Template talk:X-Men media

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Comics / Marvel (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the Marvel Comics work group.

Merger proposal[edit]

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. (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[edit]

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. (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. (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for video game subgroups[edit]

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)

Title for X-Men the animated series and subsection headers[edit]

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. (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. (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[edit]

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)