Talk:X-Men (film series)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Booker, M. Keith (2007). "The X-Men Film Franchise". May Contain Graphic Material: Comic Books, Graphic Novels, and Film. Praeger. ISBN 0275993868.
• Gardner, Eriq (2010-11-29). "Fox Sues to Stop Film and TV Script Leaks". The Hollywood Reporter.
• http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/bryan_singer_says_x-men_first_class_sequel_could_be_set_during_vietnam/
• http://screenrant.com/xmen-first-class-sequel-ideas-schrad-117120/
• http://splashpage.mtv.com/2011/05/27/x-men-first-class-sequel-cast/
• http://collider.com/james-mcavoy-x-men-first-class-sequel/94462/
• Zeitchik, Steve (2011-06-07). "Bryan Singer: An 'X-Men: First Class' sequel could be set in Vietnam, or amid the civil rights movement". Los Angeles Times.

Re-titling of this page as a whole

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have moved the Television series closer to the top of the page as it's own sub-section, seeing as Bryan Singer has clarified that though Legion can stand on its own, it will connect to the planned and upcoming future X-Men films. This means it is no longer simply tie-in material, but an official part of the series. Usually when a series expands into multiple formats, as opposed to just being a ' (film series) ' they are then retitled to be a ' (franchise) '. With Fox now trying to follow the format which Marvel Studios has before it, (with a cinematic universe) -- this page needs to be retitled as a franchise, or as a 'cinematic universe'. Burningblue52 (talk)

I have reverted your edit for now, because until consensus is reached on this, the scope of the article remains as a "film series", not a multi-media franchise. Get consensus to change the article's name, and then the section can be moved. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

As an uninterested party, I agree mostly with adamstom97. I don't see the Marvel cinematic universe as the same type of thing as the X-Men series (the X-Men films are much more concise), and this article currently portrays the X-Men films as merely a series. Wikipedia has numerous pages of "book series" and "TV series" with other media in them, and I don't see that as a problem so long as the article name captures the majority of the work (or how it's best known by the general public). I do, however, see Burningblue52's point, and would say that with consensus and a great deal of rewriting, a name change etc. could work. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is for the film series. This is not X-Men in other media. Keep the TV shows under tie in materials just like the video games and books connected and related to the films. There isn't also an official name for the cinematic universe for the live action X-Men films and the TV shows produced by 20th Century Fox compare to Walt Disney's Marvel Cinematic Universe.SuperHotWiki (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Though I can understand the confusion, I feel like a lot of that comes from the fact that the X-Men films chronology and relation to each other have always been very jumbled. Something that I think confirms that it is more than just a 'film series' now, is the fact that the studio is creating TV series to be directly linked to the film series. Maybe a title such as 'X-Men film universe' works better? It at least acknowledges the fact that there's more than just the films now. Regardless of what the page title changes to, adamstom97 definitely, we need to move the TV series up underneath the Film Series section on the page, seeing as the fact is that now the TV series are a part of the same continutiy/series/world; whereas before it was a lot less specific and merely tie-in material. Burningblue52 (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

How about stop trying to force this becoming into "X-Men Cinematic Universe" or "X-Men film universe" article. Those terms don't officially exist and if we make a move for that, it will make this article sound like it was a created by a "fan" who constantly posts news site sounding materials (doing it by copying/pasting) that I had to clean it up in order to meet Wikipedia's standards. Even if is this is titled as "x-Men film universe" which is not even different to its current title "X-Men (film series)", Legion is still not a film. It will be still be just like the videogames and books connected to the film series and it will not change the fact that it is a tie-in material to the films. The article is good as it is. I think some people are just fascinated by the idea of a live-action television series that they feel like they need to revamp this article and make it something else which is in my opinion, wrong. Anyway, you want the TV shows to have its own section and not a sub-section, there's X-Men in other media for you to edit.SuperHotWiki (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I could see this becoming "X-Men (franchise)" or something at some point, or Cinematic Universe if that ever becomes official, but for now this is a film series with one future TV series confirmed to connect in someway to fiture films. Keeping the scope as a film series with tie-in TV therefore seems appropriate to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious? Man, I'm not trying to 'force' anything, nor sound like a 'fan'-boy or anything that you stated. No need to get hostile, nor pick things apart. My purpose in even becoming an editor on Wikipedia is to correct the MASSIVE amount of grammar and sentence format errors within the articles. Not only that, but to help the site stay consistent with correct information. Seeing as the TV show Legion IS live-action, and IS now officially a TV series in direct continuation with the film series (as declared by Bryan Singer who is one of the producers of the TV series, and an individual who has written the stories of the films, and directed a few of them) -- I don't see how your argument that the TV series isn't a film. There are varying FRANCHISE pages that include lists of films, TV series, books, etc. that are all related and within the same continuity. The fact that a TV show will directly link to future films, and potentially have influence over them validates my original statement, that the title should at least be changed to 'X-Men (franchise)'. The fact that the studio has sited the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a blue-print for what they hope the series now becomes (since X-Men: Days of Future Past), also validates that by involving TV series - also validates my reasons for even starting this talk-page section. The studio has Legion and another as-of-yet unnamed TV series in the works.

This page will change titles eventually. I'm only trying to help the process move along. Burningblue52 (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No, you are the only one enforcing this change. And given by the credibility of your editing skills by making the TV series section sound like a news site with words like "reporting" and copy/paste editing skills and then suggesting a name change that isn't even given by Fox. I don't see why we shouldn't even consider your plea.SuperHotWiki (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Honestly the name X-Men (franchise) would make a lot more sense to me as well. At this point the page includes 6 X-Men films, 3 Wolverine films, Deadpool, and a lot of potential spin-off films that aren't actually X-Men films, but fit within the X-Men universe. Now I know Wolverine has never really been recognized as a stand-alone series (though maybe it should), but the same argument really can't be made for Deadpool, or upcoming projects like New Mutants. That along with the TV-series that are connected to the films should be enough to show that this 'universe' has grown beyond the X-Men films. Though I would not use phrases like Cinematic Universe until Fox starts using that as well. 2001:982:4947:1:C4B7:50F5:FC41:E1A (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe X-Men (franchise) works since a franchise includes everything from comics to movies to paperback books to toys. That's a bit overexpansive, with things that could be articles in themselves. The films alone are big enough to warrant an article. I would say pretty soon "X-Men (TV series)" would as well, what with the new shows and the animated series. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

A valid point that I hadn't considered. Any names to indicate it is the live action Fox-owned X-Men franchise would probably either be too long or unofficial (for now). 2001:982:4947:1:C4B7:50F5:FC41:E1A (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I brought this up awhile back... I don't want to jump the gun on retitling the page, but there is a credible source in which the writers of Deadpool refer to this "universe" as the X-Universe. That could very well be a name made up on the spot to refer to the continuity, but it does give weight to the notion that this continuity is no longer just the X-Men film series. It's larger than that. -RM (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an argument which should take further inspection, given the continuing news that the TV series, Legion will in fact have 'connections to future movies', further the franchise's relativity in the expanding superhero film realms, and will reference film events and characters. Further more, the word X-Men (film series) suggests that the films are all X-Men movies. Though they are all within the same continuity, and within the world of the X-Men, a different title should be found. There are reliable sources simply calling the franchise the X-Men Universe. Excellent points that User: Burningblue52 brought up.

--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether anyone else has picked up on this yet, but Noah Hawley who is the producer, writer, and showrunner of Legion stated that though the series is a part of the X-Men "universe", he feels like by having the TV series first stand on its own, they can "earn their way into the universe". He stated the franchise as being a "universe", here...doesn't this verify that the series is no longer just a 'film series', but a "shared universe"? The very least it is definitely now a franchise, as there are multiple media-forms involved in the continuity. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Also...

Given the new updates on the intended influence that Legion will have on the franchise as a whole, and the additional TV series that is currently in development it is safe to say that it is intended that what was once merely the X-Men film series is turning into a franchise/shared cinematic universe, inspired (obviously) by the Marvel Cinematic Universe - much like all other cinematic shared universes these days. With that being said, shouldn't the TV series within this page now be moved up to just below the film installments listed? For example, even though the page isn't yet retitled, if the page had the heading 'Films' (which it does - and lists them), THEN had 'TV series' and listed those (much like how the MCU page does), wouldn't that be more fitting now - given the tight-lipped, but revealing news supplied via reliable source here.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It is a tie in material to the film series.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Series producer Lauren Donner, who has been involved with the X-Men franchise for a very long time, recently discussed the television's creative freedom from the film series (i.e.: the fact that Legion has it's own continuity due to the character's disillusion to reality), and also stated how the TV series will also tie-in to the cinematic universe. That is stated here. While some may get confused at the fact that she states they are their 'own' thing, this has already been stated before, saying that they want the TV serieses to be able to stand on their own, before they "EARN" the abilities to tie into the larger universe. Bryan Singer has stated that Legion will tie into future films in the film series, while Professor X will also appear in Legion. I think that it is obvious now that this is a FRANCHISE. There are both films and TV shows within its instalments, and the producer even called it the 'cinematic universe' in the above interview. Where this page needs to be retitled X-Men franchise, or X-Men cinematic universe - they both would serve the series as a whole better than just the X-Men (film series) title it currently has.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

^I've read the article and happen to agree with this. The producers are using X-Men universe, and cinematic universe interchangeably. Donner in the article just restates what the others have said before: TV shows will be developed to stand on their own first and foremost, and then will be more fluid with the rest of the franchise. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, there's no official name so no thank you. Legion doesn't even exist within the established film series.SuperHotWiki (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

And AGAIN - producer Simon Kinberg calls it the X-Men universe, here, about half-way down the page when questions turn to Deadpool. In response to your 'no thank you' to my previous source-- Producers Jeff Loeb, and Bryan Singer have both stated that Legion will tie into future films in the franchise. Series developer says that Legion almost seems to be in its own timeline, as the character's psychosis makes it so the series can 'stand on its own' as the viewer also doesn't know what is real and what is his mental illness. He has stated that the TV series will eventually tie into the films more. So I would also disagree with you.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

They can call it anything they want, but Fox has yet to label the films and TV series as X-Men Universe or whatever you are trying to suggest. You want the TV shows and Films to share an article? There's X-Men in other media for you to play. But leave this article alone. It is good as it is. And I can definitely posts sources that contradicts about Legion having a connection to the film series, but that's another issue.-SuperHotWiki (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

When they talk about the "X-Men universe" or the "cinematic universe" they are just talking about the fiction of the films. Not everything has to be a big shared universe just because Marvel has one. This is still a film series that has some tie-in TV shows (one that won't try to tie-in with the continuity, and one that does plan to). No need to make this more complicated than it is. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

No need to get defensive. I only brought up a valid point. Noah Hawley, the writer/director/producer/creator of the Legion tv series has said that it is a part of the same continuity as the film series. He states that where it takes place therein is not clear because of the fact that the character's reality is all confusing (given he is on medication for the 'schitzophrenia'). The fact that the TV series are going to be connected to the films in one way or another, is 20th Century Fox trying to take a stab at what the Marvel Cinematic Universe has so effectively done. There are various studios doing similar things, but with the X-Men they are trying to make the TV shows stand on their own and be successful first, before diving head-first into having film crossovers, etc. This argument about whether the page should be renamed due to the TV shows is a sidenote -- I believe it should be listed as a 'franchise' simply because of the fact that it's not just about the X-Men. The films are about the X-Men, Wolverine, Deadpool, and will soon include New Mutants, and X-Force, and Gambit - and others. Though 20th Century Fox hasn't given it an 'official name' as pointed out - clearly with their attempts to expand the "universe" in their X-Men, it is a franchise now. By stating it as such, it would clear that up a TON. Whether it's done now, or in the future - it will eventually happen. Just thought it'd be fitting already given the differing films and media (film vs TV).

--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

On a side note -- why is it that the Television series section on this page doesn't list the shows as a sub-heading section under that section (i.e.: for Legion and the untitled X-Men tv show)? I've seen some edits that try to do so, done neatly with formatting and information, only to see them reverted several times. What's the reason for doing this?

--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Because DisneyMetalhead won't let this topic go. If anyone wants to read these comments again to see that there was no decision for a name change.SuperHotWiki (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

There was no decision, but there were suggestions for it, hence why a requested move discussion now exists. -- Alex^TW 11:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

....'there was no decision for a name change' = "I have not been convinced". There are a handful of editors that agree on this talk page. All of us have given reliable sources for the reasoning behind a name change. Just because you are obsessing about the minutia and discounting reliable sources does not mean that you are correct.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deadpool in Logan

I have made an edit a couple of times to include Ryan Reynolds under Logan in the Recurring characters chart list. The reason being is that there is a scene filmed to pre-cede the beginning of the film, which is completely Deadpool-centered. The scene references the Logan film, and Wolverine character, and then procedes to have a paragraph reference to the story of Logan. This scene can and should be viewed as one of the "stinger scenes" which are usually placed in a film as a post-credits scene. The placement of the sequence as a pre-film sequence is smart by the studio in that chronologically Deadpool 2 will take place decades before Logan, and should it be at the end of Logan it would create timeline confussion. Also - it's very tonally and stylistically Deadpool; and would have taken away from the end of the feature film it is a part of. As the scene was made to stand as a sequence teasing one of 20th Century Fox's new and upcoming X-Men projects, just as they have with every other X-Men film; this scene is a part of Logan. Because of all of this -- Ryan Reynolds is technically a part of the film; even if it is in the non-post-credits, pre-film sequence, and because of this should be listed on the chart under Logan. In the context of the film, his listing would make sense and could even have a new note label made, to explain it was in a tease-sequence (i.e.: like a mid-credits, post-credits scene; only this time it should be noted as a pre-film sequence/scene). Reverting my edit, and making a note for editors to come here and talk about this subject. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

it's merely a teaser, promo or a short film attached to Logan. Like how Pixar films included a short animated film before a Pixar movie started. Its not even screened outside of North American screenings of Logan. And that bonus footage has it's own credits.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The Deadpool sequence was actually shot specifically for Logan. The long, fast-moving text at the end of the scene is not film credits, but Deadpool's homage to Logan by relating a poem to him. The footage even has Wolverine and Logan references throughout it. Like it or not -- it is not a teaser, nor a trailer -- it's an actual film sequence. The odd placement is simply because Mangold decided he wanted his film to be completely self-contained and maintain the tone and style of the film from start to finish.

--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

it's a short film. Do a research next time. [4]--SuperHotWiki (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Just because he says 'it's a short' doesn't mean it's a "short film" as you just stated. The sequence was filmed specifically for Logan. The reason it wasn't used after the credits is because the director didn't want anything after the credits. You can find that on the internet. No need to belittle other editors on here Hotwiki. The 'short film' released on the internet is different from the sequence that was used in the Logan theatrical release anyhow.

--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

References

In a recent interview with Comingsoon.net -- one of the writers Rhett Reese stated that: "We also wanted that open to feel like the start of Logan, so if you were going to see Logan and the first shot came up you would think it’s gonna be Hugh in the hoodie, and then when it turns out to be Deadpool you realize what’s going on. That was the goal and I think he pulled it off wonderfully." The sequence was filmed specifically for Logan, and was placed there with the intent to be in such a way that the audience perceives it as a part of Logan. The studio obviously did a pre-film sequence, instead of a mid- or post-credits scene, because Mangold wanted his film to be self-contained from start to finish.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Deadpool: No Good Deed

Deadpool: No Good Deed is a 2017 short film directed by David Leitch, written by Rhett Reese and features Reynolds returning as Deadpool. The short made its debut before the film Logan when the latter was released in theaters; however, the teaser was not screened with Logan in international territories. The film served as a teaser for Deadpool 2, with Reese confirming on Twitter that the short film was not a teaser or a trailer for a sequel. The short was uploaded to Youtube by Reynolds on March 4, 2017, revealing the name of the short to be "No Good Deed".

I believe that as Reese defined this as a short film, not a teaser, and not a trailer, it should be listed on this page before Logan in the "Films" section, given that it actually made its debut before Logan. Does anyone have a legitimate reason for this short film, the first short film in the X-Men film series, to not be seen as notable enough to include on this page?

Impending IP (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

References

It could be under tie-in materials.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I conflicted about where this information should go. I definitely think it should be added but the page as a whole is for the film franchise. This short film (as far as I know) hasn't/won't appear on the big screen nor make revenue towards the franchise. I personally see it as a personal project between Reynolds, Reese, and Leitch, but again that's just my opinion. If it is to be added I am leaning towards tie in material. Brocicle (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

All Right then! I'll add it to that section then! Impending IP (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

To me, this seems like just promotional material (as evidence by the "Deadpool 2 coming not soon enough"). Yes, it's more than a trailer, but falls short of being it's own separate film. It's certainly not in continuity with the other films, as evidenced by the movie posters and marquee advertising that "LOGAN" is playing. Rcarter555 (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

In regards to that, Deadpool is known for breaking the fourth wall, the continuity of Logan itself has been questioned and Patrick Stewart has stated that Deadpool would allow him to return as Professor X, despite his fate in Logan. Maybe the shaky continuity is his excuse? Nurseline247 (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The sequence that was released in theaters in the U.S. is slightly different from the short-film released online by Ryan Reynolds. The sequence is technically a part of the Logan film. Rather than having the sequence at the end of the credits where most superhero films have it, the director opted to instead include the sequence before Logan begins. He has stated he felt like the movie ends stating what they wanted to say, and that a post-credit scene would take away from and not fit the movie. Never does the sequence say "Deadpool 2 coming not soon enough" as stated up there^. It says "Deadpool coming....not soon enough". What this relates to is the fact that he was not quick enough to save the person from being mugged. The theatrical sequence is called a "pre-film sequence", similar to "mid-" and "post-credits scenes". Since the two sequences are different and separate; as well as given the fact that there are no credits following the sequence (as there would be with a "short film"), this argument should take note that it is just a sequence that was filmed specifically for Logan. It's as simple as that.

--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The sequence appeared before the 20th Century Fox studio logo, which historically has been the start of every film. I think there's still a question and until someone from the production says "yes, this should be considered a pre-credit sequence to Logan" we must assume it is just a marketing tool for Deadpool and not technically a part of the Logan film.Rcarter555 (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Very well, I'm just stating that the unconventional approach is very much in-line with the character himself, and is similar to the way marketing was done for the first film. It also couldn't be a "pre-credits scene" as that would place it before the end-credits of the movie. The description I've seen which makes the most sense is the "pre-film sequence" reference. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

TV series are NOT tie-in material

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have to bring this up again: With the Tie-in material section on this page, produced materials such as video games and books and comics are listed. This makes sense as it is connected to the films' releases, and could include anything marketing-wise that has the X-Men films stamp on it. What I don't yet understand is why in the world is the TV series listed there? It has nothing marketably noteworthy to do with any of the X-Men film titles, but instead is its own installment in the franchise. In my mind, shouldn't the TV series REALLY have its own section? Legion is seperate from the X-Men trilogy, the prequel trilogy, the Wolverine trilogy, and the Deadpool film. That makes it its own entity (as the producers and creators wanted it to do - stand on its own), but is a part of the franchise as a whole. Producers and creators have stated that the series will have closer ties to the films in future seasons, AND Patrick Stewart recently stated he would reprise his role as Professor X on the show -- so why is this still an issue? --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Without any rebutle this argument falls into the silence consensus as regulated by Wikipedia. Should there be an edit without discussing on this page, then the edit would be classified as a edit war on another editor's fault. I agree that given the fact that the TV serieses are not spin-offs of any of the films, but instead their own installments they should be listed in a different section, possibly just titled TV series. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hotwiki, you reverted my edit when there is a new argument thread here on the talk page. I made a valid argument as to why the TV series should not be listed under tie-in materials. Tie-in materials if you look at them, are marketing products (i.e. video games, comics, books, toys even, etc.). These TV series have ZERO relation to any of the films. They are not spin-offs of the movies, but will be their own installments into the franchise. This argument alone validates the fact that they need to be in a different section. They are not tie-in materials at all. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

if they aren't Tie in materials, then you should be removing them. Mind you, this article is for X-MEN FILM SERIES. This is not X-Men in other media. There's no new argument,since you suddenly tried to Revamp this article when there's already a consensus that TV series, like the comics/videogames related to the fikms, it should be under tie in materials. Again this is for the film series, not live action adaptations of X-Men characters.SuperHotWiki (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hotwiki, since you agree that it shouldn't be in tie-in materials (a.k.a.: X-Men in other media), then that also backs up the previous point brought up earlier on this page, that the page's title as a whole needs to be changed. The TV shows do not fit under tie-in materials as they do not relate to any of the already released films. However, they have been stated to be a part of the larger X-Men franchise, and both will have ties to the film series. Patrick Stewart went as far as to say he would reprise his film role as Professor X in Legion when called upon. The fact that their pursuing him, indicates the closer ties to the films that will be coming. Perhaps the easiest thing given the information is to rename the page X-Men (franchise), and have sub-headings Film series, TV series, etc. The page is out-dated and needs some revisions. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the content should be listed here, just as at Marvel Cinematic Universe; there's not enough for a separate article for related television series, so they should be included here. The untitled series is obviously part of the franchise, with the confirmation that it's set in the same universe and all; concerning Legion, there's been discussion on Patrick Stewart reprising his role as Xavier, so that makes the series related to this article as well. I would support a move to X-Men (franchise); perhaps a Requested Move Discussion? Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm also not entirely sure why Legion was removed from this page. It is obviously not as connected to the film as Bryan Singer's 'Heaven' will be (due to the nature of the show itself), but they have stated that there is a possibility for cross-overs and tie-ins. Legion's world right now doesn't appear to be the same world as the one the X-Men movies take place in, but that doesn't mean it's not the same universe, or that they are not connected. I mean this is a show where the premise revolves around questioning what's real. Furthermore they've already flown in X-Men props that will be used in Legion season 1 and Patrick Stewart has said to be interested in appearing on the show. 92.111.179.110 (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

what I don't get is the "obsession " of trying to make this article look like X-Men cinematic universe when the name doesn't exist especially when these TV shows were announced. This article is about thefilm series. Legion isn't connected to the films and now I've removed it (they were removed before by other editors and reappeared for an unexplained reason). While The upcoming Fox would be that's why it is under Tie in materials section. You can't rename this to X-Men (franchise) since that would include other stuff that isn't even connected to the film series such as the videogames from the 90s, the Generation Xpilot, the cartoon series, toys, merchandises, etc. There's already an article for that which is X-Men in other media. SuperHotWiki (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

anyone could bring back Legion to this article once the connection to the film series has been made. But "I want to appear in the show" (Patrick Stewart) is nothing but words.SuperHotWiki (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd argue that Legion right now is no more or less connected to the X-Men Movies than (for example) Jessica Jones is to the MCU. The connections of both these shows rely on comments of the creators mostly. Heaven in this case would be the S.H.I.E.L.D. type show that is more obviously connected to the universe, while Legion is largely standalone. What would constitute a connection to the movies in your opinion though? Using props from the movies, as they've said they will, puts them on the same level as the Marvel Netflix series as far as being 'connected' goes in my opinion. 92.111.179.110 (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hotwiki your edits have become 'obsessive' if any on this page have. No one is moving for an X-Men Cinematic Universe (though it will likely acquire a similar name eventually). The argument here is that this page needs a new title. X-Men (franchise) would be similar to the Alien (franchise), Cloverfield (franchise), or any other for that matter (of which there are MANY productions made that are not canon, or are even unrelated).You have now removed a series that by those who are involved with making it have confirmed there are 'ties' 'connections' and 'future plans' to further tie the TV series to the films. That is against Wikipedia policies, and is an unjustifiable move on your part. Sounds like your opinion, is overriding the facts at this point. Patrick Stewart said that "100%" he'd star in the show. That sounds more like an acceptance, or commitment. Series creator Noah Hawley has even stated that season two will have greater connections to the film series. This all points to the fact that it should be listed here, (not removed) and that the page needs to be retitled as it is no longer simply X-Men movies; that ended when they made the first Wolverine film. The page is outdated, and needs to be updated.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I missed this post earlier and have just looked at the Alien and Cloverfield Wiki pages you link to and I now change my mind, I think there is a strong case to label the page X-Men (franchise). This appears to fall in line with how Wikipedia handles similar properties. RodgerTheDodger (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Side-note: you obviously misunderstood my argument. My argument was not that Legion is not a part of the franchise. My argument was that tie-in materials always tie-in to the movies, as marketing propaganda. For example, an X-Men Origins: Wolverine book ties into the movie as well. Legion the TV series is not a spin-off of the films, or a sales point for the films. It is its own INSTALLMENT within the franchise as it is an origin of the charater, who is the son of Professor X. My comment was to prove that the page is outdated. Legion belongs on this page, as its own entity. Not as tie-in material. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Tie in materials meaning materials that aren't films which expand the story that originated or connected to the film series. Comics, Videogames, Short film all fell into that category. The Fox show would if they indeed reference the films. Again, you are forcely trying to make this into something else. This article isn't about the X-Men in live action adaptations but a series of films. This topic has been brought up before and there's ZERO consensus for a move or name change. Again, an article of X-Men (franchise) would be similar to X-Men in other media but would also include the X-Men comics itself since it was the source of this X-Men franchise. Now do you really want an article of that? SuperHotWiki (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

