Template talk:X-Men

Should there be a supporting characters section?
Several other templates include this category, and it would enable a middle ground category between member and villain. Plenty of the characters do not fit neatly into either category, and would work better into "supporting characters". David A (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I think it would be WORSE to take a character like Legion, who's been a member of the team but is better known as a villain, and put him into a "supporting characters" section. As a team member, he's more than just a supporting character, so that would just confuse people. "Wasn't he a member of the team? I guess he was just a supporting character . . ." DeadpoolRP (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, other templates commonly use it, lots of academy members are not part of a team, characters like Cecilia Reyes and Stewie Hunter have nowhere to go, and Legion is neither villain or member, just handicapped and mentally ill. He is just a supporting character. David A (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Uh, Cecilia Reyes is a full member of the team, not a supporting character. And Legion has been a full member AND a villain, at different times. Just because someone's mentally ill doesn't mean they're not a villain. LOTS of villains are mentally ill in one way or another. I'm not necessarily opposed to a supporting characters section; I'm just opposed to some of the characters you want to include in it (like the two I've just mentioned). However, this template is already GIGANTIC, so I guess I am mostly opposed to it, and I believe others are as well, so I'd suggest waiting until you find others who support your idea before adding it. DeadpoolRP (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Cecilia isn't anymore, and only works as the team doctor nowadays. Again, Legion is not a malevolent character, just shut off from reality, and as you say has fit both the member and antagonist section, hence categorised as "other in serious need of help" in my book, and apparently "antihero" by Wikipedia.  Also, mainly, lots of side characters are not currently featured as full team members, just as students at the academy.  I'm not going to change the section unless anybody agrees though, and would prefer that somebody else starts the conversion, as I'm not entirely up to date. David A (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So, getting away from Legion, who I'm tired of at this point and only mentioned because others brought him up... Is the idea of a supporting character section good in itself, if others would decide who should be placed there? David A (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Who do you have in mind? How would they be appointed? And what criteria would you have them follow, based on what Wikipedia policies? I wouldn't bother with a supporting characters section. Instead, what I would do would be to simply list all of the characters in alphabetical order in the same place, so there wouldn't be any room for anyone's personal interpretation. Friginator (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about all the non-vital academy members outside of the teams (example: Anole, Rockslide), as well as all the past and present staff members (example: Stevie Hunter, the Friedlanders), non-fighters (example: Cecilia Reyes, most of the X-Club), and recurring character neutral parties (more debatable). It has been a while since I followed the X-titles though, so I wouldn't be able to find and categorise all of them myself. David A (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Like I said earlier, since Cecilia Reyes has been a full-fledged member, she wouldn't go in a supporting characters section (the X-Men list on this template isn't a CURRENT members list--all members go on it, whether currently active or not). The same with the X-Club: MOST of them have been full members of the team (not non-fighters), with the exception of Kavita Rao and Yuriko Takiguchi. I think the template's already quite large, and there would need to be a pretty convincing argument to add another section to it, especially when most of the characters you mention are already covered by the X-Club and X-Men-In-Training links. DeadpoolRP (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, okay. That sounds reasonable. Maybe it was a bad idea then. David A (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

David, if you can't post on this website without ranting about mental illness or conspiracy theories, go somewhere else. This isn't a page for people to make statements like that on. And your well-established psychological obsession with the character of Legion doesn't help your argument. Friginator (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The argument stands for itself, and it wasn't a rant, just conversation, as I am strayminded, with me being perfectly reasonable about the main topic.
 * I don't know why you expressed such a sudden massive problem with me in the past, but if you cannot post on this website without being a jerk, and using personal attacks as diversions instead of just saying "I disagree", I suggest you go somewhere else. David A (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * David, while Friginator may have been blunt about it, he's got a point or two:
 * Navigation templates are not to indulge in dissection of the motives of characters. Even less so when they are your personal opinions or deductions. Doing so becomes WP:OR and a WP:POVPUSH.
 * Wikipedia in general is not a place to indulge in WP:SOAP.
