User talk:Michael Rawdon/Archives 3

This page contains comments from 13 Apr 2004 - 14 Nov 2004.

Bullets-to-numbers

Hi Michael - just wondering why the change from bullets to numbers on certain pages (TNT was one that was in my watchlist) - but I notice only some pages you have edited are changed in this way? --Chuq 01:43, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I change disambiguation pages to numbers as I find them, since I think it's useful to see how many different pages there are listed on a disambig page. It's an unobtrusive way of imparting more information, since bullets impart no information in that way. Other pages, it depends on the context, I guess. I haven't gone on a crusade to change every page I touch in this way, but if I remember to change it, then I do so. -mhr 00:03, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my odd edit on your user page - I was trying to revert to your last version on Gerhard Schröder, and somehow accidentally clicked on your user page instead. john k 01:26, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Edit war on X-Men

Hello Michael,

My name is and last month I extended the X-Men entry into its present form. Anyway, I appreciate that you wanted to contribute to the entry, however, I must take issue with a few of the things you deleted or replaced in your revision:

The first few sentences should include the most important information. The fact that the X-Men debuted in 1963 is important; that it was September was not. Also, given that so many creators have developed the series, the fact that it was created by Lee and Kirby is not important enough to be one of the first bits of information we read. If anyone’s name should be in the first few paragraphs, it should be Chris Claremont’s.
It is important to note some of the defining characters of the series in the opening section. There should be some acknowledgement of at least Magneto, Professor X, Wolverine, Storm, Cyclops and Rogue, especially given that below characters are given more space because of their complexity and continuous presence in the series. Popularity should be noted somewhere.
The term “evil mutants” is old and cliché and shouldn’t be used in the opening section. Marvel did away with it years ago and it is especially inapplicable given the number of characters that have treaded the line between hero and villain (Rogue, Bishop, Colossus, Magneto, Juggernaut, Emma Frost, Mystique)
It is important to note in the “Original X-Men” section that the franchise originated in a particular creative rebirth of Marvel and was not just a fluke
The Phoenix Saga is important to note. Both because it signifies the dawn of the Claremont/Byrne age (God, I sound like such a dork) and because it is at least as important as other plotlines detailed later (Days of the Future’s Past, God Loves Man Kills, The 90s X-Overs) and its clarifying to the description of the Phoenix Saga

Anyway, I would appreciate a response (my e-mail is pnk6@pitt.edu) and look forward to coming to a compromise.

- Nick (July 14th)

Hi Nick -

I couldn't disagree more with your points. :-)

First of all, I was one of the major architects of the previous revision, so I obviously have a preference for a lot of the formatting and wording therein. To address specific points:

It's pretty standard in Wikipedia to refer to specific comic book issues by month and year, so September 1963 should remain.

It's standard and correct to credit creators in the introductory paragraph. They are, after all, the ones ultimately responsible for the creation. While Claremont's place in X-Men history is significant, I think his role is clearly subordinate to that of Lee and Kirby. Heck, Claremont didn't even create the "new" X-Men - they were created (mainly) by Len Wein and Dave Cockrum.

The introductory section definitely should not list individual characters. First, these characters have their own entries in the 'pedia. Second, they are prominently listed in the sections below. Third, this article is about the group, not the individual members. Fourth, which members are the "defining" or "prominent" ones is a matter of opinion (I definitely do not think that Rogue or Nightcrawler belongs in such a list, unless the list is going to include 20 or 30 individuals).

"Evil mutants" was a key part of X-Men mythology for over 25 years (1963-1988), and is included directly in the name of one of their major enemies. The team was founded in part specifically to defend against "evil mutants", so its mention is appropriate.

I don't see any reason to stress that the X-Men were created during Marvel's 1960s renaissance. Indeed, this seems counterproductive because the 1960s X-Men stories were neither creatively nor commercially successful. The book, was, in fact, such a flop that it was one of the few early Marvel titles to get cancelled during the 1960s.

Actually, the early Phoenix/Shi'ar story were mostly drawn and created by Dave Cockrum, not John Byrne. The story itself actually isn't especially noteworthy historically, except for the mutation of Jean Grey. The first major storyline drawn by Byrne was the Magneto yarn a few issues later. The Dark Phoenix Saga is certainly significant (and X-Men #137 is probably one of the most important single issues in comics in the last 50 years), but the background to that story can be easily summarized without resorting to an overly-detailed explanation of X-Men #100-108. (Indeed, such information really belongs in the Phoenix or Jean Grey articles.)

