American Film Institute, the British Board of Film Classification, and other such WP:RS institutions. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You keep saying "there is no subtitle in the movie" and things of that nature. I make my argument above. Point 3 completely recognizes this and also uses other films in which their official titles do not appear on screen as examples to call for the secondary preference of that same Naming Convention to override the primary on-screen preference due to those precedents. Van Helsing is not a nameless movie. We can use the container labels in this instance. Secondly, an international organization of the British, have no say in America, which is the film's country of origin. I am not debating the others, but I do believe them to not be correct. I made my argument above of why this title should be changed regardless of 2015 and covered all these bullet points already. Let's just let the people make their choices now. Wufan10304 (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The name that Fox officially registered the film under with the various classification boards and such is the one we should be going with. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support X2: X-Men United - "(film)" isn't necessary. The subtitle is widely used in reliable sources, and is probably also more WP:RECOGNIZABLE than just "X2 (film)", as it makes it clear it's an X-Men film. WP:NATURALDIS is also generally preferable to a parentheses, especially when the parentheses is actually less clear.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Tenebrae. It seems some people want to change the title on this page because of the titles of other films in the series. But that is not what we go by. The filmmakers themselves put X2 as the title on the film itself. That is the official title. There is no subtitle on the screen. If Singer or the producers wanted X2: X-Men United as the official title they would have put that in the film. They did not. See the discussion on this same subject above from July 2015. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not the correct reason for the requested move. See and actually read the original post. Clear examples and policies are given. It does not have to do with the other films, as the original post makes perfectly clear. A film does not always need to display its full title with subtitle on the screen. I made that clear and you all still keep referencing that, completely ignoring the argument calling for container labels. Most other reliable sources in America seem to reference this film as X2: X-Men United. Coincidence? Wufan10304 (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw your points above and I disagree. I reject your argument that a film's official title is not the one onscreen, and that what you call container labels (which can change with every new DVD release) should be seen as the source for a film's official title, above the film itself. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * MOS:FILM Naming Conventions AACR2 7.0B1 calls it container labels, not I. This is a set Wikipedia policy, allowing a secondary preference after on-screen titles, which in some cases, appear to be incorrect, as this film is. Therefore we can use container labels in this instance, as Van Helsing or Fast & Furious 6 does as well. One only need look at reliable sources in a film's country of origination and the tie-in materials, such as soundtrack and official novelization for confirmation. For reasons I fail to comprehend, everyone is ignoring taking this as policy, which begs the question why it even exists in the first place if it is not to be followed. If on-screen titles are the only end-all/say-all source, then why is Van Helsing even called "Van Helsing", since that has no on-screen title at all? Why is Fast & Furious 6 not called "Furious 6", since that is it's on-screen title? These are not the only examples of films not taking on-screen titles as the source for their official titles. There's other policies in place other than on-screen titles for the source of a film's official title.Wufan10304 (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules AACR2 7.0B1 states: "The chief source of information for motion pictures and videorecordings is (in this order of preference): the item itself (e.g., the title frames), its container (and container label) if the container is an integral part of the piece (e.g., a cassette)." That means the film itself is preferred. The secondary sources we most often use (AFI, BFI, Lumiere, BBFC) all give X2 as the title. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It very clearly states (in this order of preference) that the primary preference is on-screen titles, but the secondary preference is container labels. Since all on-screen titles are not accurate, why are we ignoring the secondary preference? You say the secondary sources Wikipedia often uses are other sources. Then why does this order of preference in AACR2 7.0B1 exist if it is not even followed? Why does a secondary preference exist in AACR2 7.0B1 if Wikipedia is allowed to just ignore it and use other sources? I'm quoting it as a bullet point to use this secondary preference and everyone is quick to say I'm wrong, yet the convention preference exists. Wufan10304 (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As I have shown above, the film itself and the secondary sources we most often use give X2 as the title. But you want to continue on with more questions that don't change the outcome of the issue here. Gothicfilm (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the reasons I state above. I guess I hadn't formally written a "!vote". --Tenebrae (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per adamstom97, although I'm very torn. Looking through sources, the ones using X2 are more fan-oriented (CBR, Newsarama, Screenrant), and the ones using X2: X-Men United are more general (Forbes, JHNL, NY Daily News). Argento Surfer (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you agree with general sources, then why not change to Support? So many are already biasedly dead set against it from the jump. Wufan10304 (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * per User:adamstom.97, the film was registered as "X2". Since X2: X-Men United already redirects here, I'm not concerned about users being unable to find the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the page views for the two articles aren't even close: |X2_(film). "X2" averages just over 2000 views a day. "X2: X-Men United" averages 6. Even if you give a generous discount for the views coming from internal links rather than a search term, that's still a very uneven comparison. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support X2: X-Men United as per initial reasoning,, and also definitely if the general sources refer to it as such. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The secondary sources we most often use (AFI, BFI, Lumiere, BBFC) all give X2 as the title. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Warning - you are not supposed to remove the relisting tag above just after your nomination. I've relisted this discussion as it's initial term has elapsed without a consensus being reached. The tag, if removed, will be considered vandalism/disruptive and you may be blocked for this. This can be considered as a warning. Also, do not refactor the comments of others even if you disagree. Yashovardhan (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on X2 (film). 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/20081219234921/http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yVVIM92Z?url=http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2004-hugos/ to http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2004-hugos/

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) 21:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)