Talk:X-Men: Evolution/Archive 1

External Links

Lets discuss what's going on with the External Links. There has been a lot of junk added in the past, but I am deeply uncomfortable with the mass deletions that have occured, and I believe each link should be considered separately, with cases for and against. For my own part, I was involved in X-Men Evo RPG boards for two, maybe three years (I'm past that now) and was a bio mod and later admin for one of the larger sites which had run for several years.

So ... the links I've restored: I think it just makes sense that the production company and director's sites remain, especially since the Director (Steven Gordon) has a lot of X-Men drawing content which he actively maintains. There's a pretty long standing history between graphic media and fan art, so there would be a good utilization for that link. Kataclysm's fan site is a slightly tougher sell, but just based on sheer volume of content and a history going back several years, as well as the dozens of screenshots for each episode and custom avatar bank I know from my RPG board days that site got a lot of hits from board members. Beyond Evolution is without doubt one of the seminal references for the series even if it is now only lightly maintained - I have seen multiple references to it from other sites (not just fan sites). I also hope that if X2B keeps up with the news aggregation on her blog this would have a good utility here. Haverberg 18:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The production and the director sites are not needed, you could put the links in their own article, this article is about X-Men Evolution. See: WP:EL--hottie 19:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The director's site has significant resources for drawing X-Men Evolution characters, so I have put it back with a more detailed note explaining it. Haverberg 67.130.17.100 19:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh, you know in other articles you could not just put any external links like here. Too bad there's no member to do that here--2hot4u2handle 18:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted More 'Facts'

I don't think it's good to keep on adding to the 'fact' section without any sources. The six latest ones, which I just now deleted, have no source, and frankly, some of them seem pretty bogus - namely the one about the lack of other 'superheroes' in the series because the creators wanted to show the dominence of the X-Men in one way or another: er... Captain America and Nick Fury both had appearences in the series, didn't they?

Re: Deletion of "Facts": The superhero comment was true. Back when AnimationInsider.Net had an X-Men: Evolution fansite and (a sadly now deleted) forum, Craig Kyle and Boyd Kirkland would occasionally stop by to post and they even had a Q&A thread. It was there that this bit of trivia was brought up. The writers chose to make the Evo-world free of non-mutant superheroes because it would diminish the "protect the world that hates and fears you" message of the show if normal citizens were persecuting mutants but embracing other super-beings like Spider-Man or the Fantastic Four. As for Nick Fury and Captain America, remember that Nick Fury is more of a "secret agent" than a typical super-powered, spandex-wearing hero, and during the present Evo timeline Captain America was in suspended animation and largely forgotten by the public. ~Sandoz

: So if AnimationInsider.net is the source of the information, then cite it as the source. That solves the problem, right? Raphael 14:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Gambit's Profile in the Character List

Gambit (Remy LeBeau), voiced by Alessandro Juliani. Cast as a Long John Silver-type villain, this Gambit is outwardly similar to the original Gambit, but is different in that he is a willing accomplice to Magneto. The Evolution version of Gambit has also shown signs of antisocial personality disorder, and though from time to time he will do something that can be considered good, he has shown that he is not above outright manipulation of innocents to achieve his goal. He appears to have a soft spot for Rogue (originally meant only as a nod to their relationship in the comics), but whether or not he has sincere affection for her is unclear, though it is unlikely as Gambit is a sociopath. In fanfiction, Gambit's personality is often overwritten so that he can more closely resemble his heroic incarnations in the comics and X-Men: The Animated Series; this is usually done to make a romance with Rogue more plausible, though he is still technically "out of character". Though shown with the extended X-Men team at the end of the series, it is unlikely that Gambit ever officially joined the team, though it's possible he may be an occasional ally, like Angel or Boom Boom.

I found most of this to be speculation, opinion, or just untrue. The X-Men: Evolution incarnation of Gambit's character wasn't widely touched upon. His personality is up to debate.

