Talk:X-Men (comic book)

Comics: Marvel Mid‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

new name

I don't like the new name. I get what you're trying to do - we can't call it vol 3 any more if we are covering vol 4 here as seems logical, but the problem is that two of the other things simple called X-Men have been comic book series as well. Can we put it at X-Men (2010s comic book) instead? Morwen (Talk) 16:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging previous adjectiveless books into this one.

There is actually a good reason that there is that note at the top of the page, pointing users to the previous first two volumes of books called just X-Men to Uncanny and Legacy, because the history of those volumes is directly related to those articles as they both started off without a adjective in their title. That is an important part of the history of those books, and not something that should be moved over into another one as if it was always like that. It's not factual, and should not be done. 68.33.142.75 (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that Legacy's factual basis is derived from X-Men that doesn't mean that an argument on X-Men should not include all volumes. An article on publications called "X-Men" should contain information on all 4 volumes. X-Men Legacy's origin non-withstanding it has evolved into its own title with 2 volumes. A note saying it started in that other publication like journey into mystery and Thor.

An article about comics published as "X-Men" should contain information on every volume of comics published under that name. There's also a difference in that Uncanny has been named that for 32 years and was a book that continued the same theme of the prior publications. X-Men Legacy carried a DISTINCTLY different theme than X-Men.

X-Men vol 1-3 are different volumes of the same publication. X-Men Legacy deserves its own article with a footnote to say it originated from a prior publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.159 (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article on those two series (Uncanny and Legacy). Legacy is just the 2nd volume of X-Men renamed. They continued the same numbering until the series was relaunched. Besides, Vols 1, 2 and 3/4 really don't have anything to do with each other and are in fact separate publications:

X-Men (Vol. 1) published 1963->Renamed Uncanny X-Men in 1981->relaunched in 2012->relaunched in 2013 (everything here goes in the Uncanny X-Men article)

X-Men (Vol. 2) published 1991->Renamed New X-Men in 2001->Renamed X-Men in 2004->Renamed X-Men Legacy in 2008->relaunched in 2012 (everything here goes in the X-Men: Legacy article)

X-Men (Vol. 3) published 2010->relaunched in 2013 (everything here goes in the X-Men (comic book) article)

So these are three distinct publications that underwent various renaming and relaunching but its clear that its three separate comic book series that all started with the same name.

In summation, I do see your rationale for including X-Men vol. 2 in this article, but we would need to be consistent and that would mean moving the beginning of Uncanny X-Men in here too, which would completely muck things up. For simplicity's sake I think the current solution is best. --Darkhunger (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, do not create an entirely new section to continue a discussion that already has a section to itself. It can be confusing for users and wastes space. Second, just because books share a name, does not mean that they are the same thing, and thus all information automatically goes on one page for both. As stated, the first volume of just X-Men was later renamed to Uncanny. It shouldn't matter that Uncanny has had that name for decades if you're going to argue that everything with just X-Men alone in the name should be under one page. It is really the publication history of the title itself that we need to worry about, and the history and fact is that the original volume was retitled to Uncanny and kept up it's numbering and history, and that's where its information stayed. Same as why the information for the second volume never left the Legacy page after it was renamed to what it is now, because that is the history of that book's publication. And if it's themes you're going to argue about, then almost any time there's a major creative shift in a book, then it deserves its own article. But that's not how it works, because you'd have a ridiculous amount of unneeded pages. The facts still remain, vol. 1's history is still directly tied to Uncanny, and vol. 2's is tied directly to Legacy, we just have more specific names to give to those first two volumes instead of just calling each page, X-Men (vol.1), X-Men (vol. 2), and X-Men (vol. 3) and so on.68.33.142.75 (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not an expert on the talk pages. I wasn't trying to start anything, I just found it really confusing when I stumbled upon it yesterday. I see your logic I guess separate pages makes sense but if so I think this page at least deserves a snippet on vol 1 and 2 under sub headers with links to those volumes. If I'm a layperson who knows nothing about X-Men history and find an issue circa 1997 and look up the title you can't find it via this article. Even a short paragraph defining the history of those other titles and eventual evolution into what they are now with a link would be better.

The Legacy article then needs to be cleaned up a little to reflect that is no longer a team book and is instead a Legion solo title. I guess my main mentality was there's just a vast difference between the titles. Knowing Marvel I fully expect them to use the 207 issues of X-Men vol 2 and 41 issues of vol 3 to round up vol 4 for a milestone issue. Perhaps not 250 since that would be #3 but definitely 300. Marvel didn't do this with vol 2 because Uncanny still had original numbering but Legacy has already been rebooted. Just as I expect Marvel might rebrand Legacy #100 with vol 2 #32 (68+32). And so it seems that if/when that happens its odd that X-Men vol 3-4 would not seem a direct spiritual continuation of that book, while a book about Legion alone is tied to the article. I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. For now though, since that train wreck hasn't happened I'd be ok with the changes I mentioned in first paragraph.)AgentFelix (talk)

Reasonable concern. I updated the note to more clearly indicate which article to look for people looking for info from the XMen title from 1997Darkhunger (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. Was thinking about it some more....again, until a numbering change we won't know how Marvel is treating it but I forgot that one of the things tht piqued my interest to it in the first place was the covers of X-Men vol 3 41 and Legacy 275 both last issues of that volume. The former has many characters that never appeared in vol 3 but were mainstays in vol 2 and in their 90s unis (there's also an 80s Storm and a Shadowcat who was never there....but I digress lol). Conversely the cover of Legacy 275 from a few months ago only has characters who starred/appeared in the book since 208. Again I def see where you're coming from, and thanks for the revision. AgentFelix — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.212.225 (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm not sure you have anything to worry about with renumbering. Marvel only does renumbering for special cases (i think Wolverine and X factor were the only ones in the X franchise so far) and I'm not sure either X-Men or X-Men Legacy would fit into either category since both titles have seen too many changes Darkhunger (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men 1.jpg removed

JJMC89_bot recently removed image (X-Men 1.jpg) from top of article claiming "...No valid non-free use rationale for this page....", but left the accompanying image caption. Confused as why X-Men 1.jpg removed, but other X-men articles have a cover image (examples: Amazing_X-Men has File:Amazing_X-Men_-1.jpg, Astonishing X-Men has File:Astonishing_X-Men-_Second_Stage.jpg Classic X-Men has File:ClassicXmen01.jpg, Excalibur (comic book) has File:Excalibur No 1, Oct 1988.jpg, New X-Men (2001 series) has File:New X-Men 114.jpg, X-Men: Legacy has File:X-Men 208.jpg, etc etc.) --EarthFurst (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]