While it would be nice to find a compromise, right now it sounds like we radically disagree on the structure of the article. I've mostly adhered to standard met by many other comic book-related articles, and would prefer to stick to them. In particular, where possible we should avoid the temptation to be overly wordy and (especially) to recapitulate the entire history of the team, rather than hitting the highlights, which casual- or non-comics fans would be most interested in. -mhr 22:01, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Michael,

It is appropriate to mention the publication date of specific comic book issues, but the introductory section should include only the most important information. Is the fact that they debuted in X-Men #1 (September 1963) that important? Those are small details that can go in later. Note that entries for Spider-Man, Superman and Batman do not list the exact months the character made their introduction.
True, it is standard to note list the creators in articles on comic book characters but are the X-Men standard comic book creations? No, they are much more multifaceted. More than any other franchise they have been revised and redefined by a large number of people. The vision of Lee and Kirby is not what most people think of when they think “X-Men.” Again, I am not totally averse to the idea of listing specific creators in the introductory section but just Lee and Kirby seems simplistic and no mention of Claremont, who wrote most of the saga’s best storylines, developed its characters into what they are today, and dedicated 19 years of his life to the series, is criminal.
There are 20 or 30 X-Men as important as Nightcrawler and Rogue?!?!? What series are you reading? Anyway, which characters should be listed in the introductory section is debatable but again I stress that the purpose of the introductory section is to summarize what exactly people think of when the think “X-Men” and what they think are names like Cyclops, Storm, Wolverine ect. Yes, those characters have their own sections. Yes, they are mentioned below, but neither of those facts differentiate them from Thunderbird, Marrow, Longshot and other relatively marginal X-Men. What defines the X-Men should be in the introductory section and these characters define the X-Men.
Again note that the term “evil mutants” has been scraped and think of why; it is old, hokey and a part of a “fan boy speak.” It should be used to describe the team’s main 60s era adversaries but it is too old and obscure a term for the introductory paragraph. It is also misleading to say the X-Men were founded to battle “evil mutants” given the relativity of heroes and villains in the X-Men mythos and given that characters such as Mojo, Juggernaut and the Reavers are a part of their rogue’s gallery.
You have a small reference to the “Marvel Age” in your version but still failing to note the other important characters came about in this movement seems to be mentioning it without adequately defining it.
I checked my Essential X-Men trade and you are correct that most of the Phoenix Saga is illustrated by Dave Cuckrum, but spiritually, it is still the dawn of the X-Men’s prime. Even if the saga were only important for introducing the Phoenix Force, it would be pretty darned important but it also laid the entire groundwork for the intergalactic component of the X-Men mythos. Is it important as the Dark Phoenix Saga or the rebirth of the X-Men in 1975? No, but it is as important as many of the storylines described below so for consistency’s sake at least it, should stay.

I disagree that an article should only include the most basic highlights and not an extensive history. Anyone who looks up the subject wants information and there should be as much as will fit. But to separate the details from the crucial information, there should be a short, well-considered introductory section that includes all the information and only the information that answers the basic question, “What are the X-Men?” and the answer is:

a widely successful comic book franchise
two successful animated series
a successful film series
a mutant super hero team
the team that includes such popular superheroes as Cyclops, Wolverine, Rogue, Storm ect.
a metaphor for civil rights struggles

Anyway, I hope you hear me out and I hope you reconsider a compromise. If not, I am forced to reach out to a third party because the prior version of this article is more complete, better organized, better worded, clearer and more reader-friendly than the current version.

Although, I hate to start an edit war, I will see that my contributions and perspective are included to their fullest unless some agreement is soon reached.

X-Men Dispute

Hi there,

I'm posting this message to everyone involved in the current revert-flurry on X-Men.

As a neutral observer (and X-Men fan!), it seems that there are some pretty major differences in the versions of this article that are being reverted back and forth, and yet no discussion on the Talk:X-Men page. May I suggest that we all try to cool down a little, move the discussion of the article from User talk:Michael Rawdon to Talk:X-Men, and try to hash out some consensus one issue at a time? Reverting back and forth between significantly different versions of the article helps nobody.

Cheers! —Stormie 00:42, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Request for mediation

Hello. Rorschach567 has requested mediation concerning the X-Men article. Would you agree to discuss these issues with Rorschach567 with the help of a mediator? If so, please respond at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation or on my talk page. If there are any mediators you would rather not handle this case, please say so. There is a list of them at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. Angela, member of the Mediation Committee, 05:58, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I responded on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. -mhr 20:00, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, my name is Danny, and I will be helping with the mediation. I think the best way to start would be for you to let me know some of the problems you have been having with the article. Please send them to me in a private email. My address can be found on my user page. Thanks. Looking forward to hearing from you. Danny 19:22, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pallas (disambiguation)

I don't understand your assertion that numbers are more useful than bullets in this disambiguation page. What is the useful meaning of the fact that an obscure British rock band is numbered "4" whereas an asteroid discovered two centuries ago is numbered "5"? What useful information does "4" give us? I've changed them so that they may be closer to chronological, but even now, someone my insert another meaning of the word Pallas between the 4th and 5th, so that the one that was 5th becomes 6th. What useful information comes from knowing that it's 5th in the list, when next week it could become 6th as a result of some unrelated topic getting listed there? Michael Hardy 17:51, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My gut-reaction to your comments about order of significance: I think in many cases that may be the best way, but in some cases, the earlier meanings explain the later ones, and in those cases using chronological order is edifying. Michael Hardy 00:26, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Pallas (disambiguation) for my thoughts on these issues. -mhr 01:52, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Invite

Hi

I'm posting this to invite you to participate in WP:LCOTW , a project you may be interested in. Please consider nominating and/or voting for a suitable article there. Filiocht 12:34, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)