I'm not sure whether or not I should edit that severely. Evan 14:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Rossignol-X

Just my two cent's worth but I've had questions on his bio description as well, it just doesn't seem a good fit Haverberg 15:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Fan Reaction sections

I moved around some of the stuff from "Comparison too..." and created a new section for fan reaction, recognizing the historic on-going connection between a comic series and its fan base, which is particularly true with Marvel products. I also added in the fan-based references Stranger Dan took out of the bios - an appropriate edit - but I couldn't help but feel that with so much content removed which had been added by several people in good faith, that this information had to be consolidated and put ... somewhere. I'm not entirely happy with what I've put in; hopefully it'll mesh in better with others edits. I'm not quite sure how to source this either, while most of the content was put in by others, it seems consistent with what I've observed in various X-Men Evolution RPG boards and in the discussion forums I've visited.Haverberg 12:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There is something that you are forgetting. That is that this isn't a fan page and message board chatter about what people think about cartoon characters isn't historic or notable content for Wikipedia. Not to mention that it all goes against the NPOV rules.--Stranger Dan 03:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

An early joke among the fandom was that Paul appeared to be everywhere due to his constant background appearances.

Huh? What's this? Who is Paul?

--71.71.238.231 21:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this section should be removed. It is unsubstantiated, completely subjective, and not really very helpful to the article. It would be better to track down a few real reviews of the series and a compile a list of reactions (both positive and negative) with citations. Debuskjt 05:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Especially after this new 'revamp' that is clearly biased on whoever-wrote-that's opinion.

"She was also sevearly hated by Rogue fans (of the shipper subset), who disliked Jean as a competitor with Rogue for Scott's affections."

Besides mispelling 'severely', I find this to be largly inaccurate. In the 'shipper subset', Rogue is more popular with Gambit, than she is with Scott. And it's unfair to narrow down those who dislike Jean's character to Rogue fans.

Almost every time a character is said to be disliked, this is followed by 'fan reaction mellowed over time'. I find that also untrue, and if not untrue, that statement was without basis.

It also contradicts itself. The section states that fans hated Jean because she was "Mary Sue", among other reasons, and that her most Mary Sue trait was her apparent perfection. However, it is stated that most fans dislike X23 because she is also viewed as a "Mary Sue", when she is not, because she lacks "an opinionated paragon/author surogate". However, doesn't Jean, also? Both have obvious Mary Sue qualities, but one is viewed as a Mary Sue, and the other is brushed off as misinterpretation.

Lastly, this section, I find, is also biased in that it mostly only states positive or negative views.

Overall, I just think that this section should be deleted. Evan 09:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Majin Gojira 11:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I was against deleting this at first, but I see now that the fan reaction section was just a place for various people to splash their attitudes about - totally biased in favor of the last edit. My only concern was with so many people involved with it I felt there had to be a role ... somewhere ... but its not here. I do have one question though: isn't there a difference between an article show POV, and an article talking about various POV?

All of the negative reaction here was to the to specific charcters section, which just got out of control. I think the initial section about concern with its lack of commitment to canon, followed by the items showing detailed knowledge of canon is much less controversial, and adds valid content relating to the series relationship with canon history. Lets put that bit back, but change the title back to "Relationship to Canon History" or whatever it was before it got absorbed into fan reaction.Haverberg 12:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not just devote a section to serious criticism of the show instead of "fan reactions"? It can be substantiated and cited while also dealing with the shows relationship to Marvel canon. Debuskjt 16:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a real need to go that far - I'd think differently if there was literary criticism in the New York Times or even on major comics related sites, but there isn't. I did restore some factual information which had been caught up in all this which had been moved from the "Comparision to Canon History". That content had been relatively on-topic and non-controversial. As for the rest I was uncomfortable with my original edits creating the section in the first place, but did feel there was a possible case for it, or at least, for discussing it which we've done. I'm more than happy to go with the concensus opinion.Haverberg 23:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Season 4 on DVD?

"Season 4 on DVD is predicted to be release around the time of X3 DVD release."

Proof of this? I've never heard anything about it...

There's no proof. Some fans speculate a DVD release around that time (hence the "predicted") but there's been no announcement.

Excuse me, where did you read this??

Doesn't really matter. It was long ago removed from the article as speculation and against Wiki policy. Debuskjt 01:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The artist or whatever, occoring to Wikipedia, hopes to do a cover art for the season 4 DVD, so there is some hope.

