Template talk:X-Men media

Merger proposal

I am proposing that the templates {{X-Men television series}} and {{X-Men video games}} be merged into this one. The reasons being that these two templates are rather small and bare bones, and this one template can suffice for all the info that they can be used for. This template, which was proposed about a month ago by User:Sharp962, came to fruition from a consensus to split apart the main X-Men template into separate categories to deal with how large it had become. Now, it currently holds all of the information in the video games template, and the majority of the info from the tv series one. The extra info, such as the links for characters and releases, etc., can be merged into this one before the templates are then redirected here.68.49.68.231 (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd support such a merge. Less is more these days. -03:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC).

Another merge

I think it would be a good idea to also merge the template for {{X-Men film series}} into this one as well. My main reason being, there is very little in the template itself that is not covered in other templates such as {{X-Men}} and {{X-Men media}}. In fact, besides the rather large section for the characters which lists every single character to appear in the films irregardless of role size, the only other section not included in another template is the link to the X-Men: The Last Stand soundtrack, which can easily be put into the media template right next to that film with a link in a (soundtrack) block similar to the characters and episodes ones in the tv section. We can also do a link for the movie character page itself under the film section like the one done for the original tv characters, but without listing every character from the films on the template itself. It would just save on having a lot of derivative information on two templates overall as well.68.33.142.75 (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, I don't see whats the big problem with the template, unless you really want to minimize all things here in Wikipedia. It has 7 films, links to the articles of the characters that appeared in the movies w/c is useful and easy to access and you don't have to use/check the X-Men template, to know which locations/things that were featured in the movies.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Like I said above, there is a huge amount of overlap with this template and two other ones, which is one of the chief reasons for doing a merge. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so not everything has to have it's own separate templates.68.33.142.75 (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for video game subgroups

The video game section is a bit hard to navigate, and I believe it would be simpler to use if it were divided into video game genres, such as action, adventure, platforming, and fighting etc. I would suggest that the video game section get its own template, but since a previous one was merged into this one that may not be advisable. Gopherbassist (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Mutant X

Is there a reason why the Mutant X TV show isn't included here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.126.176 (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Per the Mutant X (TV series)#Lawsuits, Marvel argued in court that this was not related to the X-Men. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Title for X-Men the animated series and subsection headers

Another user has continued to remove the "The animated series" part of the title from the 90's animated cartoon of the X-Men. This is not something that is made up for laughs, but a name that the show has used for years, and since there are more than just one thing that are called plainly "X-Men", you can just look at the games section of the template for proof of this, I believe this distinction should stay to make it stand out as recognizable for what it is, and to avoid any future conflicts should another show arise.

Also, the subsection headers for the character specific sections in both film and tv should be consistent as well, and just changing the film one to "list" is rather nonsensical and strays from this point. Keep them both listed as "Characters" and there is no problem.

To the other user involved, the burden of proof is upon you for these edits as you were the one to start them, they were called into question by someone else, namely me, and you were asked to discuss them instead of continue an edit war. I've started this talk because you have ignored my request to start one yourself. If you cannot discuss this here, then I will be forced to report this. 68.33.142.75 (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"X-Men: The Animated Series" is not the OFFICIAL title of the 90s cartoon series, it just simply called as X-Men. That is the first written title in the article of the show and that title is the ONE and only OFFICIAL title. You are being stubborn by keeping it because its written in the article well guess what "Also known as" title shouldn't be use in templates, we only use the first official title and thats it. Also, I noticed that you kept the "Characters" label instead of "TV characters" in which you reverted a couple of times until I explained it you. Same thing with the title of the 90s animated show. You're welcome for my contributions.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, do you have a high opinion of yourself. The only reason I've not changed it back is to stop the edit warring, like I'm supposed to do. Nothing having to do with your "explanations". With your history, I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the ego. 68.33.142.75 (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I am awesome, you have with a problem with that? well deal with it.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Short titles