And no, until the Legion show actually connected or referenced the movies into the show. Then okay. But as of now, I see it as merely all talk from the producers and Patrick Stewart and no actual confirmation that the show will be connected to the film series. And as you've said before, this isn't connected to film series, its not a tie in. I just agreed with you and now you're suddenly changing your thoughts? Okay.SuperHotWiki (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Though you continue to ignore the valid points made by several editors^, the importance of changing the name of the page still remains. "Tie-in materials" sounds like you've created your own definition of what that section header means. The difference being that those items listed under there are all for marketing purposes regarding the X-Men Trilogy films. The TV series really doesn't fit that category. It also doesn't fit within a page simply titled X-Men (film series) as you've pointed out numerous times, but belongs on this page as the page is about shared continuity. Until the studio has an official title for the group of media, the page needs to be titled X-Men (franchise0 or something similar. Your argument about needing to include the comics on such a page is invalid -- all other pages given the "franchise" title do not include source material listings. All that would need to be stated is that it "is a live-action film media franchies, based upon the Marvel Comics of the same name". End of story. You cannot deny these facts.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian, I second your move for a page title change discussion. The Request Move Discussion would be a productive thing to do seeing as there are multiple editors agreeing with the topic at hand. There are multiple definitions for a 'franchise' -- whether it be topics completely unrelated (the many many Godzilla films), a film series (Jaws), or a film series that includes other media adaptations a.k.a. the new X-Men TV shows (similar to the Alien franchise having spin-offs etc). The page is out-dated and has been since the first "spin-off" film was released with X-Men Origins: Wolverine. The X-Men are a team. The films that focus on other characters default the page's title. This on top of the expansion the franchise is actively pursuing justifies these page changes.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

keep ignoring the conversations that were done in thr past few months regarding this topic. The editors have discussed it and no title change was done. What makes you think it will be different this time? Also your other suggestions were already turned down by other editors.SuperHotWiki (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The reason it's different now is that there are more details and further evidence to support our argument. You do not own the page Hotwiki, and have engaged in edit warring multiple times in the past, on this page. The facts are plain and simple. TV series that will serve as their own installments in the franchise, do not equal tie-in material. Therefore calling the page (film series) also doesn't work. What's your solution to that? Let's hear it.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Headers for upcoming films

Original discussion

Please explain your edit-warring (for which you seem to have a number of warnings previously) of removing the headers for "Films in development" at X-Men (film series). There is no reason as to why the "Films" section should use them, but the "Films in development" section should not. When I originally added them, I added the description of the film to the header (e.g. "film", "sequel", etc). I see no reason as to why these were removed. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Because they are mostly in development, has no official title and just makes the article super crowded with 5 to 7 subsections when they have yet to enter principal photography. Those films under development doesn't warrant a section for themselves just like there's no separate article for them since they are still in development stage. And only brief information should be posted here since the article is for the entire series and sections shouldnt compose of a dozen of film updates which is just making the article look like an updates list which Wikipedia isn't about. While certain users keep giving those subsections unofficial film title like X-Men: Supernova and X-Men 7. So keep it as it is. Other editors who have been editing the article for years doesn't seem to disagree with that. Just a bunch of persistent of recently joined editors.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

What makes it crowded and unreadable is massing the lot of text into a single list with no breaks, and my edit fixes that sufficiently enough. My initial edit added no such unofficial titles, as that would be both unsourced and original research. There is no policy or guideline that states that an upcoming film should not have its own section if it does not have a separate article; any related guideline might be that a film shouldn't have an article if it hasn't started filming yet, but the separate section does not relate to that. And if the sections are added, and editors are including unsourced titles, then you revert them and either 1) warn them for unsourced content or 2) request page protection, exactly as you would on any other article, or just as you would if they introduced these titles into the prose of the list itself. And you can't really voice the opinions of other editors, given that it's just us two discussing this. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

If no further response is given, I will take that as silence being your consensus, and reinstate the edits. If they are reverted without a reply, this will constitute edit-warring. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't reply because I am not going to change my decision. Now the talk page of that film series is available for you to get a consensus.

Talk page discussion

Opinions from other editors? Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I would support your argument AlexTheWhovian! Look at the Marvel Cinematic Universe films in development, or the DC Extended Universe, or the MonsterVerse, or the Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe -- they all list the films that are currently in development with their own sub-sectioning title. I think that organizationally it would make sense to be similar to these other pages. Also, if a reader wants to find the New Mutants movie information right away, they can click onto it from the quicklink box at the top. The films in development should be listed as the other pages. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This is also further supported by the fact that we now have a section for the Untitled X-Men TV series. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

what section? I reverted that edit. There's already a consensus that TV shows are under tie in materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotwiki (talk • contribs)

And your what about the section titles for the other franchise-universe articles? Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Obviously no one responded to you other than me. If giving the films under development subsections is that important, don't you think more veteran editors of this article would have already suggested that? The bullet list format has been implemented for years. wait until the film/s go to production where you could move them up to the films section and give them their own subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotwiki (talk • contribs)

You need to sign and timestamp your comments Hotwiki. Everytime you make a comment you need to be doing that. Also I like the comment up there that supports AlexTheWhovian. All other franchise related articles provided in the examples list upcoming films with sub-sectioned titles. Just because it's how the page has been for years, doesn't mean it's correct. The page needs to be updated as many of these films, which used to be just ideas, are now in active development. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that silence is not consensus. The link above is simply to an essay. Anyone can write an essay on anything. Instructional essays can be helpful. Opinion essays don't really mean anything.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, that's a valid point. What is your opinion about this topic, Tenebrae? --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hotwiki, still forgetting to sign your posts. And you continue to avoid the topic that it is acceptable on other franchise-universe pages, many of which are run by "veteran" editors, especially the Marvel one. And "veteran" editors do not get the final say, per WP:OWN; they do not own this page, and anyone is welcome to make editors, make suggestions and partake in discussions. Tenebrae, it's less of an essay, more explanatory supplement to WP:CONSENSUS (a policy), and just as valid. The point applies for it. If you're going to discuss an editor's position on guidelines, do so on their talk page, or give an opinion on the topic at hand. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The "Films in development" section should definitively have subheaders like those in the "Films" section, to be consistent with the rest of the article and with the Marvel Cinematic Universe and DC Extended Universe articles. The bullet points makes it hard to follow and there is enough content to divide into subheaders. If you want, the last two points (Deadpool 3 and X-Men sequel) can go under "Other potential projects", but all the other should have their own header. Brojam (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I like the subhead "Films in development" more than "Future" (MCU article) and "Upcoming" (DCEU article), since it seems a less predictive term: "Films in development" is not saying "Here's what will happen" but rather "Here's what's happening now." --Tenebrae (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the films in development should have their own headers. The seperate headers for novels, games and comics that popped up a while back are completely unnecessary, but I don't think that is the case here. 92.111.179.110 (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like the overall consensus, and agreed formatting is that which is similar to Marvel Cinematic Universe, DC Extended Universe, MonsterVerse, Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe, Cloverfield franchise, etc. By keeping the page organized, the reading process becomes clearer. As the previous editor points out, if it were a few minor topics, bullet-form would work. However, this has become a much more detailed section, and the sub-header sections would improve the page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Continuity

Before notifying admins, I'd like to make one final appeal to User:RodgerTheDodger, whom I've already asked on his talk page not to edit-war with three other editors. He appears to have violated 3RR, and I'd like to ask him to discuss his edits, which violated WP:SYNTH. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello User:Tenebrae, all of the information is based from the movie studios own description of the movie settings; each movie is set within a certain time period. I have simply used this as a guide for the continuity section. I don't see how this is a violation of WP:SYNTH. The movies are a mixture of prequels and sequels, released in an out of continuity order, not unlike the Star Wars series of movies and like the Star Wars movies there is a correct timeline that the movies can be ordered in, I have simply listed the movies in that order as it is a key element of the movie franchise. I'm not trying to start a edit-war, I just don't see how this is a problem. If I am missing something, please let me know. RodgerTheDodger

My proposed edit:

As a result of multiple prequels and the time changing events of X-Men: Days Of Future Past; there are extensive continuity errors throughout the franchise making the correct viewing order different to the release order. To follow the story correctly the movies should be viewed in the following order:

1. X-Men: First Class (based in 1962)
2. X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Primarily based in 1979)
3. X-Men (Based in the year of release 2000)
4. X2: X-Men United (follows events of X-Men)
5. X-Men 3: The Last Stand (follows the events of X2)
6. The Wolverine (follows on from the end of X-Men 3: The Last Stand)
7. X-Men: Days Of Future Past (Set between 2023 and 1973)
8. X-Men: Apocalypse (Based in 1983 on the new timeline established by Days of Futures Past)
9. Deadpool (Based in 2016 on the new timeline)
10. Logan (Based in 2029 on the new timeline)

References

I appreciate the effort at discussion. I know all the other editors involved on this page do. And I can see you've put in a lot of effort and are making a good-will effort to improve the page. However, you're just citing your own reading of each movie and your citations are to a wikia, IMDb, which isn't allowed as a reference cite. In any event, you're taking disparate pieces of information and synthesizing them into your version of the films' continuity.

What you would need is for such a list to have been compiled by a reliable-source, journalistic/academic book/website/article. That type of secondary sourcing is part of what separates an encyclopedia from a fan site.

If it helps, there's a really quick'n'easy guide to encyclopedic sourcing and editing called the Five Pillars of Wikipedia that all new editors might want to read.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if this continuity section Has reliable sources, it's incredibly trivial and fansite territory. I am pretty sure this continuity section was deleted before for those reasons.SuperHotWiki (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

This information though helpful to viewing the films, isn't needful. Should there be an official chart of the X-Men films' timeline, that could be added to the article instead.--65.130.161.156 (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and been opposed. The Apocalypse film is not affected by the Days of Future Past film, because events before that were changed anyway. Unofficially, First Class was a reboot, but Days of Future Past "burrowed" events from the previous trilogy. What complicates things is that The Wolverine is clearly following on from Last Stand, yet has Wolverine in a terrible state because he hasn't gotten over Jean, even though he was fine at the end of Last Stand. Either way, making a timeline is fan subjective. Deadpool also doesn't help in any way shape or form. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 11 March 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: No consensus for this proposed title although there is consensus to rename the article to something. Active discussion continues in sections below and by RfC. — JFG ^talk 05:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

---

X-Men (film series) → X-Men (franchise) – Per discussion held at above section at #TV series are NOT tie-in material. -- Alex^TW 10:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. A move would require all X-Men materials in one article. The comics, the videogames, toys and merchandise, books and all the animated TV series. There's already X-Men in other media. The move would just make this article (a good article) a mess by including things that aren't part of the film series.SuperHotWiki (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

That is why the suggestion for a rename exists, to include the movie franchise and that which is connected to it. -- Alex^TW 11:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

What you aren't Getting is the word "franchise". The X-Men brand/franchise didn't start from the movies. But the comic books which later transcended to other forms of media including animated shows, videogames and toys. SuperHotWiki (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Then do you have an alternate title? Or are you simply disagreeing based upon your grievances in the previous discussion? -- Alex^TW 11:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

X-Men (live-action franchise)?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I like this idea as it is specific. X-Men (cinematic franchise) includes all cinematic continuity/adaptations including film, TV, short-film installments.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

there's no grievances. Unlike you I actually discussed this topic before and came up with the consensus with the other long time editors of this article not to move it. There's already the X-Men in other media, no need to mess this up especially this film series is already large enough to warrant it's own article.SuperHotWiki (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

May I call in User:Tenebrae, User:Adamstom.97, User:Brocicle to give their Vote.SuperHotWiki (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

1) Discussions are not the result of "votes", more on the solidity of the discussions and arguments, and 2) be sure you're not canvassing. -- Alex^TW 11:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The wording maybe wrong but you know I was asking for their opinion.SuperHotWiki (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least until Gifted airs. As I don't see Legion listed in the article, I assume that this article is only for media that are in the same continuity as the X-Men films, right? And as I understand the suggestion to change the title to "franchise" is because of the possibility of Gifted being in continuity with the films, which would mean that the film series has expanded to TV, correct? Meaning, if Gifted is not made into a series and it stays a failed pilot, potentially even one that's never shown (Marvel's Most Wanted anyone?), then there's no need for the "franchise" in the title, yes? There's also the possibility it just plain isn't in continuity with the films. I'm aware that the showrunner indicated there are some "nods" to the films, but say, the current Flash has nods to the 1990's Flash series, although officially they do not share continuity (other than in fan theories, certainly prompted by the filmmakers, but never officially confirmed). My suggestion is: why don't we wait for Gifted to actually get picked up and watch it for ourselves, and read what the film makers say about it then, not now that things are in flux. And then we can decide. If I have misunderstood, and the suggestion regarding renaming the article to "franchise" does not hinge on what happens with Gifted, then I apologize.. On the topic of continuity, Legion has a lede that says "It is connected to the X-Men film series, the first television series to do so", and links to this article which doesn't contain Legion anywhere, as here it has been deemed as out of continuity. The two pages should be reconciled; either Legion is connected to the X-Men film series, or it's not. Freemanukem (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I can appreciate this argument. However, waiting that long still leaves this page inaccurate as-named. Legion has already been stated to be a part of the franchise, whether it is "seen already" or not. A similar argument could be made about...Ant-Man. Largely standalone with minor references to the MCU, until Falcon showed up in the film.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Legion was included by another editor, before yet another editor edit-warred to remove it. Perhaps another discussion for that. -- Alex^TW 12:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It was removed before but resurfaced for an unexplained reason. Having seen the show, the only similarity and connection it has to the film series is it under Fox and Producers of the X-Men films are attached as executive producers. We didn't include Legion in Marvel Cinematic Universe just because some of Iron Fist's producers and Marvel Television are also attached. It doesn't work like that. SuperHotWiki (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It was edited with that line, with reliable references. There was no "unexplained reason", as the reference explained the reasoning.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per SuperHotWiki's reasonings. I think the page is fine as it is as long as it sticks to information regarding the film franchise only. Anything else to me is X-Men in Other Media etc. Brocicle (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose "Film series" is simple, direct and easily comprehensible to non-comics-fans. "Franchise" is overly broad and seems like an attempt to shoehorn the film, TV, direct-to-video and who-knows-what-else properties into some grand continuity that only hardcore fans want. For the vast majority of regular people, the films are their own topic. Someone below uses the analogy of the extant ][Ghostbusters (franchise)]]— and that article is a bloated mess, including major redundancies with the Ghostbusters video-game article. Articles with disparate topics such as that generally are supposed to be split when they're above 50kB. Ghostbusters (franchise) is 664kB! If that's an example of what's being proposed here, then I would advise anyone considering comment here to go take at look at that bloated, half-impenetrable and less-than-useful mess.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support The TV series are to be a part of the film continuity as stated by multiple sources |here, |here, |here, and |here. Long-time X-Men honcho Bryan Singer has plainly stated that the future of the films will be affected by Legion and Gifted. Series creator Noah Hawley has said that the reason Legion is confusing time-period-wise and continuity-wise is that the character is an unreliable source of information. He, and Brian singer have stated that the series was first developed to stand on its own as a 'standalone instalment'. This is similar rhetoric to what was first stated about The Wolverine while it was in production. The film/show is merely developed to be its own thing, without adding all the connections (i.e. The Amazing Spider-Man 2), so that it can be successful on its own. THEN it will begin to evolve into something closer to the films. Singer stated that the show (Legion) has begun to grow closer to the films, and that future seasons will more deeply explore this. This is evidenced by the fact that the TV series' star sought out Patrick Stewart to ask if he'd REPRISE his role as Professor X in the series. The word reprising acknowledges the fact that it's shared continuity. Hotwiki referenced a video game that has no relation to the films, as a rebuttal to this argument, but doing so has no ground as it's never been stated that it has any relation to the films, as these two TV series have. Perhaps a title along the lines of X-Men (film franchise) or X-Men (cinema franchise) works better? The argument that changing the name to simply X-Men (franchise) would have to include all the X-Men comics is absurd. The X-Men page is for the comics. The opening line of this page should/could simply say "The X-Men film/cinema franchise is a cinematic franchise based on the comic book characters created by Marvel Comics,.." and that would complete and deplete the argument that Hotwiki made. The page has been outdated since the film series started creating spin-off films anyway. The TV series only expand that problem with this page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The film series is NOT the franchise, but one specific part of it. The franchise consists of the comic books plus all the spin-offs from those, while the films are just a series of films within that franchise. Just because Hollywood currently loves to call every film series a franchise, even when there is no franchising emitting from them, Wikipedia should stick to the definition of franchising. The film series is one strand within the X-men franchise, not the franchise itself. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A franchise doesn't by default include every little detail and extension of a topic. Let's be real here. The franchise is Marvel. The fictional product is X-Men. The X-Men page is for information regarding the comic books. A title close to or similar to X-Men (film franchise) could work.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't object to an article covering the X-Men franchise, but the franchise is much bigger than the material related to the film series. This would not be a clear title. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Alternate requested move

X-Men (film series) → X-Men (Fox franchise) – Per discussion held above - As stated by User:Hotwiki, an "X-Men franchise" page would refer to every "X-Men-branded" item ever released. I propose a distinct name: "X-Men (Fox franchise)". Everything the current X-Men film series has in common is FOX. -- Nurseline247 -- TALK 13:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC) --

• Oppose per statement above Brocicle (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. You know what, this solves the problem of thinking whether Legion or Gifted are in the same continuity, or sort-of-the-same continuity, or not at all. With Fox in the title, this article then becomes about what does Fox has done with the X-Men rights they obtained in the 1990s, which includes everything from X1 to Gifted and beyond. I like it. Freemanukem (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose "Film series" is simple, direct and easily comprehensible to non-comics-fans. "Franchise" is overly broad and seems like an attempt to shoehorn the film, TV, direct-to-video and who-knows-what-else properties into some grand continuity that only hardcore fans want. For the vast majority of regular people, the films are their own topic. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that when people encounter the word "Franchise" they think of grand continuities. For example we have Ghostbusters (franchise) and I doubt "regular" people are like "You need to see the cartoon and play the video game to get the complete story man!", in fact, none of various properties fit perfectly. I'd say for the "vast majority of regular people" when they hear Ghostbusters they think of the original 2 films, and the reboot. So would you also be suggesting that that article is renamed to Ghostbusters (film series)? Freemanukem (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, I absolutely would. That article is a mess, including major redundancies with the Ghostbusters video-game article, huge amounts of tagged OR, some blatant press-release WP:COPYVIO I've just removed and more. Articles with disparate topics such as that generally are supposed to be split when they're above 50kB. This one is 664kB! If that's an example of what's being proposed here, then I would advise anyone considering comment here to go take at look at that bloated, half-impenetrable and less-than-useful mess. It's the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man of articles.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

An example merely regarding the title, not an example regarding any other aspect obviously. Freemanukem (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

But it's my point exactly: Once we use a heading as overly broad as "franchise", we open ourselves up to massive bloating that will likely have to be split back up again later. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