So why has Marvel still not released the Season 4 DVD? It has been five years since Season 3 aired. I have emailed both Marvel and Netflix and got no response. After skimming the description of Season 4 here on Wikipedia (didn't want to read it fully, because it was filled with spoilers), I saw no clear explanation here either. The only conclusions I could come up with are 1) the creators felt it's too dark to release as a children's DVD (kind of insulting, as I am an adult who has been reading Marvel comics since kindergarten and am totally convinced it did not harm me in any way), or 2) there are licensing and/or legal issues involved between Marvel and whoever. Does anybody know the answer to this question? I watched the first three seasons on DVD and it's driving me crazy that the last season is not available anywhere. Thanks for the help. Raphael 15:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Romance/Couples Section

This section needs to be expanded or deleted. I know the show has a lot of "shipper" fans, so it might be worthwhile to include a section on romance (particularly the Lance/Kitty or Scott/Rogue elements that were unique to this version of X-Men) but just listing the various pairings is not enough. ~Sandoz

Agreed. That is distinctly biased by the authors opinion. If it's going to be kept, at least provide a little background information, and don't list only a few of them. Especially "Rogue and Scott" and "Wanda and Toad" as if they were actually couples. It was completely one-sided, so say so. This section is missing out on the romance/couple of Duncan and Jean. Obviously, they were meant to be broken up to give way to Scott and Jean, but it doesn't make it any less true.

And in terms of 'major couples', they were Scott and Jean, and Lance and Kitty. Kurt and Amanda weren't introduced until much later. If they are mentioned, Rogue and Gambit are worthy of mention, also.

Hmm... I'll modify it severely, but if there's any real qualms about it, discuss or delete. I'm not sure if a Romance/Couples section is even qualified to be here. Evan 21:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally I would refocus it as "Relationships" and move it to a sub-page for X-Men: Evolution Characters. I think its too detailed for the main page but as a separate page you could also introduce parental, sibling, and collegial relationships as well as rivalries. The series really focused heavily on that side of things so it'd be worth keeping, just not on the main page (although I could see them breifly mentioned in a roundup, as in "The series focused heavily on the relationships between several characters, notable of which are ..." Haverberg 23:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean edit it onto the List of X-Men: Evolution Characters page? Because it'd be out of context in that section. It's a list of characters, not their relationships. Or do you mean create another entirely different subpage? Evan 01:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean as its own sub-page. There's enough content, I think to justify it. Especially if you roll in the other types of relationships onto the page.

I don't think this section is even necessary. Short blurbs could be either added to their character bios on the List of X-Men: Evolution characters page or on the actual character bios in the "Appearance in other media" section. But it just doesn't belong here. Not to mention that it's poorly written, uncited, and largely subjective. I'm going to clean it up, but I actually move to remove it.Debuskjt 00:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Then move it to a subpage.

And this has always bothered me about some people in Wikipedia: 'uncited'? Sweetie, how do you cite anything that came directly from the series? It's fact, out there in the open. There's no official script to reference back to. It's like saying Rogue has a Southern accent, and asking to cite it. How? Most people know Rogue has that accent, but, aside from getting a voice clip, there's no way to cite or prove it, really. It's something you have to take for granted. Evan 01:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if something is extant out there, you still need to cite it. This _is_ Wikipedia, not your blog. At the very least you should give episodes. It's like saying people who write academic papers are pedantic because they expect page numbers. After all, we're sure those words are in the book somewhere! If you cite specific incidents in an article about a TV show, you should list the episode. Some episodes were listed already, but others were not. And you seem to be confused about the point of citations. They aren't to actually prove something (the way a voice clip would), but so others can go back and find the information themselves. And I'm not moving it (and I did not say it should be moved to its own subpage, so I don't know why you would suggest I do that) until a consensus is reached, because that's how revision wars get started. Have some maturity. Debuskjt 06:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I get it. But you need to tone it down just a tad, and be civil. I challenged what you said; I didn't outright attack and insult you, as you did to me. I mean, seriously, sweetie. "Not your blog", "have some maturity"? Was ANY of that necessary? Couldn't you have calmly explained your opinion to me without digitally biting my head off?

And did I say that YOU said move it to a subpage? No. But that's what myself and Haverberg both thought might be a better idea than including it straight into the article. Evan 02:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to bypass the "maturity" discussion and just hope we can move on from there; I do think there needs to be a greater focus on respect, however.

So ... what Wikipedia standards apply? I'm seeing some hard attitudes that are just going to come to grief, so if something is clearly defined by Wikipedia, follow it, and cite the rule. If its not clearly defined, there's a REASON is not clearly defined - don't impose your own standards on something that is open to compromise (the perfect is the enemy of the good, better to be happy than right, blah blah blah blah blah).