In navboxes it's common to shorten the titles to remove redundant information, and in this specific case, "X-men" is fairly redundant. This enables quicker navigation as a user can focus on the words which disambiguate for navigation a particular concept. "First Class" is quicker to parse than "X-Men: First Class", especially among many other links where "X-Men" would be the leading phrase were we not to remove the redundant title. --Izno (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Like it or not, "X-Men" are part of most of these titles and has always been a part of the official title so its not redundant. Dropping it because most titles have the word X-Men, makes it sound informal and incomplete. Also its like we are in a fan-site, and we are dropping the word "X-Men" because its faster to type and read.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Navboxes are not articles, they are for easy navigation only, and you aren't making the navigation easy by repeatedly adding the same redundant phrase. We recently had this discussion over at Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe, as The Avengers and all the MCU tv series technically have Marvel's in front of them. You can see our discussion over at that talk, but basically it was agreed that it is unnecessary for something like a navbox to repeat an unnecessary part of the title. The reader already knows what the template overall is about, what they want is a quick and easy link to a specific page, so all we need to give them is the part that differentiates that page's title from all the others. It isn't being unencyclopaedic, fanboyish, or unprofessional, it is being practical. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The MCU comparison doesn't work since the Wikipedia articles for The Last Stand, Evolution, Days of Future Past, still includes the word X-Men in the title. So no. If we are gonna shorten the titles of this template. Then I guess you have no problem shortening the titles of the films in this template: Template:Marvel_Comics_films. That template repeats the words X-Men, Captain America, Spider-Man, Iron Man, Avengers, Fantastic Four, Thor more than once, and if we are going by your logic, I guess those names are redundant too and we can just say its for practical purposes since the reader already knows which film "2" "The Dark World" "3" "Age of Ultron" belong to, right?--SuperHotWiki (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to be childish or condescending, I just looked at a navigation template that repeats the name X-Men 41 times, and thought that it would make more sense to remove what is obviously unnecessary and redundant, a move that is not without precedent. However, if you are going to be your usual stubborn and controlling self, then I'm just going to avoid an edit war and leave it be. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not being stubborn. Because if we are gonna apply this "shortening" rule to templates, then it should be applied to the other templates too and you already brought up Marvel Cinematic Universe as an example to your argument so I don't see why I can't bring up other templates too. If you are gonna shorten the titles here in this template, do it to the other templates too. Simple as that.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 06:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

then it should be applied to the other templates too: This is a fallacious argument per WP:OTHERSTUFF (as applied to content rather than the existence of an article). We are working on this template and this template only. But that said, I happen to agree with your statement! Other templates should be changed. We just haven't gotten around to doing so and/or have not noticed the others. If you have one you think can be changed inline with mine and adamstom's changes, bring it up and I'm sure one of us will take a hack at it. It looks like you've done just that with Template:Marvel Comics films, and I agree, we should apply the same kind of changes there.

However, there is a particularly problematic argument you are making and that's implying that the rule should be applied to all names regardless of other navigation guidelines. This argument is fallacious because it presents the question as a false dichotomy (or in general). Not everything needs to be one way or the other. We are editors and are free to exercise our discretion in how we present certain information (understanding the necessity of policies and guidelines). --Izno (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: Please respond, otherwise I will assume that you agree with mine and adamstom.97's points and will happily undo your reversion. --Izno (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I still don't agree with your suggestions. Legends Legends II; Rise of Apocalypse, The Last Stand, etc.. sound incredibly informal and incomplete. Like I get how overused, the word X-Men is, but they are part of the official titles. I don't see the need of removing them.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to agree. As for informality or incompleteness, I see those titles as getting the user to where he wants to go as quickly as he wants to go. I happen to disagree with your assertion that they are either informal or incomplete and additionally find both assertions irrelevant. The rest of it boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We have a reason for making our (IMO positive) change. I am happy to request a WP:3O or to drop a note at WP:FILM and WP:COMICS if you would like to gather a larger consensus. --Izno (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

And just because you like it, it doesn't mean you're right either. Go ahead on gathering a larger consensus, thats much a better way to settle this, than making a drastic change that was only approved by 2 Wikipedia members that liked this method of shortening the titles in Wikipedia templates.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 07:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

drastic This is hyperbole and doesn't add anything to our discussion. It's also untrue. There are a lot of actually drastic changes that occur. This is not one of them.

only approved by 2 Wikipedia members As opposed to you, who are only one editor? :) But that aside, this style of abbreviation is used on multiple other templates (WP:OTHERSTUFF). So I will definitely be dropping a note on those WikiProject pages. --Izno (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I get the point about the repetition being somewhat overwhelming, but I oppose shortening the titles because it can't be done in a regular fashion. Looking only at the movie section, it doesn't seem like it would hurt anything to remove it from First Class, DoFP, and Apocalypse. Would it also be removed from the 1st Wolverine movie, making it "Origins: Wolverine"? I think that's an awkward abbreviation, and doesn't follow the larger pattern of removing anything left of the colon. At the same time, only modifiying part of the list opens the door to confusion. For instance, is the full title "X-Men: Deadpool"?