That's the thing though, ever since X-Men Origins: Wolverine this hasn't just been about the X-Men films, but rather about different properties in the X-Men Franchise, which include the Wolverine movies, Deadpool, and upcoming movies like New Mutants, X-Force and Gambit. I'd argue that X-Men (film series) would probably be limited to the six X-Men movies. 2001:982:4947:1:90A2:C118:3D12:6CB6 (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

what? Wolverine and Deadpool are X-Men characters so as Gambit, the New Mutants, X-Force. Origins Wolverine also featured characters from the original trilogy.SuperHotWiki (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hotwiki, the editor you are talking to was clearly stating that the films don't focus on the X-Men team. That's obvious to any viewer. How can you debate that? That's what the argument is meant to do here is figure out what we are going to call this film franchise. It's not longer just the X-Men film series, as there are now spin-offs, alternate teams, new storylines, and TV series.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support: "Film series" may be simple, but is completely out-dated. It is now inaccurate given the evolving nature of the X-Men franchise. 20th Century Fox after repeated poor reviews has been 'testing the waters' with these "individual installments", and because of the critical acclaim for Deadpool, Logan, and Legion - their films in development have taken HUGE steps forward. Each of these can be seen as 'standalone installments' as they are not linked directly to the X-Men-titled installments. They all however take place in the same 'universe'/cinematic continuity. With various references supporting that Legion takes place in the same world as X-Men, X2: X-Men United, etc. -> the page is outdated. Clarifying that each of these properties is 20th Century Fox's adaptations is a good idea! Perhaps X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise), is a good resolution to this discussion, until the studio names their 'cinematic universe'....which we all know they eventually will (see: Legendary's MonsterVerse finally being named a couple months ago).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Deciding to leave the page inaccurate, simply because the franchise/series/universe doesn't have a title itself yet is counterproductive. The argument here should be trying to discover what the solution is to make the page accurate. The page is not longer simply about a film series.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Try reading the whole article itself, it STILL is about the film series. And rarely mentioned the side projects that are the television shows or a television show Gifted to be exact. There's also already X-Men in other media.SuperHotWiki (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hotwiki your responses to each of the editors that disagree with you have been the same repeatedly. The page currently "rarely" mentions the TV shows as you just stated because of your own edits, of deleting them and moving them into the Tie-in materials section which is inaccurate. The object of this discussion is to not discuss their current location, but the fact that the page needs to be retitled, so that the TV series can have it's own section/sub-header as it is an installment in the X-Men film FRANCHISE, now. You can't deny that it's not and because you cannot deny it, the page is miss-titled. That's the discussion. Where's your references for why the TV shows shouldn't be listed here? Several editors have given multiple reliable reference examples, and yet you choose to not respond to them. The X-Men in other media page is not what we are discussing either, as it list the X-Men in ALL other media formats. This page is about the 20th Century Fox X-Men franchise, that shares continuity. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't we wait until we are certain that the TV shows really do share the continuity of the film series? Everything I've read so far from the producers are filled with weasel words like "shares the DNA", etc. Sounds like a lot of marketing ploys to get fans of the films to watch the shows. Once the shows have aired and the continuity is firmly established, it will be much clearer how to proceed.Rcarter555 (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The references included at the top of this discussion include references where they say that they are in the same universe. The producer that Hotwiki has cited often has used 'standalone' references even for the X-Men movies.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose "Film series" is simple, unambiguous and also clearly understood by people who aren't Hollywood buffs; people who know "franchising" to mean the licensing of brand names and/or store chain concepts, like KFC, Subway, 7-Eleven, McDonald's and Starbuck's. Also, it isn't Fox that owns the right to the characters, but Marvel. Fox is just franchisee. And what happens when Marvel hands over the film rights to another studio? Marvel Studios is now owned by Disney, and it's not inconceivable that the X-Men film rights one day is transferred from Fox to Disney. If that happens, we will need to change everything again. So let's stick to 'film series". Thomas Blomberg (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The film rights are owned by 20th Century Fox. They own the rights and will continue to do so long as they continue to make films/TV series. That's the constituent. If you are confused by this see information regarding the film rights to Punisher, Daredevil, Elektra, Blade, etc. reverting to Marvel Studios. The film rights will never revert to Marvel, unless 20th Century Fox comes to an agreement similar to how Sony Pictures did with Spider-Man.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support: I agree that as the X-Men universe has expanded to television then a re-branded title may be appropriate, but I agree with those who oppose that using the word "franchise" would be wrong as a franchise can include other media, toys, lunchboxes, etc. The current "Legion" tv series and upcoming "Gifted" tv series are both confirmed as being part of the same universe as the movie series, with Legion potentially having Patrick Stewart returning as Prof X (which arguably would make it more connected to the X-Men movie universe than "Deadpool" which doesn't feature any of the existing actors)... So this puts the X-Men universe in the same position as the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which has its own Wiki page including Movies, tv and other media connected to the same continuity... so maybe the new X-Men page title should be something like "X-Men Cinematic Universe"... this should make everyone happy, right?... Thoughts? (RodgerTheDodger (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)))

Support per DisneyMetalhead's above statement. -- TotalTruthTeller24 (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Absolutely opposed to X-Men Cinematic Universe. "Marvel Cinematic Universe" is a proper name and is only at its current location because it is the common name of that series. "Cinematic" is just a buzzword and besides it directly relates to film anyway, so it wouldn't help here. The Marvel Cinematic Universe was coined before the inclusion of its television series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Then how about "X-Men (film universe)"? As the movie continuity has expanded to television now, so it should be acknowledged. (RodgerTheDodger (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC))

Oppose It already expanded through the other types of media like books, videogames and they are mentioned in the tie in materials and didn't require a name change for the article. Again, it seems to me that certain users are excited about a TV show related to the X-Men that they are willing to mess this article up without acknowledgding that this article for a film series, its an article with a good article status, the article is large enough and there's already X-Men in other media which covers all X-Men products that aren't comic books. Also, "film universe" sounds like a term that comes up from a fansite and not an encyclopedia. So just no.SuperHotWiki (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

What is not clear to me is why you are all opposed to including "Legion" onto the page; it is based in the same universe as the X-Men movies and it features Mutants. If "Deadpool" is allowed to be listed on the page, then why can't "Legion" be? I am not arguing for the sake of arguing here, I genuinely do not understand what the problem is. It seems to be that the argument is that this wikipedia page is for the movie series, yet you allow a "Tie-in materials" section, so why not just include Legion in there? RodgerTheDodger (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

it is not connected to the film series plain and simple. As producer Lauren Shuler Donner said, try reading the Legion TV series article and you will find a source where the producer stated that. It is also definitely not set in the same universe as the films. It doesn't matter if this is from the same studio and producers of the X-Men films and it features mutants. It is not connected and there is zero reference to the events of the movies.SuperHotWiki (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hotwiki -- your argument for as to why Legion is not included on the page, as well as to why the page doesn't need to be retitled is pretty out there. Legion has been confirmed by the series' writer/producer/CREATOR to be in the same continuity as the films. He has stated that it is not yet apparent because of the fact that the character perceives everything incorrect because of his state of mind. How do you debate that statement? If the series' creator states that it is -- what's your rebuttal? You keep restating the same information without providing references for your argument. Also - as far as tie-in materials go, they are not canon nor do they affect the continuity in any way. They are merely supplementary material for marketing, as stated above by other users. The difference here is that multiple sources have stated that Legion will affect the film series. This validates everything that has been stated about changing this page. You just decide to neglect and ignore the information that contradicts your own opinion.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Note to all opposers to (franchise) proposal --- what is your solution to the page's inaccuracy then? The suggested (film franchise), (cinematic franchise), and (20th Century Fox franchise) all work for titles. They all cover film, TV, short-film, and potential future media expansions as well. The tie-in materials can remain in their own header, as they have ZERO affect over the continuity. The TV series are installments into the continuity. Let's hear your solution. The title is FALSE as-is. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Extension to continuity? Isn't that what X-Men: The Official Game did to fill the gap between X2/the Last Stand?and that remained in tie in materials for years. Again there's no problem in my opinion.SuperHotWiki (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Has any producer ever said that the video game is a part of the "film series" as you call it? No. Has any producer/creative team member stated that the TV series is involved with the film series? Yes. That contradicts your statement.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the only people who want to make the change are redlink editors who mostly haven't been here long presents a concern to me, as do comments from anonymous IPs. I would hesitate to say there's a pattern, but it is awfully coincidental.

There's a solipsism somewhere above by a editor who says leaving "film series" in the article title presents an inaccuracy. No, it does not if the article is about the film series. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I also find it alarming and have noticed the pattern.SuperHotWiki (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with said editor, as by stating that the page is exclusively about a film series is inaccurate and misleading. That has not been the case for a while now. They are using references. They are following Wikipedia guidelines, so let's address the issue instead.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This page is not owned by any editor, and therefor any editor can contribute to an article, and certainly a talk page. The anonymous IPs-es shouldn't be suspicious or concerning to any editor, simply because they are stating their opinion. That's what the talk page is for.... --50.232.205.246 (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

But moving this article should be decided by well experienced editors and not just editors who recently joined or have little history editing articles like this one.SuperHotWiki (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Superwiki that sounds exclusive and uninclusive which is against Wikipedia's regulations. There is no un-inclusive rules. Again your statements aim at possession of the page -- AKA you and no other editor own it. The consensus is reached by examining the facts and the references. There have been plenty of positive, reliable, constructive examples that show us as editors/readers that the "film series" that the page is so-called, is no longer just a "film series". The object should be discovering what the right page-title should be. Not trying to disqualify or negate all editors besides yourself, and those you agree with. Instead why don't you tell me why those cited are not legitimate enough to warrant a change? They are more "qualified" with the franchise than you are, my friend.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a circular argument to say, "Well, people added non-film-series stuff to the film-series article so now we have to change the name of the article" rather than "Well, people added non-film-series stuff to the film-series article so that stuff needs to go into its own article." And it's hardly being non-inclusive to say we don't make major changes without a substantive discussion that includes experienced editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae|Tenebrae This isn't X-Men stickers or kid's meals we're talking about. We're talking about actual installments into the continuity. There's a difference. It is not circular. It's definitive.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hotwiki and Tenebrae: No. That is a clearly violation of WP:OWN, clearly per WP:OWNBEHAVIOR; your statement fits into several of the examples given. Anyone is qualified to give their opinions on this discussion, and contribute to it just as equally as "experienced" editors. Any more of that, and you'll be promptly reported for attempting to own the article. -- Alex^TW 23:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Respectfully disagree. "We don't make major changes without a substantive discussion that includes experienced editors" does not demonstrate ownership. It's a non-contentious sentence. It doesn't say "only includes experienced editors." I don't believe you believe that we should make major changes without substantive discussion or that we should make major changes with only inexperienced editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The original quote was But moving this article should be decided by well experienced editors; this is incorrect. It should be decided by everyone. Yes. I believe that changes should be made with substantive discussions. Discussions that include everyone. And an editor's level of experience does not indicate the worth of their contributions to this discussion. However, we digress from the actual topic at hand. -- Alex^TW 23:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I appreciate your intent, and that statement does seem to overstate things. I responded since you included me in your ping and I myself did not say anything OWN-ish,.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: you and @Hotwiki:} are both trying to use the statement to sway the discussion in your favor. Because there are so many comments disproving and disagreeing with you both, you have moved to trying to only validate what coincides with your opinion. Re-read over the discussion. Editors have given references which is required for adding and subtracting from information on Wikipedia. Where are your sources?--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

What you're claiming is factually incorrect. Most of the experienced editors here oppose the change. And while all editors are welcome, my suspicion whenever any anon IP joins a discussion is that they could easily be a sock of a registered editor ... and when you have so many newish, redlink editors here, it's impractical to start SPIs on each and every one of them. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2017

(UTC)

What you are claiming is incorrect. Being suspicious of editors simply due to the fact that I am not an editor with an account is again discounting certain editors and excluding other editors simply because they are 'redlinked'. I don't even come on here very often but have been learning about editing for future use. Seeing as this is something I have an opinion about and it is in debate with your's you want to discount the opinion, though I and YOU and any editor can see that there are COUNTLESS references from the film makers and creative team of the franchise that are far more qualified than your bluelink screen name. Kind of funny you're trying to detract from the actual issue at hand.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I clearly wasn't owning this article as I am very fine with new editors and unregistered users to edit. But I am not gonna be silenced if I see something wrong. Anyway User:AlexTheWhovian, you have YET to say if you oppose or support the move. So before we change topics, why don't you give your suggestion about moving this article or not.SuperHotWiki (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Check the examples given by WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, then come back and say that. And it's almost like I started the requested move discussion... I wonder what I think on it. Maybe I oppose the very discussion I started? Who knows? -- Alex^TW 23:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hotwiki look at your comment and then tell me you are not against new/unregistered editors. Talk about flip-flopping. It's obvious you just disagree with people who don't agree with you. Hence all the edit-warring warnings on your own talk-page. Anyway - quite redundant to ask Alex^TW what his position is.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not against new registered editors as long as they give good edits that looks very experienced as the older registered editors. But the ones who have bad editing skills who might need more experience and better track record before making decisions such as moving a "good article", that is I am against with.SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly favoritism towards older editors, and this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated. It's exactly WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. GA's are based on content, not the name of the article. Now. This does not related to the requested move discussion - back on topic? -- Alex^TW 00:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. I actually had debates or arguments with older editors especially the ones that I don't agree with. I am having one right now with the older editor who started this petition who won't even post a reply to the opposers but only to question their behavior towards newer editors like as if that's the main issue here.SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I started this discussion because it was needed. I am under no obligation to do any more than that. -- Alex^TW 00:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Mind you, 92% of the article is mostly about the film series, while I estimated the tie in materials as 8%. 100% of the content is related to the films/film series. So this isn't just about the title but also the content itself. We have multiple sections in this article dedicated to the films and zero to the TV series.SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

and zero to the TV series Huh? There's a section for X-Men (film series)#Television series, and there's already clear debate on including Legion. -- Alex^TW 00:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a SUB section under the tie in materials section.SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Not all sections are sub-sections, but all sub-sections are sections. -- Alex^TW 00:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Great, so do you agree that majority of this article is about the film series? As for legion's dismissal from this article, the only ones who seem to disagree are the ones who happened to support the name change.SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, Hotwiki it appears as though you selectively respond to references. The reason that this page has 8% about the TV series, is because of the way it is curretly set up -- and that is under your own edits of puting the TV series into the tie-in materials. The discussion about changing the page's title, would allow for further information regarding these series and how they relate to the franchise as a whole. I will post individual references and we shall hear how you choose to dispute them.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Well it's not my duty to respond to your every comment. Well it was just not me who didn't reply to your direct messages so need to single me out. And no, the TV shows are under tie in materials since last year. Stop giving me credit like as if I am the only one responsible for this article. You are the one editor who won't let this go, after we just had the same debate with other editors earlier this year. And it is getting tiresome to be honest. If I don't reply next time, I just don't want to explain myself again to you.SuperHotWiki (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

References stating that Legion and untitled X-Men TV series are a part of the shared continuity

It may not be your duty, but you are the one editor to vehemently neglect the reliable, direct sources that state that the TV shows are a part of the larger story. As far as me being the "only" editor that is pushing for this change, what about all of the comments above?^ For the first reason, here's an article that is directly about expanding franchises ---

1) Simon Kinberg, who has been unofficially called 20th Century Fox's answer to the MCU's Keven Feige plainly stated in an interview with Moviefone, in regards to Legion: "Tonally, it's very different," says Kinberg. "Noah is a genius -- he wrote and created and directed the pilot to Legion -- and it is a very different sensibility than anything we've done with the X-Men movies. Almost, I would say, as radically different as Deadpool was from the mainline X-Men movies. Legion is, again, in a different direction: really character-based, really granular in terms of getting inside the details of the characters. It stands as part of the X-Men universe, but it stands apart from it as well." This validates my continued statements that the series is being developed to stand on its own, but is a part of the franchise. How do you dispute this?

2) Director Bryan Singer, who has been involved in one way or another with each of the X-Men films and is executive producer on both TV shows, was interviewed by The Hollywood Reporter along with Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Fox Networks Group Peter Rice -- and stated that: Legion is designed to be a series that is "part of the X-Men universe, but when you watched it, you wouldn't have to label it — it could exist completely on its own." This coincides with what producer Lauren Donner said about Legion existing as a 'standalone'. They want it to be viewable as its own entity. He then said it and the planned X-Men series "will relate to future X-Men movies." Chief Executive Officer and Chairman Peter Rice then stated how the TV shows and films differ: "Movies are ultimately narrative stories,"..."I find TV is ultimately a character journey."

3) Series writer, producer, and creator Noah Hawley has stated in multiple interviews (I'll quote one with Vulture) that the reason the series is indiscernible as to what the time-period, and where it fits into the X-Men timeline is that, "This is a story told from the point of view of an unreliable narrator...” Production designer Michael Wylie can be quoted in an article by The Daily Beast, as saying: "We’re not supposed to know where we are or what year it is..." Long-time X-Men producer, Lauren Donner stated during the NYC Comic-Con: "This is far from the X-Men movies"...(perhaps tonally, guys?)..."but still lives in that universe"..."The only way for X-Men to keep moving forward is to be original and to surprise. And this is a surprise. It is very, very different." So we've verified that it is in the same franchise, but that because of the character's unreliable nature, it establishes what the producers want to do -- let it stand on its own.

4) This is further backed up, when Hawley then stated to Variety: "I think it’s important for us to establish this as a fully realized world with fully realized characters,”..."It does connect and it can connect, but I’m not relying on that. I have to prove myself. I have to prove that the show is good enough to incorporate those elements from the movie world, if that were ever possible." Hawley wants to prove that the series can be great on its own, before greater connections and cross-overs are made. So again, we've established that it is in the same world.

5) Unregistered User:92.111.179.110 previously stated that props from the X-Men films were shipped to the set of Legion, thus adding relevance to the fact that Hawley is making light references to the fact that Legion is a part of the X-Men franchise, before he adds more to the "cross-over content". As mentioned in the previous point, he wants to first establish the series, before cross-overs show that "It does connect and it can connect". Noah Hawley later stated that it would doom his production to failure should they immediately have X-Men showing up in his series, which deals with a different character from the films. Again, he wants the series to stand on its own before greater connections are made. With Variety he stated: "It's sort of a non-starter to say James McAvoy's going to be in my show ... I'm not saying never, but certainly not in the first year of it. You'd have to pay those guys so much money to begin with. You'd have to pay them movie money in a different medium."

6) Following the critical and viewing success of Legion, the studio undoubtedly has further plans for the character (similar to the way that Deadpool will be a key character in the franchise because of his success -- i.e. Deadpool 2, Deadpool 3, and X-Force films), and those quotes of Hawley wanting to prove himself before he introduces characters into his TV show, from the franchise ("I'm not saying never, but certainly not in the first year of it") indicate that a second season is in discussion. This is further evidenced by the fact that the series' star has "a job offer" for Patrick Stewart when the two appeared on Jimmy Kimmel Live together, where Stewart stated that he would "100%" star in the series as Professor X. Just watch the entire interview. It was covered by Screen Rant. The subject arises after Stewart first slighly indicates that he may return to the role in the untitled Deadpool sequel. Stewart clearly loves his role and doesn't want to give it up just yet. The fact that the pair are discussing such possibilities indicates that the studio is looking for ways to further connect their franchise.

All of these very direct, and reliable sources verify two things that this discussion has been about --- Legion should be on this page, and it along with the untitled X-Men TV series are within the X-Men film franchise continuity. This again verifies what I intended to set out discussing and that is that this page needs to be retitled, in order to be accurately acknowledging that this franchise is no longer merely just a "film series".--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

References

these are great references. for the record i support the move to include Legion on this wikipedia page. RodgerTheDodger (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• I wouldn't object to renaming it X-Men (cinematic universe). Argento Surfer (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stop using comicbook.com as a source

Comicbook.com is a fan site which is not allowed to be used as source in Wikipedia articles. Now I hate to keep saying the same stuff again and again, that's why I'm posting here and asking to please don't use that site as your source for your edits especially you User:DisneyMetalhead. Also refrain from posting unofficial film synopsis. Thank you for your consideration!SuperHotWiki (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Proof that it's a "fan site"? Freemanukem (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I would say it's not a fan site, i.e., run by a fan as a hobby and not professionally, but it's very rarely WP:RS. Most of its reports are not original, but attributed to The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline.com or other sources, so we would go to the original source. Secondly, it may well be a fancy amateur site, since if you go the links for "COMPANY > About, Contact Us, Advertising, Staff" etc., you just get taken to a YouTube video about The Belko Experiment. Under "Legal," there's just boilerplate that could have been copy-pasted from anywhere.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree regarding going to the original source - always. However they have their own exclusives too; http://comicbook.com/marvel/2017/02/24/alpha-flight-exiles-and-more-are-on-x-men-movie-producers-radar/ "Speaking to ComicBook.com in an exclusive interview ahead of Logan's release", which suggests it's not a random blogger writing from his home. Regarding that video you are talking about, that's on your end, as for me all links works correctly and I see no such video. On Staff they list four editors, so, supposedly, they do have editorial. Personally, I conclude that it's not a fan site. Freemanukem (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources using comicbook.com has been removed in different film articles such as Marvel Cinematic Universe articles. I thought that is a common knowledge when it comes to editors who are editing film articles of Marvel live action films. SuperHotWiki (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

You're correct: Comicbook.com is indeed generally removed as a generally non-RS source. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

That may be the case, but given the fact that they cite their own research to original articles, have an editorial staff, have their own original articles (i.e. the interview with Simon Kinberg, etc.), the webpage is not a 'fan site'. Argument for using original source, makes perfect sense however.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Legion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sources that stated that Legion isn't connected to the film series.