[1] is pretty clear. "When reporting facts, Wikipedia articles should cite sources." Though largely geared towards print citations, I don't see why it wouldn't apply here. Luckily, the show itself is readily available, so citing from the primary source is fairly easy. Since the importance/context/content of relationships on the show are largely disputable (particularly in unexplored relationships like the one between Rogue and Gambit), it becomes particularly important to be clear about what exactly happened. Debuskjt 15:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

X-Men Evolution really carried the relationships issues to a pretty broad extent, so my personal opinion is they need to be acknowledged with more than just a sidenote. The first year was almost entirely character and relationship development with the Brotherhood acting more as rivals than enemies, and it wasn't until the Sentinel plot that we saw villains taking significant screen time whom you couldn't hold a conversation with - yes I know there was Magneto, Mystique, Sabes, Juggernaut or the odd Accolyte but they were either "prime movers" for a plot who faded into the background, or they assumed roles that involved extensive relationship building (Risty), or they were the featured villain of the week for the most part.Haverberg 04:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we all agree that relationships were important in the show, but how should we best deal with that? Obviously what you're talking about is way broader than simple romance and dating. But is an X-Men Evolution "relationships" subpage the best approach? Or would it be better to create individual character pages (or a single character page) for the major X-Men Evolution character? Really, the more I think about it, I find the later approach more appealing, since talking about relationships ultimately leads to talking about character development in general, and character development is a lot broader, since it involves the experiences of individual characters on the show. Debuskjt 15:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm more for the relationships page. Including the information about the individual characters is just that--it's not an exploration of the relationships (as said, an important part of X-Men: Evolution), but of the characters, which is different. Evan 22:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to me. You can't write an article about a character's development in the series without exploring the myriad relationships they have with those that impact that development. A Wiki section about the X-Men Evolution Cyclops, for instance, wouldn't be complete without a discussion of Jean, Duncan, and Taryn. You couldn't discuss Nightcrawler without highlighting his relationship with Amanda and his bond with Kitty. Or the fact that Rogue is somewhat of a sibling. But it also allows you to go much further, if need be (for instance, the effect of the holowatch on Nightcrawler's personality), and I think it should be seriously considered. Haverberg touched on a good point about character development--any page that discusses inter-character relationships is going to ultimately fall victim to scope creep, and then it will either need to be re-categorized or broken out into yet another page, which is undesirable. Debuskjt 03:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I see what you're getting at. But individual character articles will negate the List of X-Men: Evolution Characters article, except in the case of the minor ones. Evan 15:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we can keep the list of X-Men: Evolution Characters with the understanding that it would only gloss over the highlights for major characters. I agree now on the idea of individual character pages - you're right, separating the relationship from the character just doesn't make a lot of sense. I remember from an interview I read that each writer was assigned a character from the series which was "their" character to further develop and flesh out, so there should be enough material to justify separate articles for some of them at least. We can probably come up with a short list by scanning the episode guides for shows that focused on individual characters or relationships between two characters beyond their initial introductory episodes, such as "Adrift" and "Power Surge" Haverberg 12:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm coming back over since the tabbing is getting kind of extreme. I think the obvious immediate choices are Cyclops, Jean Grey, Rogue, Nightcrawler, Shadowcat, and Spyke (and maybe Wolverine). The BHood, Professor X, Storm, Beast, Mystique, and Magneto are probably all lower priority in the context of the show (and in that order). Just about everybody else (The New Mutants, Havok, the Acolytes, Angel, Forge, X-23, etc. etc. etc.) were all there to advance the development of the main characters, and are thus better suited to stay on the general characters page. Debuskjt 18:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done a quick read of the episode list and pulled out all the eps which are heavy on developing a specific character (and therefore perhaps deserving of a separate page). This isn't comprehensive, just the best I could work out over ten minutes. I also think the characters who are either introduced or radically changed via X-Men: Evolution should get separate articles as well Haverberg 01:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC) (Evan, X-23, Toad). I am excluding introductory episodes, since everyone gets one of those.

