Talk:X-Men (film series)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

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.