"the cinematic universe will not worry about Legion. They will not worry about these TV worlds as all. They will just continue in the way that they have been continuing, and there is some great stuff that we are developing. I can just say it's going to be new and different, and yet Legion and our other show, we're not going to get in each other's way." - Lauren Shuler Donner.[5]

"Though Legion was initially going to be a part of the X-Men cinematic universe, that’s in some doubt moving forward because of comments Hawley has said in the past."[6]

SuperHotWiki (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hotwiki, though your two statements are from reliable sources, the second one is speculative. The quote on the second one is the author's comment. The first one doesn't discount the fact that the series is a part of a larger franchise. Lauren Shuler Donner can be quoted contradicting herself. She, along with others in the creative team often say 'standalone' meaning the tone of the film/show/media. For instance: Hugh Jackman stated: "Not only is it different in terms of timeline and tone, it’s a slightly different universe. It’s actually a different paradigm and that will become clear [when you see the movie]," in regards to Logan. He later clarified what he meant by saying "It’s a stand alone movie in many ways. It’s not really beholden to time lines and story lines in the other movies...."

What this shows us is that 'standalone' etc are terms the studio uses to describe tone, and the product's abilities to stand on its own. They don't wanna get caught in a rabbit hole trying to adhere to the already convoluted timelines of the franchise. Lauren, as quoted above is merely stating that they are focusing on developing Legion as a great TV series, and the films individually as great films. In a seperate interview, she states: "This is far from the X-Men movies, but still lives in that universe" (see interview with The Hollywood Reporter). They continue to use this rhetoric with tone, and different styles.

I have cited six different occasions, with 10 sources, that the creative team behind the franchise has stated that it is going to all be a part of a larger franchise, and that they all share continuity. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

What you aren't getting is a lot of these comments from the creative team regarding Legion contradicted each other. So no. It doesn't matter how many articles you copy and paste, I could surely look for more sources that would contradict your sources. And this isn't about quantity of sources. Unlike Logan, which people already saw is very much connected to the other films and even Mangold clarified what Jackman said in the past. So please don't come up with another debate about Logan. It sounds like you are just trying to say whatever you can say to get away with what you want. Did you even watch Legion? If there's a connection that happened in Legion, people and sites would have probably picked that up and that has yet to happen. We shouldn't publish contradicting comments from the producers and have the readers get confused to what to believe. So for the love of God, stop. The majority of the editors already said their peace that they are opposed for a move and didn't say a word about Legion not being connected to the film series. And please don't comeback after a few weeks only to change something in the article when there was already a consensus from the editors. SuperHotWiki

(talk) 14:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hotwiki, you are way out of line. You cited two sources -- one being opinion-based by the article's author, while each of the examples in favor of the move, come from the producers as well as the series' creator. You can't get more qualified than that. Again, as stated several times above^ you are using rhetoric that is favoring to select editors. You haven't reached a consensus, nor have any of the editors, so you can't use that as leverage towards your opinion. Using demeaning phraseology such as, "copy and paste" resources, gets you nowhere closer to swaying anyone towards your opinion. The quotes on here, are obviously since you do not read the articles that have been referenced without directly quoting them. You cannot say that Legion is not connected to the films, for various reasons: A) You ask if DisneyMetalhead has seen the show....the show isn't even over yet, and you refer to it in past-tense --- are you a clairvoyant?; B) Others more qualified than yourself (a.k.a.: those who have produced the franchise) have stated that it is. The quote regarding Logan seem to be used to solidify the fact that the X-Men franchise as a whole is constantly in-flux with expansions and developments. We don't need to say "people and sites would have probably picked that up and that has yet to happen" - as that too is speculative. There are definitive examples from reliable sources stated. That is answer enough without your speculations. You continue to talk as though you, or "veteran editors" own this page.

Consensus is made by ALL editors. Not just you. Also no need for comments of exasperations towards any diety. This is merely a discussion. You are choosing to create issues, by ignoring comments, overlooking references, and viewing your opinion as the ultimate law and order. Relax. This is a tedious matter, but one that needs to be corrected. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that Legion has introduced all the tools they need to connect Legion to the X-Men Universe in this episode. Still no X-Men props, but we do still have two episodes left. I'm thinking we'll see a more clear hint before the credits roll on episode 8. 2001:982:4947:1:8422:2CE7:829A:D4A1 (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Legion Episode 7 spoilers ahead. So we have a British Charles Xavier (the comic book version is American, but Fox made him British because of Patrick Stewart) drawn on the white board in his suit. Walking in the astral plane like James McAvoy's version in X-Men: Apocalypse. And his wheelchair from the movies also appears. That pretty much makes it indisputable that David's father is the Charles Xavier from the Fox movies. Furthermore, the episode also touched upon different timelines. That already makes this show more connected to the X-Men movies than JJ is to the MCU. 2001:982:4947:1:C3D:21F3:47C3:A79 (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Small similarities doesn't imply they exist in the same universe. We need more concrete evidence that it is connected to the films. We didn't include X-Men Legends here because it featured Patrick Stewart, who was the voice actor for Xavier in the game.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh I'm not really suggesting to take action yet, but it's still a rather obvious connection to the movies. They've always said that they want to earn their place in the X-Men Universe from the movies over time, which this is obviously a small part of. We'll see if the season finale, or the teased mid-credit scene do anything else to bring the properties closer together. Otherwise it won't happen until season 2, which is fine. This show was never meant to be as connected as Gifted, though that still doesn't mean they aren't part of the same universe. It's just that the cross-overs are more like Marvel Netflix rather than Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. 2001:982:4947:1:8055:E79C:BE18:1017 (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Support vs. Oppose name change

Since Hotwiki continues to say that 'the majority of editors' oppose the idea on the page -- I went through and counted the users that support it and oppose it.
Support:
Alex^TH,DisneyMetalhead, Nurseline247, 2001:982:4947:1:90A2:C118:3012:6CB6, TotalTruthTeller24, RodgerTheDodger, 92.111.179.110, and myself.
Oppose:
Hotwiki, Tenebrae, Brocicle, Thomas Blomberg, and Rcarter555
Undecided(?):
Freemanukem and TriiipleThreat.

though this is not how decisions are made, by counting editors, this is something that is enlightening and counters Hotwiki's argument that a consensus has been reached. It quite obviously has not.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Stop counting Burning blue as he/she didn't comment when the formal request for moving the article was started. Or do you want me to name drop the other editors who already opposed to this idea before?SuperHotWiki (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd argue that this isn't really a productive discussion anymore and I'm not sure if there is a point in continuing. Every argument has pros and cons, but if we are just going to instantly dismiss (or counter) arguments then what is the point? I also saw a few comments in there which were obviously aimed at unregistered editors. I'll just point out that some of those type of comments are why I've never registered in the first place, despite following this article (and others) for years. Let's not forget that everybody is trying to improve the page in his/her own way. 2001:982:4947:1:38AB:603E:8130:10E0 (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Burningblue52 has been removed. I scanned through the page rather quickly. Apologies you guys. As far as the discussion becoming less and less productive I'd agree. It's turning into opinions, and most certainly has repeated demeaning comments towards specific editors. Also a reason why I have not yet created a profile, as whether I'm registered or not, there is still favoritism.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

These users also didn't specify if they oppose or support the article move: 2001:982:4947:1:90A2:C118:3012:6CB6 and 92.111.179.110.SuperHotWiki (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record: I'll support X-Men (Fox franchise) or some other variation of that. X-Men (Franchise) might be too vague as Hotwiki has pointed out. What it boils down to is that I think the name has to be changed, but I think all the different options should be considered first. 2001:982:4947:1:90A2:C118:3012:6CB6 would be me by the way. 2A02:A210:9480:1680:70F4:114C:10FF:3396 (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

May I add if you are gonna rename it to X-Men (Fox franchise), it should be 20th Century Fox franchise and not just Fox. Use the complete name of the studio. And if a move gets made, I guess a X-Men in film article would just take its place. SuperHotWiki (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

After being called on in the unregistered editor's comments, I think it is important to simply clarify where I stand. Given the information which I provided -- something that all decisions in Wikipedia edits should be based on and that is the facts -- it is obvious that I support the move to change the page's title. It is also apparent that many editors support the move to change the article's title. The question really is what is the appropriate title?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I still do not see why a name change is necessary at all. But I suggest that we get further comments from those who do not frequently edit this page as we do as an unbiased opinion. Brocicle (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

it is clear that there is no consensus among us editors of this article regarding the inclusion of Legion, although one thing that does appear to have surfaced is an elitism among certain "blue link" editors, who are behaving some what territorial and in direct conflict with Wikipedia rules, which is going to result in these editors being reported to the admins. Subjectively, if you take a step back, take your own feelings out of the equation and look at the evidence stated throughout this talk page; there is a very strong case to include Legion and by extension decide on a new page title. so the way i see it is that the focus should not be whether Legion is included on the page (the answer is very clear and the argument for it is considerably stronger than the argument against it), the focus should simply be on what new title we can agree is the most appropriate. RodgerTheDodger (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

RogerTheDodger totally agree with you. They use rhetoric which is demeaning and not constructive at all. Simply to belittle, bully and try to sway the conversation by casting doubt on any other editor than themselves. Definitely against Wikipedia's guidelines. The argument for Legion is much more solid thanks to DisneyMetalhead and obviously verifies the page needs to be changed.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't edit on this page often, but I follow it and wanted to contribute my thoughts. I support a name change for this page, but I would agree that X-Men (franchise) is too broad. X-Men (film franchise) or even X-Men (shared film continuity) etc would be more appropriate titles. I brought this issue up awhile back, actually, and I've believed for awhile that X-Men (film series) fails to describe the nature of the collection of films as a whole. The X-Men film series could be considered just those that are actually titled "X-Men," thus excluding Origins: Wolverine (maybe), The Wolverine, Deadpool, Logan, and a handful of upcoming films featuring non-X-Men characters still set in this continuity. It's a tricky situation, because these could all be considered spin-offs. That said, how far away from the original series do we need to get before it's not a spin-off anymore. Origins Wolverine was a spin-off, sure, but Deadpool 2, for example, will be a sequel to a spin-off (Deadpool) of a spin-off (Origins Wolverine) of the main series. At some point, these films stopped looking like a film series and more like a cinematic universe, similar to the MCU. One of the arguments made against referring to this as a universe/continuity instead of a series was that the MCU was built on a variety of different productions resulting in different films made by different directors, which eventually led to The Avengers, whereas these films are a set of continuing spin-offs, so one could consider them a single series. I'm not sure that argument holds up anymore, though. James Mangold appeared to have little to do with Bryan Singer's X-Men: Apocalypse, and Singer had little to do with Mangold's Logan (different Calibans for one, which Mangold confirmed was the result of a lack of communication between the two directors.) And Mangold has said in a boatload of interviews that he made Logan without influences and factors from the other films, that he wanted to make Logan stand on its own. That doesn't really sound like a film series anymore. For those who are still on the fence about this move, try to think about it this way. I don't think we're jumping the gun here, honestly. You have to admit that this has gone a bit past a traditional film series. Josh Boone's The New Mutants is going to be a really tough sell as a spin-off if it features, as expected, no characters we've already seen. Anyway, I'm rambling. Just wanted to lay down my thoughts. -RM (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The untitled New Mutants film is said to feature Charles Xavier.SuperHotWiki (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

On the flip-side, this has yet to be actually confirmed by the studio. Given this fact, along with X-Force, and Gambit -- what if the reality was no X-Men team members feature in them. As they stand now, this will be the case furthering the argument that this is not merely the X-Men film series anymore.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Good argument, RM

This article focuses on films, and there is not really a discernible series anymore. I would support moving to X-Men in film to broaden the scope but still limit it to films. We can also have an X-Men in television article. Both of these articles can talk about the X-Men in each media regardless of continuity. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

So then the question becomes whether Deadpool, Logan, New Mutants, etc. would have any relevance in an X-Men in film article. I thought the whole idea here was the create an article that discusses the continuity begun with X-Men. -RM (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd support a move to X-Men in film. @Rmaynardjr: They would be as relevant as they are here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

That's sort of the point I'm making... It's not clear whether the "X-Men film series" includes just the X-Men films or everything in the continuity. What classifies a film as an X-Men film? A single X-Men being in it? If so, why isn't Iron Man 3 considered an Avengers film? If not, then Origins, Wolverine, Deadpool, and Logan really shouldn't be included here, or at X-Men in film. Indeed, they would be as relevant as they are, but are they relevant here in the first place? -RM (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Again what makes you think Deadpool and Wolverine aren't X-Men? They are X-Men characters. Check X-Men in other media, those films are listed there so as Legion, Generation X, the Deadpool videogame and the untitled Fox Marvel television show.SuperHotWiki (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Would X-Men in live-action make sense as a title? That way it still includes all of the X-Men movies that technically are not X-Men movies (Deadpool, Logan, etc.) and also includes the tv shows, but would exclude any animated films and other media. RodgerTheDodger (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I support the name change, but feel it needs to be more specific than X-Men in film or X-Men in TV, as Mutant X would fall into this category. The discussion here is for the films and TV series that share continuity. Until the studio announces a name for it, which they are currently avoiding, we must find a descriptive word/phrase that classifies them all. X-Men (film franchise) or X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise) is specific and includes all the discussed titles.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The writers of Deadpool referred to the collection of films as the X-Universe here. In context, it's not clear whether it's an off-hand title created to refer to the films during the interview, or if it's something official (though it's probably the former considering I can't find the same name ANYWHERE else online). It could be something to go on. Alternatively, we could refer to it as 20th Century Fox's Marvel continuity. It doesn't exclude animated works (considering that this continuity could potentially include an animated series at some point), but makes it clear that the films/tv shows/other works referred to within would not be those produced by Marvel Studios/Disney/Sony/etc. Additionally, if we call it a continuity or a universe, we won't be stuck wondering whether to include "Hypothetical Film A" and "Hypothetical TV Show B" which are based on X-Men comics but not set in this continuity. They would be covered under X-Men in other media. Thoughts? -RM (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Definitely need to be confining by being specific enough. Otherwise we end up in a rabbit-hole with X-Men animated television and films and everything else.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that this discussion has become more constructive. Rmaynardjr, I like your points you make concerning the name needing to be inclusiving enough for the Fox X-Men continuity. I too have seen the Deadpool writers reference the films as the "X-Universe". It's self-explaining and makes sense, but since it is only used once, it can could just be their description of it. I think something as simple as X-Men (cinematic franchise), or what has been suggested by another editor - X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise) is a good direction as it includes the timelines/continuities/etc, and it is specific enough that readers can see that it includes TV/film/short-film continuity of the X-Men. Should the studio come out with an official name for the "universe" then we can create something "official". But with the inconsistencies and issues of the page, needing to be updated to include all that is applicable - we definitely have to be specific!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Cinematic is subjective. So the cartoon series and videogames aren't cinematic? According to who? You? Again we aren't naming this X-Men Cinematic something something because its not an official name.SuperHotWiki (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hotwiki, your comments are always so demeaning. For your convenience I looked up the definition of cinematic: of or relating to motion pictures (cinematic output); having qualities characteristic of motion pictures (the cinematic feel of their video). Regardless of what word editors decide to use, the word 'cinematic' doesn't ONLY deal with theatrical releases. Rmaynardjr -- your questions are exactly what I have wondered about this page since I started looking into editing on Wikipedia. With all the spin-offs and future projects, what makes them an X-Men film, especially when/since some of them don't have the X-Men team in them. Gives us the reason why this page is inaccurate.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree. And as I said before, cinematic specifically refers to film, as in of the cinema.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: To reply to this and your comment further up, I would agree we shouldn't call it a cinematic universe unless it's specifically named so. For now, universe or continuity are probably our best bet. In regards to your other question, I think we need a clear answer to the prompt, "What makes a film an X-Men film?" You say Deadpool, The Wolverine, Logan etc are X-Men films because they are based on X-Men characters, but Iron Man is an Avenger, yet we don't refer to Iron Man 3 as an Avengers film. We say it's an Iron Man film, in the same way I would say The Wolverine and Logan are Wolverine films and Deadpool is a Deadpool film, all of which happen to be set in the same yet-unnamed continuity. So what actually does make a film an X-Men film? Because at this point the only logical way I can see to discern X-Men films from other films is the presence of the word X-Men in the title (plus X2, which is sort of a weird exception). But if I'm missing something, fill me in. -RM (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Predominately, this article is about the X-Men films, followed by whatever else comes after in support of it, like games and books. TV series isn't really strong enough, as is the whole concept of this whole Fox-produced universe. The Fantastic Four crossover fell through, and except for a few people, it doesn't really seem the X-Men film universe doesn't really have a strong foothold like the MCU. Even if this on the run spin-off does do well, it's not really enough. And then there's the problem with Legion. It's just kind of a loose film universe with tie-ins. There's nothing really major about it at the moment to consider renaming. Not even the spin-off films really justify it. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

So you oppose the article move Anythingspossibleforapossible?SuperHotWiki (talk)

18:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The article is currently "predominantly" about the X-Men films, because that is what the title of the article is. With a change in name, the TV series get their own section, thus allowing greater details surrounding the continuity as a whole. What needs to be decided is what we can call the franchise and be correct in doing so. Just looking at the films as you pointed out, with six X-Men-titled films, and four "spin-off" films from that mainframe series, as well as five further "spin-offs" and ONE X-Men title on the way -- that greatly changes things. With all these expansions within the franchise - this article is out-of-date. Not to mention the fact that the producers have stated the studio will more greatly do so now that Wolverine is out of the picture (i.e. X-23, Alpha Flight and Exiles films in development). It needs to be updated.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Given the questionability of many words such as 'series', 'franchise', 'universe', 'cinematic'... why not X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise)? So specific that it clarifies what this discussion is getting to, and is broad enough to only include the studio's productions.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Am I the only other editor that thinks this would easily solve this discussion? --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

So it would appear, by looking over the complete discussion, that there is enough factual evidence to include Legion onto the page, so the focus now is that the page title is no longer accurate, so the only question left is: What should the page be titled? I have been through this complete article and have created a list of every proposed title I saw mentioned (if any are missing, please add them)

• X-Men (cinematic franchise)
• X-Men (cinematic universe)
• X-Men (film franchise)
• X-Men (film universe)
• X-Men (Fox franchise)
• X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise)
• X-Men (franchise)
• X-Men (in live-action)
• X-Men (shared film continuity)
• X-Men (X-Universe)
• X-Men Universe
• X-Universe

So now we should identify, with solid reasons, which title is the most appropriate. RodgerTheDodger (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. We have established such and are now dealing with making a correct title. I could support X-Men (cinematic franchise), X-Men (film franchise), X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise), or X-Men (franchise). Reasons being is these sound like "unofficial" titles, and yet they are specific and inclusive enough to draw a conclusion. The rest sound like "fan"-names.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It's difficult because the majority of this page is simply X-Men. There's six solid X-Men films against four films that feature an X-Men character. When you think about, "film series" says all that needs to be said, without trying to get technical about it. "X-Men in film" could work, where it could cover the X-Men as a whole and then the individual characters. Or this page could be for just the X-Men films and then a separate page for everything else. X-Universe is just stupid, though, in my opinion. The Marvel Cinematic Universe started as the Marvel Cinema Universe, so I think we should maybe wait for something more concrete. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I stated this in reply to another edtor's comment as well: The article is currently "predominantly" about the X-Men films because that is what the title of the article is. With a change in name, the TV series get their own section, thus allowing greater details surrounding the continuity as a whole. What needs to be decided is what we can call the franchise and be correct in doing so. Just looking at the films as you pointed out, with six X-Men-titled films, and four "spin-off" films from that mainframe series, as well as five further "spin-offs" and ONE X-Men title on the way -- that greatly changes things. With all these expansions within the franchise - this article is out-of-date. Not to mention the fact that the producers have stated the studio will more greatly do so now that Wolverine is out of the picture (i.e. X-23, Alpha Flight and Exiles films in development). It needs to be updated.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Does the fact that we have Back to the Future (franchise) change the outcome of this debate? I always thought it was strange that we had to go with The Land Before Time (series). Both pages feel like they have to cater to everything. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I would think so. Any other film series' page is retitled to cater to the needs of the article. For example: the Alien film series is titled "franchise" because of the shared continuity of the original series, and the newer prequel series, as well as the non-canon spinoff AVP films. Meanwhile the various Spider-Man film serieses are lumped into one article page that brings those seperate continuities on one page to read together - in order to see the film production progress throughout film history. This would be superfluous to do with the X-Men movies - as proposed by SuperHotWiki below - being that these films and TV shows are all produced by the same creative team, and all share continuity as well. Good point to bring up, I think.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• X-Men (film series). Simple, to the point. "Shared film continuity" is fan-speak. "Live-action" could include stage shows and ice shows. "Cinematic" is WP:EUPHEMISM for "film". "X-Men Universe" and "X-Universe" are fannish neologisms. Anything with "franchise" will make the article too broad and lengthy and we'd end up splitting it anyway. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

There's more to this page than just the X-Men film series!! That's the whole point I've been trying to make! I agree with most of what you said about other title options, but the one you didn't mention was "continuity," which would be a correct way to refer to this collection of films (defined as the unbroken and consistent existence or operation of something over a period of time). These are not just X-Men films, and we need to account for that. -RM (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I did mention "shared film continuity" in my comment, and I referred to it as fan-speak that is essentially meaningless to non-comics-fans. As for other topics covered here, once articles get beyond, I believe, 50K, we're supposed to consider splitting them up. The films alone are an article in themselves.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

If mixing this up with the non-film materials is the problem then get rid of them. Instead of forcing this to be something else. The tie in novels, videogames, comic books are probably already mentioned in the other film articles. SuperHotWiki (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I could support SuperHotWiki's comment here, in that a section that summarized "tie-in material" isn't essential though it enhances the page as a whole, but the need for 'film material' should include the TV series. They are filmed with the intent to be in the shared continuity and thus must remain. Tenebrae, the TV series being integrated into the page - which is the discussion discounts the validity of a "X-Men (film series)" page title.