 * - J Greb (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I can see that. I just think that I mostly stuck to the topic this time, removed what little that did not, and did not mention any "conspiracy theories" as he states almost a year after the tastelessly summarised incident, which I have since removed from my talk page to meet Wikipedia standards I might add.
 * In addition, he has recurrently gone beyond bluntness to obsessive rudeness or harrassment towards me, possibly due to his stated ideologically driven need for political incorrectness, but I thought that part was over and done with 8 months ago.
 * Am I allowed to remove everything that did not stick to the topic, including the entire above column, or would you like to do so? David A (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Before I respond to your question I feel that I have to point out that viewing me as "obsessed" or someone who's "harassing" you because I have a, in your words, "stated ideologically driven need for political incorrectness" only shows how completely loopy you get in these situations. But back to the subject: if what you're asking is "Am I allowed to refactor talk page comments and hide discussions" the answer is no. It's never appropriate to change what has already been said, and from what I'm seeing you apparently don't understand that, as you've added or taken away from just this conversation at least twice, looking at the page history. And you're discouraged from deleting discussions from your talk page as well. If a thread is no longer relevant, archive it. Otherwise, you can't make your own "strayminded" ramblings magically disappear. Friginator (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You butted in and created an entirely offtopic situation out of nothing for no good reason 9 months after the fact of an old one, just to be a jerk, and bring up old issues not mentioned here. You have stated a need for political incorrectness as a tagline, so I could definitely see how that might create a schism with my somewhat opposite leaning, and be the source for suddenly starting to harrass me out of nowhere last time around, and do behave "loopy" yourself in the sense of consistently instantly going for the throat.
 * I deleted a column of what you called "a rant about mental illness", despite it simply being an offhanded mention, in order to accommodate you, and also added to one of my responses. None of which is a problem in my book.  I also never heard of that personal talk pages aren't allowed to be deleted, and strictly removed them to move onwards and tone down the attention to a situation that others probably wanted me to keep quiet about. Or at least you told me so yourself, if I rmeember correctly.
 * I have no idea what to do with this topic at this point, as it was simply intended to be an inoffensive little structuring point, but has spiralled completely beyond what it was supposed to entail.
 * Also, your exposure to me is very narrow. I tend to be very polite and reasonable when not provoked, or under extreme stress in combination. Last time you popped up had not been a fun period for me at all. David A (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've archived all the previous discussions, as they were all more than a few months old. But David, you have to understand that a 1534-character response, like you've just made, is going to sound like a rant, whether you intend for it to or not. Friginator (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I apologise for that, but all you have to do is take JGreb's approach, and I'm not going to be a problem at all. I'm willing to make peace if you are though. David A (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, I still find Legion to have used to be about as offensive a stereotype to autistic as a Jar-Jar Binks speaking blackface serial-killer would be to an African-American, but you are correct in that this is neither the time or place to rant about it. David A (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Take JGreb's approach"? He's not taking part in any of these discussions, he just took the time to explain something you didn't understand. Look, I'm just going to be honest here: the only reason other people aren't responding to your comments the way I am is because they're scared to hurt your feelings. The only reason your statements aren't being treated as complete lunacy is because of pity on the part of other editors. They're scared to tell you that statements like the one above this post are absolutely insane. You seem to mistake my comments as attacks, when all I'm really doing is being honest--that I feel your behavior is vastly inappropriate for this website and that you seem like a very sick person. I don't enjoy telling you what I think of your behavior in the least, but I am obligated to do so in the interest of editing an encyclopedia based on rational thinking. And again, please don't alter talk page discussions. We literally just went over that. The "say something crazy and then delete it later" strategy isn't appropriate. Friginator (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I am a bit crazy, although very confused would be a better description. It is largely a side effect of too many people messing with my head too much, in too many different ways, for too long.  It would have been strange if I weren’t affected.  Most of my oddities is just about me being wired a bit differently though.