Here's what I think it boils down to - anyone familiar enough with the subject to know which article they're looking for will find it, and the abbreviated names won't help them much. Users unfamiliar with the subject might not recognize the abbreviations as quickly, and could be hindered by them. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I would not be in favor of removal. While the phrase is repeated, the material is the full name of the product, not designed simply to depict company ownership (like the "Marvel's" example), but to identify the media in question. In most of these cases, the titles following the colon are used more as subtitles or secondary titles to the media. A viewer/gamer/reader would look at the media and say, "The title tells me this is an X-Men movie/videogame/show about the X-Men, specifically, it's the one that deals with Days of Future Past/X-Men United/Legends II." In the Marvel's example, a viewer doesn't draw the same sort of content information when "Marvel's" precedes or does not precede what is considered the primary title (The Avengers, Captain America, Thor 2).Luminum (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis about the meaning of the prefixes, but it can support removing those in some cases. In the Marvel_Comics_films template, the overall topic is "Marvel", and the "X-Men" is required as part of the title and can not be removed, while "Marvel" can be safely removed - as it applies to all entries (but see how it is retained in the "See also" row).

Similarly, when the topic of the whole table is "X-Men", this prefix is redundant and could be removed except where it's part of some significant variation in the title (such as X2:Wolverine's Revenge, X-Men Legends II: Rise of Apocalypse or X-Men 2: Clone Wars), or when it's the only entry with such prefix in its category (such as X-Men: Evolution in Television). The most helpful place to omit the prefix would be the Video games category, where "X-men" is the title of the header cell, so it's already implicit in all the items in that row.

Applying such "omitting prefixes" rule here shouldn't compel us to apply it in other more heterogenous templates, as those won't have the required regularity that makes those prefixes redundant. Diego (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

See the result of removing some selected prefixes where it makes sense. The whole official title can still be seen when hovering each link, and at the target article; the table entries thus should be understood as navigation links, not the official names of the listed products. Diego (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• (BTW: "Pryde of the X-Men" has the prefix already removed in the current live template, and no one had complained) ;-)

I think an argument for selected removals could be made, but then we get into shaky ground about when it is a logical removal and when it is not. For example, I might accept it for Days of Future Past, because the movie has been widely referenced and discussed by its sub-title in media and promotion. However, in other examples, I find them confusing. For example, I don't consider the video game "X-Men: Destiny" to be reasonably or recognizably known merely by its sub-title of "Destiny". For me as a reader, the title of "Destiny" is relatively indistinct, therefore, finding it in the nav box when I'm looking for "X-Men: Destiny" becomes a bit disjointed. In effect, we may end up hashing out each and every one, which provides for a lack of precedent and ease of editing for future iterations.Luminum (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Just keep its official name, we don't have to get selective about which titles should be shortened or not. We get selective about which titles should be shortened then this template becomes inconsistent. And like someone said "X-Men" isn't a company like Marvel or Pixar or Dreamworks, companies which put their name along with their film's title and this is not the case with the X-Men.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Questprobe

Should the link to the Questprobe article really be included in the video games section of X-Men? There was not even a X-Men game seeing the day of light (it got canceled). - Weapon X (talk, contribs) 16:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Deadpool film series

Template:Deadpool film series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Split/fork proposal

Posting on behalf of NunyaBeeness, who thinks this navbox should be split into {{X-Men in film}} and {{X-Men in TV}}. I personally feel this is unnecessary, as the current template doesn't seem too large. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus I don't know why you are saying I suggest it should be split or forked when I specifically said it shouldn't and it's not a split or fork. If you are going to quote me, please quote what I told you in your talk page.