I agree with Tenebrae and SuperHotWiki: why spend so much time trying to change a descriptive term that works fine for the users of Wikipedia? "Film series" is unambiguous and is understood by everyone, including those who aren't obsessed with Tinsel Town hype. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be a fan site, but to be a serious and timeless encyclopaedia. In a few years' time, the PR people in Hollywood will have grown tired of their current pet words "franchise" and "universe" and will come up with something new, and immediately there will be Wiki editors - especially of the unregistered, temporary kind - who will clamour for Wikipedia to adopt those new terms, because "that's what it's called". Let's stick with "film series"! Thomas Blomberg (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Blomberg your comment appears to be painting a negative picture of editors who you perceive to be 'less than' yourself. Wikipedia is meant to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA (you spelled the word wrong in your comment fyi), and in such needs to be accurate. By finding the all-inclusive and correct descriptive term for a shared continuity of 20th Century Fox produced X-Men media that is correcting and enhancing the page. In no way is that 'Tinsel town hype', nor a status that renders the legitimacy for 'fan site' references. Fansites can call the franchise whatever they like. Times change and fads come and go, but to remain current and accurate I brought up this topic once again because by the page's current title - the page is also incorrect. Remember that you, and no other editor own or dominate a conversation on a talk page, nor do you own this page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear DisneyMetalhead, "encyclopaedia" is a perfectly correct spelling. Please check the Wiki page Encyclopaedia as well as American and British English spelling differences#ae and oe. The "ae" spelling was simplified to "e" in American English during the 19th century, while it is still the most common spelling in British and Australian English. As for the rest, we simply have different views.Thomas Blomberg (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Move for Consensus

The overall consensus seems to be that the title of this page is indeed incorrect as it is currently named. The only question is what is the title we want to push for, to move the page? I say:

• X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise)
• X-Men (franchise)
• X-Men (film franchise) or
• X-Men (film universe)

These three titles classify the page's topic, the production team, the continuity and remain "unofficial" in nature until the studio classifies the series with an actual title.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no consensus, another editor just opposed the article move. So you aren't in the position to dictate things especially moving this article.SuperHotWiki (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, It looks as if we're far from establishing a concensus. Also remember the initial move request is still open. We should wait until the request closes and if the closing admin doesn't find a consensus to move, then you could either leave the WP:STATUSQUO or open an WP:RFC.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: You are constantly reverting the multiple additions of Legion from multiple editors, so I'm not exactly sure that you're in a place to talk about consensus and dictating content in the article. -- Alex^TW 23:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I still say we put in a request for further comment from admins and editors who do not regularly contribute to the article Brocicle (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed on the RfC. However, it would need to be in a new section that is way tidier than the current discussion, that summarizes the points in a neutral fashion. This is a complete mess. -- Alex^TW 02:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It really is. While I'm having trouble following I'll give it a go to summarise neutrally for and RfC. Brocicle (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Amazing, thanks Brocicle. -- Alex^TW 03:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Alex The Whovian, don't change the topic as you use that tactic to further distance what this discussion is about. I am the not only person in this talk page who said that Legion isn't connected to the film series. And I surely won't allow a poorly sourced edit which was by the way, was also a copy & paste information from another Wikipedia article to remain in the article. Like I said once, the connection from the Legion is established that it is set within the continuity of the film series in the last two episodes, or if it just referenced the films, then anyone is free to include Legion here. But that has yet to occur. Again, we are talking about the consensus here not that show. Please stay on topic.SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Dictating what can and cannot be said in a discussion. A discussion is allowed to go any way it pleases. You don't own this page, this discussion. Seems the change in topic did work, though, got you onto a 800-char post about Legion. (By the way... AlexTheWhovian, no spaces. ) -- Alex^TW 02:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Not when you are dragging my name. Anyway there another sections in this talkpage to discuss Legion. You should do it there. Again, please stay on topic.SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I created this sub-section to move closer to a consensus. I am not in the position nor the 'power' to 'dictate' what happens. Merely trying to move the discussion forward, HotWiki. As Alex^TW stated you are repeatedly reversing edits that other users have compiled, all in favor of your opinion. Given the amount of sources declaring that Legion is in continuity with the films, I think that your reverts are deconstructive. Legion being in the continuity is completely relative to the conversation. The discussion is for a move to change the page's title, because the X-Men produced by 20th Century Fox have moved into Television Series, in addition to the film series. Now that we've established we are all "stay[ing] on topic", lets discuss the page's potential name change - with accurate constructive alternatives.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

X-Men in film move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I hate to start a new section, but since the others are already full of comments, I am starting a new one. Anyway, long story short. The only article move that I would agree on is to move this to X-Men in film. Like this article, it will be about the X-Men films just without the non film materials. This could be similar to Fantastic Four in film and Spider-Man in film. We could include the early attempts of making a X-Men movie and the films that were canceled like Magneto.SuperHotWiki (talk)

Why include projects that never came about? Also this would make things more complicated as it would/could have various continuities involved. The original issue at hand is coming up with a better word for this page, that deals with shared continuity....definitely oppose this move.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, its better than dragging animation, books, videogames, television shows, stage play into this article that has/had nothing to do with the X-Men in the medium of film. You'd be doing that in your proposed idea of a X-Men franchise article. Which would just bloat the article.SuperHotWiki (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

SuperHotWiki your opinion is valid and considerable, however I believe that if the title is specific enough to be 20th Century Fox's productions then we needn't even worry about this. The discussion did begin as a question about what to name the X-Men continuity. At least until the studio does so itself.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion SuperHotWiki, as this is a bit of a hot topic we need to make sure that everyone gets to voice their opinion, with fair reasoning, so I and everyone else appreciate you taking the time to comment. Now that we know where you definitively stand; let's hear from everyone else. I have create a list of all proposed new titles above, can everyone please state their choices and provide reasoning. Hopefully we can get the new title decided on by the end of the week. RodgerTheDodger (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Your welcome.SuperHotWiki (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC about change in title for X-Men (film series)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the title "X-Men (film series)" be changed to include confirmed tie in material specific to this X-Men universe? If supporting the move, please add the title you think it should be changed to. Some suggestions are:

• X-Men (cinematic franchise)
• X-Men (cinematic universe)
• X-Men (film franchise)
• X-Men (film universe)
• X-Men (Fox franchise)
• X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise)
• X-Men (franchise)
• X-Men (in live-action)
• X-Men (shared film continuity)
• X-Men (X-Universe)
• X-Men Universe
• X-Universe

Brocicle (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Support

• When I said Fox franchise, I meant because Legion and Gifted will air on Fox networks, but not 20th Century Fox, as someone suggested above. X-Men (Fox franchise) is the most practical and reasonable name there is for this page. TotalTruthTeller24 (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC) (Support by the way)
• Support for X-Men (Fox franchise), to be able to add material with the same continuity as the movies per the correct title. -- Alex^TW 23:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support for X-Men (Fox franchise) Mike210381 (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support for anything with franchise or continuity, since both are reasonable, though I'd like to thank @Hotwiki: and the gang against moving the page for keeping everything in check. You're right in stating that almost anything using the term "universe" is fan-site-ish and not encyclopedic. That said, this is not a cut-and-dry film series anymore. There are "real" X-Men movies and there are spin-offs, prequels, sequels, and whatever Deadpool is. We're not talking about a simple film trilogy; we're talking about 10+ films made by 6+ directors across 17+ years. This "film series" is a group of other film series, and it doesn't follow the traditional rules of a series or a cinematic universe. It needs to be treated uniquely, as it is unique. I can understand where you're coming from when you say "direct, to the point" @Tenebrae:, but this title is NOT direct and to the point. I've asked this question a few times now: what makes a film an "X-Men" film? Is it a film titled X-Men: [subtitle] or is it any film in this continuity? Either answer will paint you into a corner, as one would result in half the films in this article being removed due to an apparent irrelevance and the other would require you to acknowledge that there are some "non-X-Men-titled" films that belong on this page because they're part of a larger (franchise/continuity/universe/you-name-it). -RM (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Fully support a move to something with the word "franchise". This loose definition word allows for a definitive, yet 'unofficial' title that encompasses all of the installments within the 20th Century Fox continuity. Because of the fact that RM brought up - this being that the films have varying titles, especially given the upcoming films that are currently in production - in addition to the TV series that have been added to the 'franchise', I push for a retitling via the sources I provided above. I would however argue that if we're going to use the studio as part of the title, we should include the entire title: X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise). Reliable references I listed here on this page as to why the page should be retitled.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

(20th Century Fox franchise) doesn't really make sense, as Legion airs on FX and Gifted will air on FOX; all three supsidiaries are owned by 21st Century Fox.--TotalTruthTeller24 (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about their parent company, good point. In this case either X-Men (Fox franchise) or X-Men (21st Century Fox franchise) makes sense to me as well.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support for X-Men (film universe) or X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise)--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support for X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise) or X-Men (Fox franchise). With critical and commercial hits like Deadpool and Logan it's obvious the franchise will continue to expand and outgrow the original X-Men films, characters and property. Let alone Gifted and Legion which could be considered somewhat connected, and in case consist of efforts by Fox to expand the franchise. (BTW, all the other title suggestions range from not good to terrible. If I had to choose between "film series" and "cinematic universe", I would choose to keep the "film series" title any day of the week!) Freemanukem (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support for X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise) or X-Men (Fox franchise)or X-Men (franchise)RodgerTheDodger (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

• Very oppose my reasonings are listed above this section. And FYI, FX and Fox are owned by 21st Century Fox.SuperHotWiki (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. "(film series)" is direct, to the point, used elsewhere in Wikipedia, and instantly comprehensible to non-comics-fans. The rest of those parenthetical dabs are fancruft that make this seem like a fan page for continuity buffs. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I truly think it's fine the way it is and for tie-in material to be added under a new section that links to its own Wiki page for further information. Brocicle (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose move to any namespace containing the terms "cinematic" or "universe" (unless of course they become the WP:COMMONNAME). These are trendy buzzwords that fail WP:PRECISE as they do not "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". I would also support a move to X-Men in film to bypass the continuity issue. As Erik suggested, a separate X-Men in television could also be created. Lastly, I would like to point out that the term "franchise" is acceptable per WP:NCF in case there was any confusion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Film series" is the established term within Wikipedia and was the term used in Hollywood until PR people around the turn of this century first began to use "franchise" and later also "universe" as synonyms to it. "Franchise" should only be used where it describes a true franchise or a media franchise, where a copyright owning company licenses all or part of its activities to other companies. Marvel Worldwide Inc. runs a very large franchise operation, licensing the use of its comic book characters to companies making films, TV series, collectible cards, prose novels, video games and attractions at theme parks - and they have been doing that since the 1940s. "X-Men (film series)" covers only the X-Men films within that franchise operation, but the films don't constitute the whole X-Men franchise, as Marvel also has licensed the use of the X-Men characters for TV-series, video games, prose novels and collectible cards since 1966. And calling the film series "20th Century Fox franchise" or "Fox franchise" would mean tying the film series to the current license holder. In business nothing is eternal. 20th Century Fox has held the license for the feature films until now, but that doesn't mean the license can't be transferred to another studio in the future - or that the company won't change its name (the parent company changed its name to 21 Century Fox a few years ago, and I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't thinking of "updating" the name of their film studio to reflect that we're now in the 21st century). If the license moves or the company changes name, should we then change everything again? As regards "universe", this is a term that should be reserved for things encompassing the Universe.Thomas Blomberg (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

X-Men universe sounds so fansite to me, so as the other suggestions like X-Universe. C'mon this is Wikipedia! Personally speaking, the current title works best! SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you acknowledged that FX is owned by 20th Century Fox sounds like you'd support a title change that acknowledges that. Because this is Wikipedia, and encyclopedias should be precise and accurate - the current title is not accurate. "X-Men (film series)" sounds to exclusive as it ignores spin-offs and upcoming "universe" expansions. Until the studio creates an official name, we are simply trying to improve the page in order to make it more accurate.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

No. SuperHotWiki (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:SIZESPLIT guidelines, articles over 50K are unwieldy and should be split into separate articles. Including films and TV shows for the sake of fannish continuity would be well over that. Newish, redlink editors may or may not care about guidelines developed over years, but I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is both an encyclopedia and a community, and we're expected to follow guidelines except in exceptional, no-other-way-around-it cases, which this is not.

This article as it currently stands is 230K, meaning we already should be considering ways to reduce it or split it — not add to it. I'd like to ask the supporters their feelings about following article-size guidelines. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a good guideline. However, please note that the guideline refers to the kB regarding "the readable prose". Using User:Dr_pda/prosesize the article's "Prose size (text only)" (which according to the script's manual is the desired "readable prose size" metric) is merely 20 kB, which means we can effectively double (if not more) the article's current size with no issue. To conclude, it's safe to say this shouldn't be a concern regarding the rename. Freemanukem (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It is in no way 20kB, and I'd love to see any documentation for that. Save the live-site text, with no HTML, without even including the charts and the footnotes, into a Word.doc file. Without charts and footnotes it is 172 kB. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that you don't do that. You should use the tools the guideline suggests you use, otherwise you might get different results and reach the wrong conclusion. Freemanukem (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Freemanukem: Fine. Would you mind telling us the steps you took to reach this figure, since User:Dr pda/prosesize#How to get it working talks about installing it in personal common.js files and not article files, and I'm not seeing the code there in X-Men (film series). Given the wide discrepancy, please document how you reached the conclusion that this very long article is only 20kB. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

All the instructions are on the page you just linked. First install it the way you just read about. Then you'll notice that, I quote, "This script adds a Page size link to the toolbox, i.e. the box in the left hand column (by default) which also contains What links here (among other things)." Once the link appears, go ahead and click it. Freemanukem (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I see how it works now. And I also see where the discrepancy arose — file size vs. size of readable prose. For all the other editors' benefit, here are the stats. Thank you for teaching me a handy new tool!--Tenebrae (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• X-Men (film series)
• File size: 334 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 40 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 5199 B
• Wiki text: 85 kB
• Prose size (text only): 20 kB (3369 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 622 B

Surely, Batman in film and Superman in film are longer than this page? A couple of things I'd suggest is reduce the TV stuff and removing the game stuff. Maybe remove tie-in material as a whole. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I support removing the Tiein materials.SuperHotWiki (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You continue to state as such though you have not referenced one comment that states such....except for the article where the author was speculating. The series is a part of the continuity, while the video game is a marketing toy capitalizing on sales. Tie-ins can stay in all seriousness.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This is hilarious, given the fact of how long the Marvel Cinematic Universe article is. So long as it follows the "prose" which Freemanukem stated, it should be fine. Also "Tie-in materials" could be deleted. However TV series is part of the continuity/franchise so that stays.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

X-Men the Official Game is part of the continuity as it was marketed as the bridge between X2 and X3. Even had the actors from the film to do a voice acting. So that should stay too if that's the case. While Legion isn't part of the same continuity as the films.SuperHotWiki (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Why not keep all tie-in material? The discussion I had started at the beginning of this was in regards to making a title change and including the TV series in the continuity of it all.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Also users Freemanukem and 50.232.205.246 have a good point in stating that there are plenty of pages with more characters in them than this one. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The tie-in material was detailing every book and video game for the first three at least. That seemed to really be dragging it down. Whatever individual piece of merchandise that is given to each film, belongs to that respective film's page. If indeed this unnamed X-Men TV series is going to be a part of the film series, then it could have a section all to itself. Only after/if/when that series gets made/aired, should the discussion of a possible rename be taken into consideration. But it's still a lot different than Marvel Cinematic Universe. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Good point with the tie-in material. Every single tie-in piece needn't be detailed at nauseum, but acknowledging that there are tie-in comics/novels/gaves etc isn't a huge deal. A simple paragraph stating this is enough I would think. As far as whether or not that Gifted TV series is being made -- it's already in production.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

So why is User:AlexTheWhovian still making the TV show be detailed at nauseum?TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are you posting in the middle of a discussion? Interesting method. This is why this discussion page is an absolute mess. State your guideline or policy dictating that it cannot be added. -- Alex^TW 23:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually Gifted was the only one detailed at nauseum. There were two sentences for the short film, while 1 or two sentences for each videogame. The sections for novels and books weren't even long. it was just Gifted that took a lot of space and how ironic, as its the one who have yet to air. Anyway, if we resurrect the tie in material, the only information about Gifted that should be mentioned is how the show is connected to the film series.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Your arguments seem to go back and forth so I'm having a difficult time following your point-of-view. You originally said that the tie-in material is a part of the franchise's continuity. Now it sounds as though you believe otherwise. Also you now acknowledge that Gifted is connected to the film series within the franchise. If the page were renamed to acknowledge the franchise aspect of this, then the two TV series should and could have greater summaries, just as each of the other installments in the franchise (i.e. the films) do. It's that simple. Let's keep it concise and not make it overly complicated.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The tie in materials were here before because they were connected to the film series. If I didn't think Gifted wasn't connected, it would have been removed like Legion for the same reason. Are they that necessary to keep it here when the article is Already bloated, not really. Like someone said, the tie in materials are probably mentioned and linked in the other articles such as X-Men in other media and the templates. But if we are gonna keep other tie in materials or expansion such as short films, videogames that feature the costumes and TV show that referenced the films - then the novels, videogames such as X-Men The Official Game and the tie in comics should stay and get the same importance as the TV shows. Anyway, they were removed so the article would solely focus in the films. While there are other Wikipedia articles where you can read about the tie in materials.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Even the MCU has a separate article for the films. There's ten X-Men films released right now and there will be more in the future. If Someone moves this to a X-Men franchise or X-Men Universe Extended Cinematic Verse, eventually we would split the films again from the other medium because the films have enough content to warrant its own list/article. It's why this isn't merged with X-Men in other media in the first place.SuperHotWiki (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films is very identical to this article. The only major differences are the titles of the films section and that this article has a crew section and impact section which were already covered in mcu's main article. The X-Men films are large enough and have enough convent to warrant its own article. While X-Men in other media is available for anyone to edit who wants to mention the TV shows, video games, books and the films in the same article.SuperHotWiki (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You're now comparing this page to the MCU, I thought you didn't think this franchise was a shared universe? The MCU has various pages because there is so much content. Where it is a shared universe situation I can understand why this is the case. Whereas, this franchise needs to be a page about shared continuity until the studio gives it an official name - we are simply trying to correct the page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Stop twisting my words, I was using an example in case this article is moved, that we would eventually need to split the films from the other media platforms, creating a separate article just for the films - which the MCU article did. I didn't say anything about continuity or shared universe. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be justifiable should the studio release an official title for the franchise/universe/etc. Since this is not the case we should not further speculate past the point of current-time. This being the case let's stay on-topic with changing this page's title. You needn't further the advancements of expansion when you oppose the move in the first place.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I am surely against "unofficial titles" that's why I am not planning to support a X-Men cinematic universe move or whatever title suggestion that sounds so fansite. And I am free to comment whether I oppose the article move or not.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that this discussion needs some outside opinions. I do not know the correct way to do this, but it needs to be done with links to the references stating that the TV shows are in the film continuity, and any references that Hotwiki says state the opposite. That way the unbiased editors can read for themselves and decide. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

So we've now just removed the tie-in section completely? I'd like to cite the following examples of pages that display information about tie-in material: Star Wars, The Fast and the Furious, Jurassic Park, Ice Age (franchise), Shrek (franchise), Despicable Me (franchise), Madagascar (franchise). The main difference being that the X-Men franchise as discussed here is an adaptation of an existing comicbook franchise. However that doesn't really validate the argument to just use X-Men in other media instead. If we look at the Star Wars film page for example it also includes things like video games, which is basically the same information also found in Star Wars expanded universe because this information is relevant to both pages. The tie-ins for 20th Century Fox films are also relevant for this particular article. 2A02:A210:9480:1680:DD57:698B:533D:AA01 (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed! this is becoming way too petty and nit-picky. The discussion is expanding the page, not imploding it. Those edits should be reversed if they have been done, and should not have been done in the first place as there has been no consensus to do so. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has nothing to do with the RfC with the question at hand. The question is whether or not to change the title of the page. Stay on topic and keep this RfC clean. We dont need another mess of informatiom when trying to solve one issue. Brocicle (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the editors made a comment because a change had been made to the page we are discussing, without first coming to a consensus as to why they made the change. Still on-topic, though changing the page's title is priority number one.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It is clear from reading this entire conversation that the removal of the "Tie-in Materials" section was not agreed to, so it has been reinstated. If a consensus is reached where the removal of this section is deemed appropriate then at that point I will support the change, but deleting a section while it is still being discussed is not acceptable. RodgerTheDodger (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It feels really pointless adding to this, and that's why I've tried to abandon it while you all try to sort it out among yourselves. So, I guess I'll try again, and say that the tie-in section was going overboard with detailing every single game that had been made. If there needs to be a mentioned of franchise merchandise, then I think it should be grouped together and just a quick mention of the fact that there are comics and novel adaptations, and video games. In particular, the video game section is too over blown. X-Men: The Official Game may be important to detail because it connects two films together, therefore adding to the franchise page. But just because a film uses one film's particular style isn't important. Games like X2: Wolverine's Revenge may be important, because it's the franchise that's influencing the X-Men property outside of the films, like X-Men: Evolution was influenced somewhat. So with that said, maybe there should be a section of how the films have influenced others in their approach outside of the films, but are still related to X-Men. There is an "Impact" section on how it affected the view of superhero films, but not how it changed X-Men outside of the films. Mutant Academy, X-Men Origins, and Destiny seem superficial to mention, as they don't add anything to the film franchise as a whole. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I like your suggestion Anythingspossibleforapossible. The section is a bit overdone as the sectional paragraphs are rather short and rather gratuatous. I would suggest summarizing the tie-in material and then have another main article for further detail and reading purposes. I do however acknowledge that as the page sits currently, the TV shows (which are actually installments in the franchise's continuity) do need greater detail than some of the others. I get what you are saying, and can side with your opinion on this matter for the most part.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Note

• Admins viewing this RfC, please take note of concerns raised at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Invalidating the RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Just wanted to those reading to take into consideration that there are multiple "franchises" that have connecting material that do not have franchise or the distributing company in the title. For example, Harry Potter. Numerous tie in materials that are connected to both the movies and the books but it's not referred to as Harry Potter Franchise here. Also with more and more films being in development for Xmen than there are television series it makes sense to keep this as is and link the separate articles in the tie in material section. Please just keep that in mind regardless of whether you are support, neutral, or opposed. Brocicle (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Invalidating the RfC