 * However, I’m trying to keep it contained, am not doing anything bad, barely even do any edits at Wikipedia anymore, have never been a vandal or a troll, used to contribute quite a lot, although I never grew very good at it, etcetera, so I don’t see why you have decided that I somehow constitute some sort of major threat that needs to be intervened with no matter the large gaps in time, just because I have a tourrettes-ish lack of filters/tendency to ramble. I also still don’t think that, editing down the length of objectionable parts should be a problem for anybody.  It’s part of how I tend to handle it in writing.  The worst you can say about me when not in a severely confused state of mind is that I tend to be disordered and longwinded, and occasionally maybe a little obnoxious, but a threat to be regularly monitored. Not really.
 * I mean, you say that this is because you care so much about Wikipedia, but you are a very sparse contributions editor, and people I have noticed who really care a lot about Wikipedia tend to do some sort of massive ongoing article-writing, fact-checking, quality-improvement restructuring, troll vandalism-busting, etcetera sprees, and I at least haven’t noticed that from you.
 * You are apparently a Christian (I borrowed the sticker), so I can appreciate that you don’t take joy in being offensive, and I don’t take offence from you saying that I am a bit crazy, considering that it is true, although wouldn’t notice it if you met me, and I am completely harmless, so that just qualifies as bluntness in my book, but you really have been unprovoked rude and suddenly intrusive in other instances, which was strange for me, especially considering that I had no history with you, and then suddenly somebody with the handle of a killing machine, who had a tag that he liked political incorrectness showed up having some massive problem with me, at a time when I was very disoriented and my attention was extremely strained towards other places.
 * Anyway, how about we make peace, and maybe say that I will try to be less easily offended (it isn’t easy when my particular demographic tends to be targeted so much), you try to be more tactful, I try not to stray away into side topics, and you try to get too drastic when there isn’t really a problem? It isn’t like I really have anything against you after all. David A (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hoo-boy. First off, I have no idea why you think I have "the handle of a killing machine", why you're taking my stated religious beliefs into account, why you think I view you as a threat, and why you think these things have anything at all to do with your suggested changes to this template. Please stop writing long rants like this. If you feel the need to edit your statements, do that before you post them like everyone else. Making any major alterations to talk page comments is not allowed on this site, whether you agree with that policy or not. I'm perfectly fine with "making peace" if that will get us back on topic, but I don't understand why you're under the impression that I want to waste my time fighting with you. I'm honestly tempted not to say anything at all at this point, as this discussion has gone so far off track. Do you have anything relevant to this template to say? Friginator (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. I'm done, and don't wan't to waste any more time fighting with you either. Sorry about being unable to be brief. We could put this off-topic part under another header if you wish. David A (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, maybe you both should just move on to something else--agree to disagree, ignore each other, or whatever else works. As far as I'm concerned, there's no one person who's completely at fault here, so it's pointless to have you guys go back and forth with blame. I'm not the biggest fan of many aspects of political correctness, and sure, some of what David A. has said strikes me as extreme, odd, or even crazy (though it's been a while since there's been much of that); however, if you're going to completely write off the widely held idea that the portrayal of mental illness in the media can be and often is incorrect and/or offensive as just part and parcel of the "complete lunacy" you mentioned--well, that means that the problem is partially yours as well, Friginator. Just sayin'. Also, there's a line between directness and rudeness that this conversation is right on top of, if not over. Move on, please. And whether you agree or disagree with what I've said, please don't respond to this. Just let it go. DeadpoolRP (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Magneto
I really think Magneto should be added in members section as well. Unlike Juggernaut, Sabretooth, Mystique, Legion and Lady Mastermind, he has been on the team comparatively longer if not more than Emma Frost. FudgeFury ( talk &#124; sign &#124; contribs ) 19:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Warbird
Since she suddenly seems to have become an issue when she's been an official member of the team for over 2 years now, I'm starting this section. As you can clearly see at the Astonishing X-Men page roster, Warbird was a full fledged member for the entire final run of the book. That's not including all her appearances as a team member in the Wolverine and the X-Men comics, and other appearances like the first arc of Amazing X-Men, and other X-books. Add her back. 71.121.241.118 (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Spider-Man should be listed on the X-Men page because he is a instructor at the Jean Grey School