I suggest having X-Men in film, X-Men in TV, and X-Men in other media being 3 separate templates. It's similar to what other tentpole franchises have (i.e. Batman, Spider-Man). Film and TV templates would present data in more detail for those specific mediums. Other Media would present data for film and tv at a high level while also presenting data for other medium (i.e. toys, merchandise, theme parks, etc). Whatever other medium has a wiki page and is notable in other media would go there.

Not saying the templates I created (film/tv) are the do all/end all or the way I changed other media is the final way to do it. Presenting large sets of data is easier when breaking it down to smaller chunks so one could easily find detailed information in the particular section they are looking for while still presenting options on finding data. NunyaBeeness (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, what you're proposing is literally the definition of a split or fork. You're taking the content from one template and turning it into three. I'm not sure why you think otherwise, but honestly this isn't the main point. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Correct it's not the point. You are arguing semantics. The point is to better present large sets of data and what I suggested is the way it's done not only in wikipedia but across any and all sorts of industries. NunyaBeeness (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

My biggest issue with these two templates is that they partially overlap with this one. Which is why I believe it is unnecessary. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Wow, I completely missed this, but scrolling up to the top of the page, it looks like there used to be separate navboxes for X-Men films and TV shows before they were merged in 2009 and 2013. So there was consensus not to have multiple templates, albeit from a decade ago. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I mean a lot of things change in a decade. A decade ago there was no live action X-Men TV shows and between 4-6 movies depending on the date you pick. There was no new projects in the MCU like there are now and the MCU was also barely a thing back then. Not relevant to today's discussion IMO.

Overlapping of data is a valid concern and I understand that. Some overlapping is okay (especially for large data sets. You can see this in other data boxes), but not complete dupes. One has to be careful with data visualization which is what I tried to explain to you previously. Data visualization is what I do for my day to day job, albeit more with graphical representation using very expensive tools.

I will try to explain it again. Basically a three pronged approach like you see with other tentpole franchises (Spider-Man, Batman). I will agree that those franchises have more data and products out than this one.

1) Film template. Includes all links available related to the movies, characters and any other related data - including movie based video games and soundtracks. Divided into two main parts - one for the Fox Universe, the 2nd one for the MCU

2) TV template. Includes all links available related to the TV shows (animated or live action). Includes episodes, characters and any other related data. Divided into two main parts - one for the animated and the 2nd one for live action. When this gets bigger it can be further explored

3) Other media. List only the movies and tv shows under their sections. No further details. List of games. List of toys. Theme park attractions. Broadway or other live event shows. Novels. Etc. As mentioned before it can have a list of cameos and other appearances as it would fit better here. This is for every media except comics (hence the name other media). The others are for detailed information on the movies and tv shows.

That said as I mentioned on your page it is just you and me talking here, so this will be a decision that we take. No one else has posted in the talk page here in over 2 years. And before that in 2016, so I don't think anyone else will post about this. You seem to be a lot more passionate about wikipedia and this in general. The data as it's displayed right now is not ideal and not the best way to visualize data hence why I tried to change it, optimize it and make it better. I also told you that my changes are open to being improved, as all things are. You seem to want to stay with the status quo and as I said I think you care more about this than me, so I won't be a thorn on your side anymore and let you make the decision. I won't undo any reverts you make or anything else. NunyaBeeness (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

What if we WP:NEST both {{X-Men in film}} and {{X-Men in television}} onto this template? Here is an example of what that looks like, don't know if that seems even messier to you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, we can't do anything with the MCU right now because Deadpool 3 is still in draftspace per WP:NFF. Only topics with actual, live articles are included in navboxes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair on Deadpool 3. May be best to wait on more announcements before doing improvements.

That nested box in your example is a very good way for data visualization on large data sets actually. As long as the data within each child box is a subset of the theme of the parent then it comes off very organized and easy for human consumption. In your example we have American Broadcast, which is the main topic, then each child data dives deeper into a specific topic or niche. NunyaBeeness (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Note that the two navboxes have been coded to display Films and Television when transcluded here, but their correct titles are displayed if not. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Good deal. I like the way data is being displayed there now. Easy to scale and organize as things grow. As time allows I'll double check if there are any missing links from the previous version that needs to be added.

Good chatting! NunyaBeeness (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)