Rogue - Turn of the Rogue, Power Surge, Self Possessed, Cajun Spice

Kurt - Shadowed Past, Shadow Dance, Toad/Witch/Wardrobe

Wolverine - Grim Reminder, X-23

Scott - The Cauldron, Adrift, Blind Alley

Jean - Power Surge, Blind Alley

Evan - African Storm, X-Tream Measures, Uprising

Storm - African Storm

Hank - Retreat

Todd - Toad/Witch/Wardrobe

X-23 - Target X

Gambit - Cajun Spice

I'm happy with whatever works; no strong feelings one way or another on the implementation and I can even live with not having it at all (and the expansion idea was just that - an idea, not a commitment). My concerns are more reactive than proactive. I'm concerned if it stays on the main page, it'll become a target of opportunity for fancruft. If the consensus is that its significant enough to have on the wiki, I think it should be prominant enough with citations and demonstrated wikipedia conformance to deter overzealous editing of the "whack 800 words and leave a Wikipedia is not [X]" variety. Haverberg 03:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Dates

This article doesn't mention when the series actually ran. Can anyone help with this? --Chris Griswold 00:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia/Couples

I loved these articles and wanted to read them but someone keeps on deleting them?Who does this and why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.81.194.124 (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Because, quite simply, they are trivial matters that have no place within a major article. I am the one who keeps reverting them because they violate Wikipedia laws and add nothing of any real substance that isn't noted in a more succint fashion in other articles. And anyway...goofs? Couples? Extremely minor trivia? Why must these things be glorified like this? Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an out-of-universe perspective. Thank you. Dac 11:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

But it helps wikipedia expand!And create further awresness about it among fans.If I'm correct,there used to be a NEWS section as well,what's wrong with that? And many other articles have TRIVIA sections such as Thats so Raven,Beyblade,Titanic so this proves that X-M:E TRIVA deserves to be present in the article.

Wikipedia is not a fan site, it is not here to cater to every need of fans. News sections are more valid as they relate to what happens ABOUT the show, not what happens WITHIN the show, but in any case, as this show has finished there's very little to report that isn't already here under other subheadings. As for other articles having trivia sections, well, the people editing them aren't aren't obeying the rules about avoiding trivia sections. I'm just obeying the rules. And as a final note, most of the trivia you posted has already been listed in other articles relating to this one under different formats; for example, the character article states most of the couples under their respective characters. We don't need them here. Thank you.

By the way, don't forget to sign your posts. Dac 08:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia specifically has guidelines against including trivia in articles. See WP:TRIV. Other articles containing trivia after the point of maturity simply displays a lack of editor vigilance. It's not something to be mimicked here, where past editors worked very hard to work notable "trivia" into the fabric of the article and remove non-notable trivia altogether. Spreading information to fans is not the goal of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. - Debuskjt 16:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wll then,I understand,but go spread the message to the people who are disobeying the rules,otherwise it'll be unfair.

Citecheck template and citations

Periodically I run surveys of articles that use the citecheck template. This specific template applies only to articles that misuse reliable citations, such as quotes taken out of context. Editors who add citecheck to the article should discuss specific misuses on the talk page. I do not see that discussion here although I did remove two citations from the article that were clearly unencyclopedic references to forum posts. Citecheck does not apply to articles that attempt to reference unreliable sources. Recommend choosing a different template. Durova^Charge! 04:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HRFR.jpg

Image:HRFR.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Spike

In the article, someone states that the Spike that appears in X-men the last stand was caucasian. He wasn't. Lance Gibson, the man who portrays him is in fact of African descent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.6.91 (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Cancellation

Hi!

There is not mention of why series was cancelled after fourth season.--Jahilia (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits in the paragraph about the picture of the cast

While Xavier's visions represent the future, the final shot of the assembled cast (used as the main picture for the article) does not seem to have anything to do with continuity, future events, or who joined what, when. Angel, for instance, as well as Gambit, are not team members when the show ends, and show no sign of becoming team members; nor are they members of the 'future' team glimpsed by Xavier. The shot seems to be simply a team photo, showing all the mutants who comprise the X-Men and the New Mutants, as well as other mutants who were X-Men allies in the course of the series (although Gambit's inclusion doesn't exactly fit). Boom-Boom, for instance, never re-joins the New Mutants or moves back to the mansion, as far as we know. She just remains friends with everyone and shows up sometimes. Taking the shot in this sense, the only two missing people are Forge and Moonstar. I'd be interested what the reason is for leaving them out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.142.13 (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Rogue and Cyclops' Powers

The article says Cyclops' powers in the comic book were due to a brain injury. However, recently, it was revealed to be a mental block and psycological. Maybe this should be adjusted to mention that, at the time of the show the comic book canon was one way, but has currently changed. It really doesn't effect Rogue's use of the powers. 70.108.90.133 (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Music

I was just wondering if there is a place I could, hopefully safely, download the the themes listed under the music heading. Does anyone know of such a site? 71.115.141.221 (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)