DisneyMetalhead notified exactly three editors of this RfC, all three of whom support his position. This is WP:CHERRYPICKING WP:CANVASSING, invaliding this RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow User:DisneyMetalHead. Those three supporters shouldn't count anymore in this decision!SuperHotWiki (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about the others, or who they are, but considering I'm clearly following this discussion as can be seen by my involvement above, my opinion will certainly count as I wasn't summoned here because of the notice by DisneyMetalhead; I would participate anyway. Freemanukem (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record; it is very clear from the above that I have been following this conversation, the only reason for my slow response has been that I have been busy at my job, which last time I checked; was not a crime. I was not "summoned here" and I do not know a single person in this conversation. I first came into this conversation because I wanted to add a "Continuity" section to the Wiki page, then I learnt that really it was part of a larger conversation, so I took the time to read everything on this Talk page and voice my own opinion accordingly. If sending someone a note on their Talk page -because they haven't responded to a post, despite being an active participant- is enough to invalidate their opinion then what is stopping any of us from sending messages to everyone's talk page, those who support AND those who oppose... by the rational being stated in this conversation you would then be "summoned" here because of your viewpoint and that would therefor make your own opinions invalid... which judging by the defensiveness and elitist attitude that has surfaced regularly throughout this talk page; I am guessing that would be something that you do not want to happen. So let us please keep this civil, put petty arguments aside and just focus on the facts. No one owns this page. Thank you RodgerTheDodger (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I would argue that DisneyMetalhead was following the appropriate notification guidelines under those rules. Each of the users notified had made edits to the talk page before as stated in example 5 of the bullet-points. If there are any users who are being biased throughout this discussion its the two who have called out this user by name.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh please, that behaviour of yours isn't very nice. I feel attacked.SuperHotWiki (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep the discussion civil and on topic. If you have an issue with an editor, Hotwiki, take it to their talk page. -- Alex^TW 23:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes.SuperHotWiki (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

However, I would note that the IP is correct. The editor only contacted editors who have contributed to the discussion already, and did so under appropriate guidelines. The RfC is far from validated. -- Alex^TW 23:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with Alex^TW. Besides that there was a user doing similar actions previously on this page under this section, and I would say if anyone was attacked it'd be DisneyMetalhead. They followed the guidelines specified in my previous comment.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for having my back fellow editors. I indeed followed protocol. Luckily enough I read the guidelines prior to talking to other editors.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you absolutely did not. Read the guideline: "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." You cannot only contact editors who support your position, and since you did not contact me or SuperHotWiki , that is exactly what you did. You're supposed to notify editors based on a neutral criteria, which you have not stated. You can either withdraw this RfC and resubmit it again after an appropriate interval, or — using the fact you did not notify editors against your position and only editors who agreed — this RfC will be put on hold while a report is filed with admins about canvassing. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You don't get to dictate how or when a discussion is run, you do not own it. (Which is what seems to be the case, because you specifically mentioned how the editor didn't contact you personally.) File your report and whatnot, do whatever you want, but the RfC continues while you do this; it is not automatically nullified by the opinion of a single editor (you). -- Alex^TW 21:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Alex^TW and myself are the ones who agreed this discussion required the RfC, not DisneyMetalhead Brocicle (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not dictating anything — no one gets to canvass their like mind-minded buddies to stack the deck, and I'm appalled that you think it's OK to do that. And, no, I'm not owning anything — I gave myself and SuperHotWiki solely as examples to prove that editors opposed to this deliberately were not contacted. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was trying to stack the deck in his favor. DisneyMetalhead asked someone who had previously commented (but had not recently) to return to the conversation. I'm struggling to see how anyone can classify that as unjustified. This is incredibly off-topic, though. This began as a discussion over the article title and now people are criticizing each other over the simplest of things. Tenebrae, you and SuperHotWiki have been so rigidly and vehemently against the page move that I'm not sure it would have made a difference either way, as decisions should be based on strength of argument, not number of supporters. Can we get back to the topic at hand? I can't be the only one to find this entire conversation to just be absolutely draining at this point. -RM (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow ... so someone who agrees with the canvasser believes there wasn't any canvassing. Wow. That is amazing.

And you also give no reason other than your biased opinion that "I don't think anyone was trying to stack the deck in his favor." Please explain why not when DisneyMetalhead solely asked three like-minded buddies whom he knew would agree with him. Explain that. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You totally missed my point Tenebrae. I could care less what gets invalidated, who is or isn't canvassing, or who disagrees with whom... I thought the focus here was to deliver the best content to readers (or is it to argue with one another? I'll be honest, it's a little confusing at this point.). I'm just commenting on what I'm reading, and it sounds like there were some who were in favor of a move who participated and then left the conversation. Is it really a crime to ask them to return? Once again, I'll point out that decisions are made based on strength of argument, so if you've got a good argument, it shouldn't matter how many people disagree with you. And once again, I'll point out that this is doing nothing to further the discussion in regards to the page move. You've made your accusations, be done with it and move on. I'm tired of hearing about it, and it's making this entire conversation move at the speed of, well, bureaucracy. -RM (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

"I could care less what gets invalidated, who is or isn't canvassing" is an absolutely remarkable comment. Wikipedia has guidelines against canvassing for good reason, and for you to say, "It's fine to cheat because all those guidelines are just, well, bureaucracy" is beyond the pale. "Is it really a crime to ask them to return?" Yes, if the only people you're asking to return are those you already know agree with you! How is that not understandable? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's keep this respectful and on topic please. To repeat my previous post; I did not leave the conversation, I have just been busy. It really feels like this is just a desperate attempt to invalidate the title change, but like what has just been said; this name change has nothing to do with how many supporters there are, it is about the facts. We have already established, via extensive conversation and a lot of supporting evidence, that the tv show Legion should be included, that conversation is done, complete (although I do not understand why it has not been added yet), so the focus has been to the title, as there is also enough evidence to show that the current title is factually inaccurate as the franchise has grown. I understand that not everyone is going to be happy with this, but that is part of life. There are some people who argue that the environment is fine the way it is, while the rest of the world can state extensive evidence that climate change is happening... The purpose of this page is not to cater to individuals opinions, but to represent the facts. Certain editors are desperately keeping a choke hold on this page and are behaving in a manner that is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Upon review of these Editors profiles it is clear that they are very active on Wikipedia, which is great, thank you for all the time and effort that you put into this great website. But that does not mean that you own any part of it. At this point, as the improvement of this Wikipedia page is being held up by a small group of editors, without good reason, I feel that admins should be notified. RodgerTheDodger (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Here are a couple of pages that people should read before this conversation continues: "Wikipedia is not about winning" and "Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot". I'm not trying to start a fight. This seems like a relatively simple thing and should not be this difficult to resolve RodgerTheDodger (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's another one: WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Your bludgeoning wall of text is completely off-topic and conveniently ignores guidelines as if they don't apply to you. We cannot notify only editors who agree with us. Please stop making incendiary claims like "Certain editors are desperately keeping a choke hold on this page" and just address one simple issue: How is it not improper canvassing to only notify editors who agree with you? That is textbook WP:CHERRYPICKING. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

And I find it the height of hypocrisy to cite the pages you cited when you yourself say things like "desperate attempt to invalidate the title change," "Certain editors are desperately keeping a choke hold on this page" and "being held up by a small group of editors, without good reason".

I've already notified admins, incidentally — about the cherrypicking and canvassing, though your hypocritical statement "Wikipedia is not about winning" directly contradicts your own statements falsely saying "that conversation is done," and "We have already established...." The only thing desperate here is a bunch of newish editors trying to turn an encyclopedia article into a fan page about in-universe "continuity" with WP:SYNTH arguments trying to tie together disparate media in a way the creators themselves clearly aren't pursuing.

But that's a discussion for above, not for here. This section is solely about the impropriety of only notifying editors who agree with you. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

ok Tenebrae, what do you propose? That I be excluded from the conversation because another user notified me that I hadn't commented on the conversation in a few days? That you want me excluded from the conversation because I may not agree with you? Please, let me know how you would like this situation handled. RodgerTheDodger (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Admin wise, thank you for also notifying them. I feel that someone outside this conversation is needed at this point. It looks like the admins will be busy reviewing this page and the editors using it. RodgerTheDodger (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You're taking something personally when I'm talking about the larger integrity of Wikipedia, as highfalutin' as that sounds. I've already proposed what I believe is proper: Ending this RfC and reinstating it after an appropriate interval — because if we start saying it's OK in an RfC to only notify other editors who agree with you, that it's OK to deliberately stack the deck in your favor, then how is any RfC valid after that? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I first want to clarify that by saying "I don't care what happens with canvassing, invalidations, etc." I didn't mean that I don't think that those guidelines are important or useful. I'm sure they are. I'm saying this conversation has gone nowhere since this tangent began and it's getting really frustrating. Sorry, I didn't mean to insinuate that the guidelines shouldn't be followed. I'm just saying I think that the content of the article is more important than arguing over who was doing what. Shouldn't we all be prioritizing that? Besides, it appeared that most or all of the editors opposing the move were still actively participating in the discussion. Who else would you have had DisneyMetalhead contact to even the scales?

More importantly, though, I 100% reject the claim that I implied that "It's fine to cheat because all those guidelines are just, well, bureaucracy." I said that the conversation was going nowhere (and indeed it's still at a standstill) and that the conversation is moving at the speed of bureaucracy. It's not fine to cheat and I never implied that. What I am saying is that no matter what happened with cheating, the article isn't getting any better if everyone is focusing all of their energy over something like this. Please don't twist my words. I'm just a guy who genuinely wants to help edit this page, who happens to disagree with you (though not even strongly disagree, I see where you're coming from and I see the possibly flawed logic of your opposition), and who you're making feel really unwelcome. If I'm just making things difficult for you at this point, tell me, and I'll refrain from editing this page. But don't try to make me sound like I'm saying something I'm not. -RM (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your collegiality, and if I've misinterpreted something you said, I apologize.I have to say, I'm not sure how to interpret "I don't care what happens with canvassing, invalidations, etc." any other way than as I did. Also, please be assured I would certainly never ask another editor not to edit a page (except for all editors regarding topics on which an RfC is ongoing, of course).

Yet the fact remains, DisneyMetalhead did cheat, even if he didn't intend to. As I wish you'd acknowledge, we cannot contact solely those people who we know are going to support us.

I recently did an RfC at New York Daily News where I knew I was notifying editors who disagreed with my position — yet I contacted them anyway, because A) it was the fair thing to do, and B) because I used an objective criterion for contacting people: I contacted every registered editor who worked on the article or commented on the talk page over the past 12 months,. That is one way of doing it fairly. If DisneyMetalhead cares about doing a clean RfC, them he'll withdraw this one, wait a week, and start another ... and notify editors neutrally and objectively — and not just those who are going to agree with him --Tenebrae (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll acknowledge that it was an unfair selection, because you're right about that. I'm struggling to see any poor intentions on the part of DisneyMetalhead, but I suppose that objectively speaking it was wrong. The world isn't black-and-white, though. Breaking the rules or "cheating" out of ignorance of the rules is one thing, but doing so with some sort of malevolence or blatant disregard for the rules is another. I think this was a case of the former; I don't think anyone meant any harm. It doesn't change what happened, but that's how I was looking at this issue and why I shared my comment as I did. No hard feelings; we disagree about the issue at hand, but we don't have to be at each other's throats over it. I'm glad we had this little aside.

In response to all of this, and the below comments, might it be prudent to put these issues in the past and simply move on, on topic, with the discussion? If everyone makes an effort to follow the rules and attempts to be reasonable with one another, we may actually get something done. At very least, we can retain editors. No one should, as User:AlexTheWhovian phrases it, "regret becoming involved with this article..." -RM (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, DisneyMetalHead did not ask for this RfC. I did after another editor and I agreed it needed it. DisneyMetalHead did not know when notifying those editors what their position would be. This is getting absolutely ridiculous to the point where I and I'm sure other editors do not want to be apart of this decision because 1. Everyone is just fighting with each other and 2. No one can stay on the ACTUAL topic at hand. It's gotten out of hand, and messy to the point where the arguments can barely be followed anymore. I'm borderline ready to leave this page altogether and withdraw my vote because of how everyone is acting towards each other. Poor form to you all acting like this. Brocicle (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed! Couldn't have put it better myself. Regret becoming involved with this article and its editors. -- Alex^TW 03:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This is getting beyond ridiculous. DisneyMetalhead was obviously not trying to sway things one way over another, but contacting other editors who had previously been a part of the discussion. The discussion has gotten way off topic. Gets to the point of being an annoying thing to respond to all the differing conversations on here.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely no malicious intent behind any of my actions. I again brought up this discussion initially because of the updated info, and need for such on this Wikipedia page as well. To me it was/is completely obvious that a title-change is needed. Didn't know it would go from bad, to worse, to ugly. The discussion has gotten way off topic. I hope that some conclussion can be made on this subject.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but anyone excusing cheating because they happen to agree with the cheater is not behaving ethically. I haven't seen DisneyMetalhead lift a single finger to rectify his deck-stacking cherry-picking by, for example, notifying a wider range of editors using some objection criterion.

Here's the thing: There's no reason in the world not top stop this, wait a week and do it again properly. The only one who don't want to do that are those for whom the cheating stacked the deck in their favor. And why? Because you're worried that if this RfC is done properly, without vote-stacking, you might not "win." You're afraid that if you do it honesty that disinterested editors won't agree with you. Because if you weren't worried about that, you'd have no objection to an honest RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

All I see is you trying to dictate the direction of the RfC, and a multitude of personal attacks. Most definitely uncollaborative editing. Has requesting the views of other editors done anything to the RfC? No. There's no reason in the world to stop this. -- Alex^TW 23:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I'm "dictating the direction of the RfC" by pointing out that the RfC initiator clearly cherry-picked by only notifying editors who supported his position? How is DisneyMetalhead's deck-stacking acceptable to you? And what other editors have been requested to come to this RfC? DisneyMetalhead certainly hasn't notified others editors objectively. When even supporters such as RM concede that DisneyMetalhead canvassed inappropriately, you still want to continue a tainted RfC. I find that shameful. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You probably didn't get my edit-summaries, it seems. Go for it, add your comments. But attempting to put them at the top of the thread to force your own agenda, instead of adding your comments to the end of the thread like every other editor (or most, since this has become a mess, right?), not collaborative in the slightest. And Brocicle is the RfC initiator, not DisneyMetalhead - what are you on about? Shameful. Shame! -- Alex^TW 23:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian:Fine. I'm not going to edit-war. Someone pointed out that policy to me at an RfC I had initiated, and I need to track down where that guideline came from.

I notice you didn't answer a single one one of my questions. But I do see you're correct: Brocicle is the initiator. In that case, the RfC is invalid since the initiator is supposed to publicize it — not other, biased editors canvassing only editors who agree with him. This adds a new wrinkle, and a whole new level of inappropriateness. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be publicized; the official RfC template does that enough. Did he post only on talk pages of those who agreed with him when he begun it? This is just you trying to force your agenda and get it closed because you disagree with it. If you have an issue with an editor's behaviour, you take it to their talk page or to a relative noticeboard. Not an article's talk page. Oh, look, this discussion must then be invalid. -- Alex^TW 23:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Right — it doesn't need to be publicized ... but if someone is going to publicize it, they need to play by the rules and not cheat and stack the deck. Please stop being sarcastic and explain to me how it's OK for DisneyMetalhead to go around inappropriately canvassing only those editors he knew would agree with him? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

No need to ping me, I'm already watching this talk page. I don't own you anything, given your uncivil tone and accusations, but all of the editors requested had already participating in the discussion. No rule breaking, no stacking the deck. This just seems to be getting personal with you. If you have an issue with an editor's behaviour, you take it to their talk page or to a relative noticeboard. -- Alex^TW 23:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow. You really don't see that, clearly, DisneyMetalhead had concerns that these editors who agreed with him wouldn't know about or would be too busy or wouldn't be interested in commenting — because otherwise he wouldn't have contacted them.

We can't just contact editors for an RfC because they agree with us. That's what he did. It is cheating, it is deck-stacking. And I find it very unbecoming that you're excusing the WP:CHERRYPICKING because you happen to agree with DisneyMetalhead's cheating. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You of all editors can't accuse others for forcing any type of agenda, when you've done exactly the same (not the method, but the agenda). Your personal opinions been noted, including accusations and attacks, the most recent being I'm only defending the editor because I agree with them. This article and its editors are the most drama-filled I've seen on this site. But, yet again: If you have an issue with an editor's behaviour, you take it to their talk page or to a relative noticeboard. -- Alex^TW 00:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

When that editor's behavior affects the integrity of an RfC, then the RfC's page is the proper venue. I link DisneyMetalhead in my comments, so he's being notified. And I'm not talking about anything so grandiose as "forcing an agenda." I'm pointing out the simple, objective fact that a supporter of this RfC did inappropriate canvassing in order to stack the deck. There's a larger issue at stake here than the title of a superhero article. I've been a Wikipedia editor for nearly 12 years, and I've learned how important it is to preserve the integrity of an RfC if this altruistic free encyclopedia is going to proceed responsibly. Maybe when you've been here longer you'll appreciate this grand experiment more, and to keep your eye on the bigger picture. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You've linked them a dozen times; pretty sure that they know. Yep, we get it, you're a length-of-time elitist; in my view, this makes your contributions to this discussion even more personal and not worth the time responding to. Just because you've been here for so long, and even been addicted to it, doesn't make your view here stronger than anyone else's. Now. Back on topic? -- Alex^TW 00:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Is a solution/compromise really THAT hard to find? @Tenebrae: just contact a couple editors who agree with you to even out the scales. @DisneyMetalhead: lay low for the rest of this conversation, contribute your own thoughts and don't request that any other editors comment. He was wrong, he didn't mean to do anything wrong ("Absolutely no malicious intent behind any of my actions.") but he did. Stop dragging his name through the mud. Can you really not think of any larger/more pressing issues than this? I'm not saying that the minimal severity of the issue excuses it, but come on man, you've made this into a WAYYYYYYY bigger issue than it needs to be. I get that you're all about following the rules, but there's nothing wrong with a little leniency for someone who legitimately didn't realize he was doing anything wrong. -RM (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Completely agreed. A mountain out of an anthill; there are multiple threads concerning this article that need a consensus gained and closed, but this is what we have to discuss. But if we're basing this off of being a stickler for the rules, Tenebrae has nothing to stand on, having not notified DisneyMetalhead about the post concerning them at WP:AN - a clear notification for this is present when editing or adding a section at that particular noticeboard. This was also an action completely unrequired. -- Alex^TW 03:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: I just wanted to add that I am not in the supporting corner for this name change so your comment saying that those against invalidating the RfC are in DisneyMetalHead's corner is wrong. And your excuse that I didn't publicise the RfC correctly according to you is also a false excuse. I've requested for comment on articles before and have read the guidelines many times. It says I MAY notify other editors, not that I have to. I'm really over going round and round in a circle over this because of your vendetta. The RfC is valid. Get over it. Brocicle (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, the larger issue here is what it is that gets editors so bent on swaying opinions purely based off of their own. Dragging an editor's name through the mud over and over and over is getting you nowhere. Make like an Elsa and 'Let it go', man. The user obviously publically apologized and hasn't been super involved in much of this conversation since. As Alex^TW has pointed it out, YOU too have gone about your argument the wrong way. The guidelines you are talking about regarding 'stacking cards' does not even apply given the fact that users notified were already a part of the discussion. DisneyMetalhead didn't notify you because you were already neck-deep in this discussion. Move on.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

First, if an anon IP can't be bothered to registered, then he doesn't seem here to sincerely build an encyclopedia, so you'll excuse me if I take your comments with a grain of salt. Second, while I appreciate RM reasonably attempting to offer a compromise, I don't really think it's a good idea for me or anyone else to cheat as well in order to "balance the scales." Third, I didn't say Brocicle didn't publicize it correctly; in fact, I said exactly what he says just above, that we may notify other editors but don't have to.

And finally, no, it is only the supporters' opinion that the RfC is valid. According to WP:CHERRYPICKING, it is not a valid RfC, because of inappropriate canvassing. I find it very disappointing that anyone is willing to ignore guidelines when it doesn't suit them. And the fact the supporters either don't appreciate or don't understand the larger significance of keeping RfCs strictly ethical ... well, I don't know what to say. Wikipedia should mean more to you than that. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"First, if an anon IP can't be bothered to registered, then he doesn't seem here to sincerely build an encyclopedia, so you'll excuse me if I take your comments with a grain of salt." I can put up with a lot, Tenebrae, but that is pure arrogance speaking, and it's beyond rude. No one's opinion is invalidated or taken "with a grain of salt" simply because they're unregistered. Excuse all of us common-folk for not having your superlative 12 years of experience, how dare we? Look, I suggested a simple, EASY compromise to get things back on track and apparently even THAT is not good enough for you and your elitist attitude. We say "move on," you say, "not good enough." We say, "even the scales," you say, "not good enough." So I'm done playing this guessing game. So just tell us what you want us to do. Tell us how to appease you. Tell DisneyMetalhead or me or someone specifically what we need to do to move past this. Anything to end this ongoing, seemingly endless discussion about a guy who was just trying to help. Or, alternatively, if you intend to keep this conversation going nowhere, let me know, and I'll excuse myself from the discussion; I'm sure my absence won't make much of a difference to you anyway (at least until I have a decade of experience under my belt, right?) -RM (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

And frankly, addressing Brocicle, I don't understand why it wouldn't be easier and less acrimonious to cancel the RfC, wait a week, then post the same question again. You start clean, there's no acrimony, and no question about the RfC's propriety. That's not an unusual occurrence. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

 the RfC is invalid since the initiator is supposed to publicize it. Your exact words. I'm not withdrawing the RfC. If you have a major problem with it take it to an admin. I'm done repeating myself to you. Brocicle (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow! Now you're taking my words out of context? You deliberately truncated the rest of the sentence. In context it reads "the RfC is invalid since the initiator is supposed to publicize it — not other, biased editors canvassing only editors who agree with him." Anyone, yourself included, can see very well the point is that editors other than the initiator are not supposed to publicize the RfC through inappropriate canvassing. I'm sorry, but deliberately presenting only half a sentence in order to attribute a false statement to me is highly unethical. But that's what I see in your and your cherrypicked supporters' actions: an egregious lack of ethics. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

And I took the cherrypicking issue to the Admin Noticeboard days ago. There's a backlog. I'm looking forward to admin intervention. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't support the notion so I would advise it would be ethical of you to read through peoples votes properly so you don't bunch everyone under your "cherry picking" idea. I didnt take anything out of context, it's exactly what YOU said. Brocicle (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You deliberately took half a sentence and purposefully left out the modifying second half created a complete thought. That's the definition of taking something out of context. Are you denying you only used half the sentence?