I would like to see Spider-Man on the X-Men page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rymax23 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Being an instructor at the school does not equate being an X-Man. Perfect example? Deathlock.  He was never given any full membeship to the team even though he taught at the school.  He is not in the template, and Spider-Man shouldn't be for the exact same reason. 71.121.241.118 (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent proposed additions
There was recently a large addition of characters to the template, and specifically none of the characters added were ever considered full X-Men, and some of the villains were very minor in the grand scheme of things. If I have to, I will go through each one, one by one, but I'm not the one trying to add these characters so I don't have to defend it. I'm starting this section though to hopefully open a discussion so that the users in question won't keep edit warring and finally discuss it beyond an edit summary that says "leave it alone". 71.121.241.118 (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Since consensus is being talked about as the required catalyst for any changes
So a few of you are happy with Emma Frost being listed as a member even though she started off as a X-Men villain, but you object to Magneto's inclusion, even though the real Magneto hasn't been a proper X-Men villain in more then a decade and has joined the team on and off? I would like to add that Lady Mastermind is listed as a member, but not a villain even though she betrayed the team and continued her villainous role after a brief stint with the team. Where's the consensus on that? Haleth (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

A few other things I would like to discuss, which I will repeat from my edit summaries: Anyone objects to the fact that characters who don't have their own pages being removed, please remember that this is not a "list of X-Men members" page, it's a template. If you click on "members" to the left, it will actually redirect you to that page. Redirected articles shouldn't go in. If a subject matter don't have their own page, they shouldn't be here, because the parent pages are already listed. It's highly likely that pages like Cecilia Reyes had their own wikipedia pages at one point, but consensus by wikipedia editors agreed that subject matters like her do not warrant their wikipedia pages, which means they are not notable and therefore do not warrant their own pages or be listed separately on a template when the parent page is already present. You can still find them on the "list of X-Men characters" or "list of X-Men" page.

As for code names, I would like to reopen debate on this. A few characters, like Jean Grey or Kitty Pryde, could be contentious...but keep in mind that the titles of their actual pages go by their real names, not code names. For that matter, some of you people do not insist that Emma Frost be listed under the White Queen moniker. So why is it the case with the aforementioned characters? Haleth (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Original team section
above members there should be a spot for the original team. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Recurring Members
I think we should consider how inflated the "Recurring Members" section is getting. There is an entire article on "List of X-Men Members" which should be used for an exhaustive list. The inclusion of many of these characters is extremely questionable, as they appear on ancillary teams (like students at the institute) OR they had a very brief tenure or appearance as an X-Man. Perhaps we should put in a criteria that a character must have put in a minimum of twenty (20) appearances as an X-Man for inclusion. This would eliminate obscure characters like Petra, Wolf Cub, and others, which would make this list much more reasonable. Negasonic Teenage Warhead to my knowledge was never an X-Man and does nothing other than lengthening this list. And there is no rhyme or reason why some institute students are on this list but not others. Oopla32606 (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Teenage Negasonic Warhead and Deadpool aren't members of the X-Men. So those two should remove from the recurring members section.Hotwiki (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Characters
The "characters" section lists the founding members, which doesn't necessarily correspond to the most relevant, popular, or up-to-date roster of the team. It's generally well-accepted that the original X-Men run isn't particularly well-regarded, and so the most "relevant" members are either the early-Claremont or early-90s lineups, or even the present lineup. Is there a better way that the characters represented in this section could be selected? In my view, this section should either list the current members of the flagship team (Cyclops, Jean, Iceman, Synch, Firestar, Havok, Forge, Magik), or the most "popular"/"relevant" characters (which is more subject to interpretation, but would likely include longtime members such as Wolverine, Storm, Nightcrawler, etc.). Pibbs (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2022
We should remove the Supporting characters hyperlink due to the page being unavailable. 184.56.62.31 (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: per WP:REDYES. Happy Editing-- IAm  Chaos  02:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)