And incidentally, we don't "vote" — an admin (generally) decides RfCs on the basis of facts as applied to policy and guidelines. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I used exactly what you said regardless of whether your sentence was finished or not because you contradicted yourself. You're missing my point. You're only seeing what you want to see which is why you deliberately assumed I support this. I'm done with this conversation with you. If you want to continue going off topic feel free to take it to my talk page. At the end of the day I will not cancel the RfC. Brocicle (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, wow! You can't take half of a sentence — a sentence being one complete thought, for anyone who didn't take English grammar — and claim that someone said something that someone did not. I know what I said; I know how to write a complete sentence, even if you don't know how to read one. But taking an incomplete sentence and lying about what someone else said is completely dishonorable. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This has become pure insanity. We all cannot wait for an admin to intervene here Tenebrae. Given the fact that they decide an RfC based purely on presented sources and facts, surely it will be retitled. Besides that, your elitist attitude regarding other editors' opinions, input, and validity is outrageous. Previous editors pointed out that you did not follow the 'guidelines' regarding how to respond to an issue with an editor - and you have no response to that. For someone so precise regarding my mistake, you too have made them. I followed the rules, as I understand them. Didn't look to sway any of the conversation as we all can see that is no possibility anyway. You have turned this discussion into all about you and your vendetta. Bring in the admins you are giddy to bring in, let's get passed this mess, and back on-topic.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

RE: "surely it will be retitled." I'm not sure you understand how these things work. It's not a vote. It's about a) the quality of the arguments pro and con, with particular emphasis on policies, guidelines and MOS, and b) when things are roughly split, as they are here, then there's no consensus to change the status quo.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have requested for closure on the RfC. Just by looking at this everyone's opinions have already been said and now it's just turned into a personal vendetta by one user and others defending themselves and fellow editors. Brocicle (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Smooth how you avoided your own misuse of policy, doing what you weren't meant to (or rather, not doing what you were meant to), Tenebrae. A classic case of trying to avoid WP:BOOMERANG. If someone messes up accidentally: Educate, don't incarcerate. Tenebrae is obviously WP:NOTHERE, and would rather continue the discussion to belittle the editor rather than contribute to the discussion, attempt to close a discussion simply because he disagrees with it, and flaunt how long he has been editing to appear more superior to other editors. That's as simply as it gets. And belittling an IP editor because they don't have an account. How utterly vile and disgusting an editor you must be. I guess that all editors simply ignore Tenebrae's pathetic claims and requests, and continue with the RfC as the regular, contributing and collaborative editors that we all (mostly) are. -- Alex^TW 06:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't have been put more precise and to the point, Alex^TW. This on-going case which is becoming quite out of hand needs to be ended so that this talk page can get back to the subject at hand and that is the X-Men film franchise.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

And it looks like User:AlexTheWhovian doesn't understand WP:CIVIL, given comments like "utterly vile and disgusting an editor" and "pathetic." I don't have to prove myself to people like you; my work history speaks for itself. And for the record, don't lie about me: I've made it very clear that this discussion needed to be closed not because I disagree — the proof being I've taken part in many RfCs where I've disagreed, and have never ask for cancelation for that reason — but rather because of inappropriate cherry-picking canvassing. You're OK with vote-stacking, fine. You don't want to abide by the rules, fine. But I find it disappointing that you attack others for trying to abide by them. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

And to 50.232.205.246, I would agree that, yes, this is about the X-Men film franchise, i.e. X-Men (film series). It's not about trying to create a WP:SYNTH "continuity" of the films, TV shows, videogames and whatever else.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, you continue to use demeaning language towards anyone that corrects/disagrees with you. What is the need/justification therein? WP:CIVIL that you used 'against' Alex^TW would suggest the vernacular of "people like you" falls under that exact same classification. Kind of ironic that you use a rule, and contradict it in the very next sentence. Since you are so bent on following rules, others are simply making you aware that you are breaking them yourself - in the process. Enough of the elitist attitude towards the editors on this page. Whether you've been here for a month, or 12 years, or whatever it makes no difference. If you want your work history to speak for itself then be civil. Be constructive. Be collaborative. Still waiting to hear from those admins on this discussion though..... --50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, you can't honestly think of using WP:CIVIL against me in your own circumstances, when you diss the solid and more thought-out opinion of an IP editor, account or not, who has contributed in a far better manner than you have at all. -- Alex^TW 21:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please. I've never used words like "vile" and "disgusting" and "pathetic," as you have. As for well-thought-out opinions, I'm finding more of them on the Oppose side, as opposed to the fannish rationales to synth disparate media into a "continuity" that no non-comics-fan wants or needs. Finally, any registered editor who has been here long enough knows that it is not uncommon for an anon IP in an RfC to be a sock of another participant ... so, as I said, any experienced person knows to take anon-IP RfC comments with a grain of salt. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Live up to your actions, and collaborate by not making constant accusations and attacks. You aren't making this go anywhere, and it seems that you are the only editor that agrees with your position. Not even the admins have become involved after days. -- Alex^TW 22:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone who calls me "vile" and "disgusting" and "pathetic" has no right to lecture me. I offered the proper solution, one I've seen done multiple times. The initiator chose not to do it, making this RfC tainted with vote-stacking. Pointing out the objective fact that someone inappropriately canvassed is not an "accusation" or "attack." It's a simple statement of fact that even DisneyMetalhead doesn't dispute — he just says he didn't do maliciously. But malicious or not, the damage was done. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Get consensus for your views to close the RfC, then go from there. Again: You're the only editor who holds this position. -- Alex^TW 22:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Both I and the RfC initiator have asked admins to end this RfC. So I'm not sure what more there is to discuss while we wait.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

And yet, nothing has happened, both here and at AN. The initiator does not own the RfC. Nothing to stand on. -- Alex^TW 22:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. The initiator has every right to ask admins for closure. The admins, generally, either choose to do so or let the RfC continue for 30 days. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, on one hand you make the argument that it is vote stacking, while on the other hand you say that this is not decided on by votes... if it is not decided by votes then there is no risk of "vote stacking". Also, I would point out that from previous discussions and the previous request for a title change; there is agreement that the title needs to change, we are already settled on that. There was lots of valid and good cite's to justify it. That conversation is done, just the same as the conversation to include Legion. The only question we have left is: WHAT should the new title should be? By looking at the conversation we are currently down to: X-Men (franchise) and X-Men (Fox Franchise). Personally I think X-Men (franchise) is the most appropriate as this is used for other similar franchises elsewhere on Wikipedia. If others are happy with this then can we process this and move on with our lives? RodgerTheDodger (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, you continue to drag my name through the mud though you do not know me, nor do you have any real position in doing so. You have contradicted yourself several times now regarding "rules" and regulations. As 50.232.205.246 pointed out you contradict yourself within the same two consecutive sentences. You do not own this page nor any of the other pages you have worked on in your estudious 12-year career as a....Wikipedian(?). Seriously editing seems to be an obsession with some editors, and it seems unhealthy. When you repeatedly demean other editors, and numerously claim that unregistered IP editors are A) socking and B) less reliable than you are, EVEN when they give reliable sources you're stepping over the supposed rules you hold so dear to your heart. What you need to understand is that you are just as qualified to edit this page as anyone is. Whether they've been here for a day, or ten, or 12-long-hard-years they are all equal. That's what makes this an online encyclopedia compiled of knowledge brought together by it's users. Here's what it is not as you need a reminder. On the other hand you claim that more editors oppose move while also stating that it is "not decided by a vote". You contradict yourself thereby, and by obvious count there are more editors support[ing] the move. You also state this ignorantly, as there is no cited references for your angle, though editors (including myself, here take a look) have added a number of reliable sources validating the move. RodgerTheDodger is right, the conversation regarding the page's title should be done, but he needn't ask you for permission to move on. You need to just "Get Over It" and move on. Not everyone here agrees with you, just as they don't outside the realms of cyber space. It's okay. Stop draggin my name through your mud, and stay on topic. All you do is contradict yourself.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand all your frustrations but can we please stick to the topic of the RfC without any personal attacks or demeaning commemnts. This has gone far enough. Brocicle (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Brocicle, isn't that what DisneyMetalhead just said? They essentially stated that the topic has gotten way off-base and that it's now about him. I would 'rant' a little like they just did too if I was the central topic of this tangent-conversation. Completely agree with what's being said. The Eagles (as referenced above^) state it as simple as possible. Get over all this muck, and let's finish this movement now. It's gone on more than long enough.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess when one speaks with the kind of people use non-words like "estudious" when they sarcastically mean "esteemed" or something else, then one has to explain things very, very carefully and not use metaphoric shorthand. "Vote-stacking" clearly wasn't meant literally — I said flat-out that RfCs aren't decided by votes. I can't tell if the redlink editors who are illiterately pouncing on the term are truly so, let's say, unsophisticated or uneducated that one can't use metaphoric shorthand, but fine: I hereby withdraw the pithy "vote-stacking" and substitute "biasing the argument artificially in favor of their position through notification solely of editors who agree with them." Happy? Take some responsibility: There was cheating. Own up to it. Be a grownup. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Discriminating both IP editors and "redlink editors", and calling them "unsophisticated or uneducated", and you have the nerve to call me uncivil? Tell another joke while you're at it. -- Alex^TW 21:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

They didn't understand that "vote-stacking" wasn't meant literally, even after I plainly stated that RfCs aren't votes. What would you call people like that? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I would educate them on it, no matter how many times I have to say it, not put them down. -- Alex^TW 21:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I've tried educating them and you on why inappropriate canvassing is cheating, but that hasn't seemed to work. Some people just refuse to learn.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, by putting others down and disqualifying their validity in your own mind, you have put yourself up on a pedestal. If you're going to correct spelling then I guess when you said "when one speaks with the kind of people use non-words ..." you probably meant "when one speaks with the kind of people who use non-words...". You need to lay off of the self-aggrandizing lingo you keep using and check yourself. Noone is here to be enemies or even go on in a discussion this long. But since you continue to edit-war, and cut others down --- well, here we are. You clearly fall under the WP:NOTHERE as previous editors have already stated. If you're going to continue to insult myself by claiming that I am "unsophisticated" or "uneducated", and try to dismount my credibility by doing so -- you are again not following Wikipedia rules.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A typo and the inability to comprehend the obvious shorthand of "vote-stacking" are two different things. Secondly, I don't think you understand what edit-warring is, since I haven't done any series of reverts on the article. Finally, you clearly haven't gone to my user page and are simply parroting someone else's ignorant comment — and I mean "ignorant" in the literal sense of unawareness, whether willful or not, and not "stupidity," just so we're clear — that I am "not here to build an encyclopedia." I've created about 150 articles and regularly take on such mundane tasks as fixing grammar and dead links. If you want to repeat a lie, go ahead. But it certainly doesn't speak well of you or anyone else who repeats a lie. Just because Donald Trump does it doesn't mean we're not better than that. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, you are in violation of several things at this point. You know what they are, since you have been an editor for twelve years. Check yourself, before you wreck yourself. We all appreciate your constructive additions to Wikipedia. This topic is long-since overdone and now falls into the WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Editors have since had the consensus to move past the issue to deal with the conversation. Be advised to do the same. Also your political opinions have no weight in this discussion. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Damn, he still going? User:50.232.205.246 my comment was to everyone. I think now it's gotten to the point where we're going to have to ignore User:Tenebrae because they do not know how to stay on topic nor do they know when enough is enough and think their opinion matters more because they've created so many articles, and registered as a user, and doesn't have a redlink page, and has been here for 12 years. Unless he posts on my talk page I will no longer be responding to anything he has to say UNLESS it is actually on topic, which I highly doubt. I suggest you all consider doing the same otherwise we will never get anywhere with this RfC or consensus. Brocicle (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Alex^TW 07:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is to just let hypocritical hearsay spit into the wind, then. Couldn't agree more. Now, what are we deciding as far as the title of this page?

--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, considering that four of you aren't able to leave this alone and continue attacking me, I'm not sure your "is-he-still-here" criticism carries much weight. In fact, DisneyMetalhead has even taken his contentiousness over to my talk page, which I haven't done with any of you, so who is spreading vitriol, you or me? I'm not in violation of any policies or guidelines, except by your extremely loose interpretations — indeed, if anyone is WP:NOTGETTINGIT it's editors who do inappropriate, cherry-picking WP:CANVASSING in order to stack the deck, and then refuse to own up to this clear and blatant cheating. Multiple editors Oppose this RfC's attempt at turning the article into a fannish depository of in-universe "continuity" WP:SYNTH, not just me. But you're not getting that, either. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That is how you correctly handle issues with other editors.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

DisneyMetalHead So far there's 8 supporting and 5 opposing the name change. I'm not sure how substantial the difference should be to warrant a consensus decision but from the looks of it it seems to be leaning towards the support end. Brocicle (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Brocicle, it does indeed seem as such. Given all the sources cited in favor of the move, it seems as though that is the direction the page will go. What do we need to do to finish this conversation? Or, in other words - how long do we want it to stay on as a RfC?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

If majority agrees to end the RfC we can conclude it. Consensus is supporting the move and most have suggest Fox franchise. I'm all for concluding it as soon as possible but if people think it's a good idea to leave it for a few more days I have no quarrels with that either. Brocicle (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The consensus is definitely becoming clear, as stated by multiple editors. I agree; leave it for several more days, see if there's any further solid argument put forward (not just "I disagree"), and then we go from there. -- Alex^TW 21:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness' sakes. I have to admit, the rule-skirting by some of the editors here is nothing less an astonishing. The initiator of the RfC cannot be the one to say. "Consensus is this" or "Consensus is that." The out-and-out cheating that has been going on is remarkable. I don't see any consensus whatsoever for any name. The number of editors pro and con are roughly equal, and the ones who Oppose have made more policy/guideline-based arguments than those who support.

I'll say again: The films deserve their own article, and this attempt at shoehorning POV/OR "continuity" is pure fancrfut. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how I'm cheating considering I oppose the move and have said so numerous times. Majority is for the move, majority usually means a consensus has been reached. Both sides have put forward good points. But if you have such a problem with the way this is going, mind you you are the ONLY one of the opposing to further comment, then ask for admin intervention or for an admin to review the whole situation. Instead of actively trying to undermine other editors why don't you actively try and help resolve the situation rather than create more issues. Also there's no rule saying the initiator cannot comment on the direction the consensus is leaning towards which is what I was doing. Take my words and spin them as you please for your own personal agenda. Brocicle (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

No, majority doesn't mean consensus. That's voting. It's based on the soundness of the arguments, and the Oppose have more policy/guideline-based arguments, in my opinion. But more troubling is User:AlexTheWhovian's comment "and then we go from there." What does that mean exactly? There's been so much impropriety with this tainted RfC, that it sounds almost as if the involved "support" editors plan on closing the RfC in their favor themselves. The RfC initiator, Brocicle, has already asked for an admin to close this. So where else is there to go? Be aware that Wikipedia allows WP:Move review in case of closing improprieties. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Any move review that is submitted by yourself in question to this discussion, after the page has or has not been moved, will be reported as harassment against the editors of this discussion, given how close you already are to this issue over your inappropriate actions here. Just making sure you're aware. -- Alex^TW 21:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, making threats as you just did is harassment, and I'm following up on that now. The impropriety and outright cheating has gone on long enough.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Cheers on that. Be careful of WP:BOOMERANG! Any editor here who has been harassed by Tenebrae, which seems to be a lot given the complaints listed, is more than welcome to make their view known at the report that he's apparently filing. -- Alex^TW 21:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

And now you're putting a call out to your buddies. to harass me further? That's tag-teaming, if you want to talk about WP:BOOMERANG. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

"Buddies"? Again you are exercising WP:NOTHERE behavior. On and on and on. Regardless of how many years you have been here, you ignore simplistic rules and regulations for this site. WP:BOOMERANG -- comin' your way.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae -- look at the definition of harassment, and tell me you have not engaged in such behavior. Yes there is a clause that says that accusing of such without reason nor rhyme is harrassment, but all the 'evidence' is right here. People who agree with you on the matter at hand of retitling the page itself have stated that you are out of line. Moving to close this RfC was the right move as it has become Tenebrae's warzone. We can open a new one for the top 2 or 3 titles of what the page should be renamed given the fact that the statements made by those opposing though "in line with Wikipedia guidelines", is by nature incorrect and opinion-based. References to support the move for a retitle have included reliable sources that state otherwise.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I did ask for it to be closed but the editor who responded didn't think that 9 days was enough time for discussion given the amount of comments. You're more than welcome to try again or at least ask for an admin who is neutral to comment. Also, I don't think Alex was putting a call out. Editors are more than welcome to make their voice heard in regards to complaints. Hardly tag-teaming. Brocicle (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Happy to see that though we have had disagreements regarding the move (which is purely normal and part of the process), you can still follow guidelines, and see the fault here with the elitist "group". Thanks for being compatible and willing to work with other editors, Brocicle. Closing this RfC was a good move. Now a move for a consensus regarding the issue can move forward. Definitely no tag-teaming. Anyone who reads this massive mess can see what Tenebrae was doing.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Per the RfC

Here: ( [7] ) is a link to what the X-Men (Fox franchise) page woul--TotalTruthTeller24 (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)d look like. It would need a little bit of work, but it's not a bad start, is it?? Total-TruthTeller-24 (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

only bad thing is the table. With more xmen films in development that table is going to break the page (for lack of a better term). Brocicle (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is TotalTruthTeller creating his own article? You do know that there was NO consensus for a move nor a creation for a separate article. Anyway, good thing it was already being listed for deletion. Again, TotalTruthTeller read the talk page first before you make drastic moves.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah the table in it's current form is already pretty bad, but that's just making it worse. I do support the basic idea, but the page would still need quite a bit of tweaking though. 2001:982:4947:1:1944:8C8D:A95A:4EA7 (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The user is free to work on whatever page they want. Obviously they can't submit it without consensus, but AGAIN - Hotwiki you do not own the page. Total-TruthTeller-24 is free to do as he wishes. The page looks great except for the chart.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Side-note on your draft Total-TruthTeller-24, I don't see the need to divide the page with Deadpool films from the X-Men films. They are all within the same franchise and so the division is excessive.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this looks like a good starting point and demonstrates the concept of how the page could look. Thanks for creating this mock-up. I would love to see this discussion come to an end... RodgerTheDodger (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@50.232.205.246: I thought the implication was that the X-Men films exist as films within the Deadpool film series? In Deadpool: No Good Deed, a poster for Logan can be seen on a wall (@ 2:36 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5ezsReZcxU ), and the writers of Deadpool 2 have stated that they want Hugh Jackman to cameo as Hugh Jackman, and NOT Wolverine, like he did (in photographic form) in the first Deadpool film. @RodgerTheDodger: You're welcome.

Total-TruthTeller-24 be sure to sign your responses everytime so that editors can follow your comments easily. I would say that is a terrific mockup of what this page could and should look like. However, though Logan posters appear in the Deadpool pre-film sequence of the film -- this is simply due to the nature of the character being able to 'break the fourth wall'. I understand the confusion, but Deadpool is an "X-Men film" as far as the current title of the page is concerned. When the title changes it will be a film in the "X-Men franchise" as an installment in the continuity. For instance: Let's say Deadpool takes place in the year 2002....Logan takes place in 2029 - almost thirty years later. To use the character's own words "these timelines are so confusing". Hence the discussion on the page needing a re-titling, haha. Great work though!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not signing, but I'm almost certain that the X-Men films exist as films within Deadpool films. Ryan Reynolds, Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart and James McAvoy were all confirmed to exist as characters separate to Deadpool, Wolverine and Professor X in the first Deadpool film, and with the announcement of Hugh Jackman potentially appearing as himself in Deadpool 2, I'm currently getting the impression that Deadpool would stumble onto the "set" for some sort of Wolverine/Deadpool X-Men film during the events of Deadpool 2, which is where Deadpool would meet Jackman, Stewart and "Reynolds". Deadpool kept mocking Origins in Deadpool; it makes much more sense to assume Origins is a film within the universe of Deadpool.

Total-TruthTeller-24 (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

What you're describing is textbook OR. You're taking your personal observations and developing a hypothesis, rather than citing a reliable source to make a claim. That's been a core problem of the supporters' "continuity" fixation. It's all WP:SYNTH, and unacceptable. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Total-TruthTeller-24 a nicer response from me^:

I understand the confusion. The reasons for Deadpool's off-the-wall structure of a film is all in accordance with the character and the comics. The movie is made to be a reflection of that, and in all reality it works because he is partially insane. While those things are true to him and in his mind, all the other characters have no clue what he's talking about - just as they don't know that he is talking to "us" when he breaks the fourth wall. The X-Men franchise films and TV shows all exhist within the same universe, and though have varying timelines they are all installments of that franchise. Deadpool is an installment therein.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You're proving my point. Two editors can't agree on whether it's "in continuity" or not because each one has his own personal POV.

First, Wikipedia doesn't allow us to include our own personal WP:SYNTH argument as fact. Second, these attempts at turning an encyclopedia article into a fan page for fanboys and not general readers is wildly inappropriate. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

What I meant was that I don't view Deadpool & its sequels as installments in the X-Men film series set within Fox's X-Men franchise, I view Deadpool as a separate film series spinning off from the X-Men film series, similar to how the The Scorpion King film series spun off from the The Mummy film series. Two film series make a franchise. Also, Tenebrae: I'm the last person who wants "a fan page for fanboys". If I wanted that I would have called for splitting this page into X-Men (film series) & Deadpool (film series).

Total-TruthTeller-24 (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I think a good/justifiable format similar to what you're saying is that there would be a section called "Films" and below that there could be "Original Trilogy", "Prequel Trilogy", "Wolverine Trilogy", "Deadpool films"...etc.; then "Television" with Legion and The Gifted below that. Other than that I think that just having "Films" with the titles below it, and "Television" with the TV shows below that works just fine.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Gifted - detailed ad nauseum

So why is Gifted so over detailed when two other editors just suggested that the tie in materials shouldn't be too detailed. Then I removed the excessive info about the Tv show then someone reverted my edit? Again this is for the film series. The tie in material section should mention why the tie in materials are tie in to the films and that's it. No need to mention the whole premise and when it was announced. There's other section for that one such as X-Men in other media to be detailed ad nauseum, but not this article.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

if we are gonna allow this to Gifted, then don't blame me if I give more information about the other Tie in materialsto even things out for the section. So please, no special treatment to Gifted. Every tie in material should be treated the same.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Calling User:AlexTheWhovian to further explain himself about keeping Gifted being "detailed ad nauseum" especially it's just one of the many tie in materials, instead of threatening me of things in my talk page which I don't appreciate. Again if you don't see the difference of this article to X-Men in other media, then that's your problem.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You keep using that term, but out of place in the sentence here^. One reason that TV shows would have more detail is to be congruent with the rest of the page (i.e.: See the formatting for the film sections). Likewise look at the MCU TV series sections on that page. Because they are actual installments in the franchise, they need a little more detail. That's what I say.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Move to archive current page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As this page is too bulky and hard to follow at this point (and repeatedly off topic), I request that the current talk page be archived, per Wikipedias guidelines, and we re-start any unresolved/ongoing conversations with fresh eyes and with a focus on facts (not feelings). There are new editors and old editors, with many regretting being part of this conversation (myself included), but we are all editors with an interest in the X-Men, so we all have something in common. So I request that this talk be added to the archives, we forget about any hurt feelings or mistakes any editors have made and we move on with clear and open minds. Please state your support and if all are in favor then we can proceed with archiving RodgerTheDodger (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really how archiving works. Archive the old discussions that have not had new comments for some months, not new ones that are still being discussed as we speak. Brocicle (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This is unbelievable how this conversation has developed. One of the many reasons I will not register as an editor on this site. Too many hard-core fanboy situations go on. Personal attacks, and arguments from the comfort of your home behind a computer-screen. It really needn't have gotten so off topic. I think RodgerTheDodger was merely stating that if the page were 'more clean' it'd be easier to follow the opinions and reasoning. Though the general stasis of archiving is for that purpose, it could be helpful here. The varying opinions have become nonsensical and completely off-topic. How is anyone supposed to come to a conclusion here-in? New sub-heading sections keep being added by those who are opposed to the move. The discussion should have ended at the RfC request, and then a decision would have been made by an admin. As-is this is getting nuts. Disgusting is how I would describe this thread.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you 50.232.205.246, that was my point. I understand that technically archiving is for when the page is too large in size and for when conversations are dead, with no new comments. Although the page is large, conversations are clearly not finished. But this page has got out of hand. I feel that it would be beneficial to all involved, if we wipe the slate clean and start the conversations again, clearly, without emotions, with the intention of reaching a resolution. As a lot has been said I believe that this conversation should be saved and therefor I am saying to archive it instead of just deleting it. I am trying to be a team player here, with a focus on reaching a resolution to these questions regardless of whether or not it is the resolution that I believe is correct. I am happy to accept other opinions, when backed up with facts, as I was with my initial post about including a section on continuity; I may feel that it is beneficial, but I accept that there are so many continuity problems throughout the franchise, that the order of continuity is purely subjective and as so, does not belong on Wikipedia.... it's not what I want, but I respect that it does not have a place on this page. So my suggestion of archiving the page is not to ignore the guidelines, but to try and help move things along in a more productive direction. We are all here to improve Wikipedia, I hope you can see a benefit to this. This does not make anyone's opinions redundant, but instead gives everyone a chance to clearly and concisely state their points, with facts, so that the conversation can clearly be followed and resolved. RodgerTheDodger (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I see your point, but archiving is already set up - you'll see this if you look at the top header for the talk page. We archive once a discussion has concluded, that's how the guidelines work. -- Alex^TW 02:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion of RfCs (multiple) review

So now that that mess of an RfC has been closed, what's the next move? All editors and users are welcome to comment given this is not an RfC.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Deciding/agreeing on a title for it to possibly be changed to before opening that discussion again Brocicle (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. Perhaps if we call in 'all' editors who had any comments on it before, we can come to a more defined RfC.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm still against changing it BUT if it comes to a decision to indeed change the title I'd be most happy with X-Men (Fox franchise) Brocicle (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed on X-Men (Fox franchise). -- Alex^TW 05:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Also agreed on X-Men (Fox franchise). Freemanukem (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah X-Men (Fox franchise) would be acceptable. On the other hand X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise) actually wouldn't work since Legion for example is on FX. FX is still Fox though. 193.173.216.106 (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Well then it's settled: X-Men (Fox franchise) is what we all mostly agree would the most appropriate title for a rename. Let the following RfC be about this. Impending IP (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm changing my support to Anythingspossibleforapossible's suggestion of X-Men in film

This comment above is not me, I do not know who it is. Whoever it is, do not pretend to be another user of Wikipedia. That is very mcuh frowned upon. Impending IP (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Name change to X-Men (Fox franchise)

Support

Current Number of Supporters: 13

• Alex^TW
• Freemanukem (talk)
• 193.173.216.106 (talk)
• Impending IP (talk)
• RodgerTheDodger (talk)
• DisneyMetalhead (talk)
• Mike210381 (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Total-Truth-Teller-24 (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2017 (ROI)
• Nurseline247 (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
• 50.232.205.246 (talk)
• Anythinspossibleforapossible (talk)
• 2001:982:4947:1:319D:101A:2A16:7C00 (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• Schmeater (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2017

Oppose

Current Number of Opposers: 2

• it should be moved to X-Men in film. So obvious oppose here! - TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose X-Men films deserve their own article. So do X-Men TV shows. So do the X-Men videogames. This attempt at shoehorning OR / synth "continuity" is fancruft. This is an encyclopedia. Create fan pages somewhere else. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments

There was the Fox Kids cartoon, and then the Fox Generation X TV film. It should just be renamed to X-Men in film. Batman in film and Superman in film cover different series and they do just fine. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Good point! Brocicle (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Better suggestion indeed! Let's move it to X-Men in film now!TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No, let's not move it now. You have no consensus. Sheesh. -- Alex^TW 19:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that that still doesn't clarify the continuity issue at hand. That's the current problem. The Fox produced TV show Generation X is long-forgotten and not a part of anything. A page of X-Men in film, could be helpful similar to Batman in film etc, but the move here is to create a page specifically about the X-Men (Fox franchise) as that is what this page is already about.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Generation X was simply being overlooked in favour of the films that were done theatrically. This page should have always included that and been called X-Men in film. The bigger picture here is what kind of universe is this? The series is first and foremost, X-Men. By putting anything into brackets, you automatically make it look like it's purely covering X-Men on its own, defeating the purpose of every person who needs this to reference the fact that this is some X-Men Cinematic Universe, but it's not called that. It's not called anything. It's made up of X-Men films, then Wolverine films, who's already established as an X-Men character, then Deadpool's just on his own. Even with X-Force, can this really be connected as a series? It will just be an "Deadpool and X-Force" universe with little ties to X-Men. Finally, there's the Legion series that has gone on record that it has no ties. It's just some confused series based on the main character's mind. All I see is an unclear universe set up by Fox and some others involved. It'd be even worse if they did that FF crossover. If you want to be clear call it X-Men (theatrical film franchise). Otherwise it should just be the same as Batman in film, Superman in film, and Spider-Man in film. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright, both titles risk including or excluding content where it would be inappropriate. X-Men in film would leave out any potentially related TV shows, and given the hinted connections between the films and Legion (and potentially Gifted), it would be appropriate to think proactively and allow room for potential non-filmic works to be included in the same article if and when the need should arise. It also would include X-Men films that are NOT a part of this continuity, should they ever be made. Meanwhile, as User:Anythingspossibleforapossible points out, X-Men (Fox franchise) risks including any works based on X-Men comics, which would cover the TV film and animated series from the 90s. As an alternative, with a very minor change that I think could remedy all of the above discrepancies, how about X-Men (2000s Fox Franchise), making it clear that anything that came before the 2000 X-Men movie is not being covered on the page and anything connected to that film in any way (be it a sequel, prequel, spin-off, TV show, etc.) can be included. -RM (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Anythingspossibleforapossible take a look at the extensive references I mentioned previously in this conversation here which goes on record multiple times from multiple sources from the creative team that has made all the movies, and now Legion and The Gifted. The studio has very loose continuity from film to film - but so does James Bond. The films and two TV series discussion are all part of the same 'franchise'. There are multiple uses of the word "franchise" as also discussed in this section. If you're going for one title vs the other, I would draw your attention to Batman in film. It covers every single Batman interpretation, but there is still the DC Extended Universe page which is specific to the franchise's continuity. I would say that the X-Men could and should do a similar thing. First and foremost the discussion is "What do we call this continuity franchise?" -- then I think a larger page that covers other interpretations (i.e.: Generation X, the animated series, animated films etc.) similar to the pages you have pointed out, would be productive and helpful.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@RM X-Men in film wouldn't leave out any potential in film, maybe the problem is that, it would be too vague, which apparently X-Men (film series) is. If describing a title by just using the films then Marvel Cinematic Universe would confuse people into thinking it only covers movies, when it covers a majority of media. So this leads into what I have to say to DisneyMetalhead and RM, as well, that I think if we need a title to cover the fact that where this franchise starts and what it could cover without it being misleading into only one type of media would be X-Men (2000's Fox franchise). It doesn't really sound like a fan name, instead sounding neat and tidy without trying to compensate for an official title we don't have. Of course, there are films after that decade, but it still serves the same function. My other options are X-Men (Bryan Singer series) or X-Men (Singer/Kinberg series). The former makes it explicit in every way, since Singer's been a part of both trilogies and the Gifted series. And if Singer's comment is anything to go by that Legion would connect to the movies, then that makes his role even bigger. Without a doubt, he's had one of, if not the biggest, role in the series. He's been there since the beginning and he's now still a part of it. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I can appreciate what you are trying to do and say. I really do. The issue is that Bryan Singer, though he has been involved in the films - is not the creative mind of the projects in development. He has been a part of the trilogy films, but the Deadpool, Gambit, X-Force, and New Mutants titles he has no connection with. That's not to say that he may or may not return in the future. The real proposition would be to make this page have a title that fits it, and yet is not too constricting. With Legion "connecting to future films", and the show's creator/writer/producer/director Noah Hawley stating that the series will continue to explore film connections -- that also puts a stint in the Bryan Singer idea. I like your idea for a X-Men in film page. That would be similar to Spider-Man in film, or Batman in film, or Superman in film -- but what is distinct about each of those pages is that it also has a link to pages specific to continuity (i.e.: DC Extended Universe, and Marvel Cinematic Universe). Since we do not have an official title from 20th Century Fox yet, the discussion is as basic as "what do we call this franchise that clarifies the continuity, but also doesn't sound fan-made or limit its future?". It's a tough decision which is why this discussion is so long and such a huge debate with all the editors. X-Men (Fox franchise) is specific, as it includes 20th Century Fox, FX, and Fox TV installments -- all under the parent company 21st Century Fox; and can specify in the introduction paragraph that it is a film and television franchise which began with X-Men (the movie). That clarifies confussion regarding Fox produced cartoons and Generation X. Now once that's completed, I would fully support a second page that is "X-Men in film" which covers every interpretation of the characters. It'd be insightful, a history lesson to readers, and interesting as well. But the current page needs a re-title which fits the "film franchise" itself (the word 'film' being used loosely non-exclusive to movies, but also to TV shows as well). --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that editors can't decide if Generation X (or perhaps even Mutant X, since there was a Marvel comic) should be included illustrates how OR / synth this whole proposal is. Editors previously debated on this page whether the the film Deadpool belonged, since one editor spotted background posters or some such advertising X-Men movies. This attempt at shoehorning OR / synth "continuity" is fancruft. This is an encyclopedia. Create fan pages somewhere else. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact remains that Generation X is not a part of the film series. Let's be real - that is not what Anythingspossibleforapossible stating. What the editor was clearly saying is that the title of X-Men (Fox franchise) could be misconstrued to include the cartoons and that one-off show from the 90s. The purpose of this discussion is not 'fancruft' as you keep saying. What's being stated is that the current title is inaccurate as there is more than just X-Men movies, (i.e.: Wolverine and Deadpool....and upcoming Gambit and X-Force and New Mutants), as well as the TV shows. If you're going for completely accurate encyclopedia - it is outdated. Strictly speaking no producers have ever called the series X-Men....so the title is wrong there too. A title which includes all of the above until there is an official title is what we're aiming for. The Legendary studios' produced MonsterVerse used to be listed on here as the Godzilla-Kong series...which is not an official title, but a classification for reading purposes. No fan-paging here. Just constructive purpose.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: It's not that we're deciding whether to include Generation X. We're trying to ensure that whatever title we suggest will cover only those works which are a part of this continuity. "Continuity," by the way, is not "fancruft." Everything is naming itself "universe." (MCU, DCEU, Arrowverse, Monsterverse, etc.), but that's not what we're suggesting. No one is suggesting anything with the word universe. A continuity is simply the existence of something over time, a continuous story told across several different series of different types of work. May I also point out that, while you are welcome to make accusations (and accusations and accusations and accusations) of fancruft, we're not suggesting a major change in content to this article, only its title. "The term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality, or original research." (from WP:Fancruft) You don't seem to have a problem with the article itself, though, and everything in the article is verified, cited, neutral, etc. So I'm not really sure how naming the article X-Men (Fox franchise) or any slight variations thereon could be considered fancruft. We are taking very conscious efforts to avoid titling the article with anything that may sound unencyclopedic or fannish, and although that title is not sourced, neither is X-Men (film series). -RM (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The X-Men movies are "films", and If you go to a dictionary and look up the word "series", you'll see its primary meaning is "a number of things or events of the same class coming one after another in spatial or temporal succession." That doesn't say they have to be thematically the same, or have the same director or producer or anything else. The "class" in this case is "films starring the X-Men", so any bunch of X-Men films is a "film series". That said, the synonym "X-Men in film" certainly works. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Mutant X is not an X-Men show. Tenebrae, please stick to on topic. Generation X uses X-Men characters, that's why I've bought it up for the reasons I already bought up. This is utterly ridiculous. You can take that as a fact, not an opinion. I know there's people that probably think this is a necessary discussion, and in some reasons I agree with them, but X-Men (film series) still says it all to me. This page is nothing more to me than a list to me anyway. There's nothing that really says this is a universe page, outside of the fact we're listing films. And, personally, this whole Legion and Deadpool debate is ridiculous as well, as they're are weak connections. Yeah, Xavier is mentioned in Legion and Deadpool makes references to the X-Men, but outside of that what's really connectiong. Simon Kinberg sketchy connections? -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say Mutant X was an X-Men show. Read what I said carefully, please: "The fact that editors can't decide if Generation X (or perhaps even Mutant X, since there was a Marvel comic) should be included illustrates how OR / synth this whole proposal is." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Well said, Anythingspossibleforapossible. Glad we're staying on-topic. However, the title of X-Men (film series) has never been an official title, and is out-of-date. Something that can be confirmed by all sources is the fact that each of the installments (titles - whatever you want to call them) are a part of the same 'continuity'/franchise as a whole. With Nathan Summers/Cable's introduction in Deadpool 2 - there will be another connection to the X-Men trilogy movies. Regardless of how tonally different Deadpool is, it still is the same franchise. That's the issue at hand, and again if you read the extensive references I provided earlier on this page - you can see plainly that Legion is as well. It shouldn't even be a debate. RM awesome points for debunking the whole 'fancruft' nonsense.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey everyone, 50.232.205.246 has a pretty good thought I hadn't thought about. Let's look outside of this page and the whole argument that X-Men (Fox franchise) isn't an official title. The MonsterVerse DID used to be titled Godzilla-Kong (series) or franchise or something to that effect. That was definitely not an official title, as it is really quite short-hand looking, even. Another example would be the Universal Monsters (2017 film series) page -- again not an official title, and arguably a very poor title for the page, but that's besides the point -- what I'm saying is that the debate on whether the page should wait for an official title for the franchise or not just got shot down. Wikipedia has 'unofficial' titles all the time. It's done simply for sorting, organizational, and reading purposes. That's it.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Just wondering: the general consensus at the moment seems to be to move this page to X-Men (Fox franchise). When exactly would the page be moved? How many people do we need to agree upon a move? Also, @DisneyMetalhead: Ditto. Couldn't have said it better myself.Impending IP (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

In general it seems about seven to ten days-ish...from what I've seen. In addition to the already stated film serieses that I've stated here are some others that have been given an unofficial name simply for organizational, sorting, and reading purposes: Has Fallen (film series) - yeah it's in the titles, but no official statement has been made by the studio; Robert Langdon (film series) - yeah he's the main character, but again simply titled that for sorting purposes. Still other film series don't even have a page (see: Blade Runner which includes Blade Runner, Soldier, and Blade Runner 2049). It's the incorrect title we are trying to fix, for reading purposes here. The X-Men is more than just a film series now, and has been since the first Wolverine movie.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Nothing gets moved unless we do a formal move request, which this is not. Go to WP:RM#CM to see the template that has to be used, etc. What's going on right now is an informal discussion and not binding. Indeed, I'm not sure why we're having it rather than getting straight to the formal move request.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

We are following the direction from the admin Black Kite to get a more defined viewpoint before the RfC starts. Whoever does start the RfC, they will definitely have to do so at the very bottom of all this mess.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like a fan comment, but while I haven't watched Legion, from what I've read, which is on Wikipedia, is that they have to earn it. Nothing to me has really been connected other than subtle (and I stress subtle) connections. It doesn't even seem they were going for an X-Men connected series when coming in. It's just something that has come later. Just because there are allusions, doesn't mean it's all connected. People are trying to connect Wolverine and the X-Men to Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes, simply because of what one of the people involved said, yet outside of that, there's no connections outside of the fact that some of the characters are voiced by the same actors. You can't dispute the evidence that Arrow and The Flash aren't connected. You can dispute the evidence that Legion isn't connected to any film because there isn't anything strongly connecting them. The timeline is also ambiguous from an interview I saw on Popcorn with Peter Travers. For all we know, the Xavier in Legion could be an entirely new version. Just call it X-Men (Fox franchise), it makes no sense to me calling it that, but if it brings and end to this, then so be it. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Anythingspossibleforapossible - just because I'm a fan of the franchise, doesn't negate the fact that all of these references here: Talk: X-Men (film series) #References stating that Legion and untitled X-Men TV series are a part of the shared continuity state plainly and simply that the series is in the same franchise. The reason season one was so vague (from what I've heard I haven't seen it completely myself) is that the character is an unreliable narrator with psychosis. This way if it was a success on its own - Fox could connect it to their films, if it was a dud, then they could abandon it and say it was its own series. Read those references and then tell me they aren't in the same continuity.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that anyone has to say, "Read those references and then tell me they aren't in the same continuity" demonstrates explicitly how subjective and POV this whole "continuity" notion is. And with anything where different editors can interpret things n different ways without reliable secondary sources as confirmation is WP:SYNTH, which is disallowed. Please look that up. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay. But I would like to add that the TV stuff is simply weaving in and out of the movieverse. This seems like a film series first, TV series second. Also, unreliable character narratives such as Deadpool and David Haller don't really mean anything to me, but I'm just going along with things now, mostly to bring some result to this. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the name X-Men (Fox Franchise) would be sufficient if the article explains that it pertains to properties that were created as a result of the franchise that was started with X-Men (2000). 92.111.179.110 (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed 92.111.179.110. The introductory paragraph should state that the franchise is a franchise of live-action feature films, and TV shows that began with X-Men, and is based on the Marvel Comics superhero team of the same name. Puts to rest the argument of whether Mutant X, Generation X, or animated productions could be misunderstood by the proposed title. Thanks for your insight.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

just to add, don't forget to make an own section for the comic books, tie in videogames, novelizations and the soundtracks, anything that features Fox's logo. You don't want to give the impression that it is just the movies and TV shows produced by Fox.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Good point, Hotwiki. Probably in a section titled 'In other media' or something to that effect, as done on other pages.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

No, not in other media. Again that would look like you are heavily emphasising on the live action movies and TV, I thought it's gonna be the entire "Fox franchise" and not just a selection of products, right?. See the article of Marvel Cinematic Universe, where soundtracks, tie in comics, books got their own section and not just a sub section under in other media.

You might as well renamethis to "X-Men in live action adaptations" if you aren't gonna do that. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I see your suggestion, and can appreciate that. If it is done similar to how the MCU has organized things, then there shouldn't be any issues.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Mutant X does not need to be in this discussion, because while it is inspired by X-Men, it has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Tenebrae was simply making a complicated discussion even worse. How many people actually think Mutant X is set within some kind of X-Men universe? -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Just so this doesn't go into an Mutant X discussion, I was being rhetorical. They're not even called mutants. Professor X, Magneto, or any other character from the X-Men comics, etc. was never going to appear in that show, because it's unrelated. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

No one does. That's what I got from DisneyMetalhead's comment. No one thinks those crummy TV fails, nor the cartoon are a part of the Fox franchise's continuity.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Didn't expect to see another RfC so soon after the last one, but I'll add my support for X-Men (Fox franchise). 2001:982:4947:1:319D:101A:2A16:7C00 (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Following the RfC review, and a much more concise argument, the new RfC can move forward.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Just here to put in my support for changing it to X-Men (Fox Franchise) or whatever following that template that was listed above. If I could say, though, in interviews, Kinberg, Singer and Donner all tend to say X-Men Universe, perhaps a rename to X-Men Universe (Cinematic) is a possibility? If not, I'm down with the other name, but a rename and restructuring is a good step. --Schmeater (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)