Talk:X-Men: The End

Is this section really necessary? It seems too detailed for a wiki-article. Opinions? Flutterman (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The story is X-Men: The End, meaning the end of the X-Men, so yeah, the fact that most everybody is dead is fairly relevant.--RossF18 (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

(IchBin 07:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)) Corrected spelling errors and some sentence structure.Reply

Is the X-Men/Trainees section supposed to be under the GeNext part?? Is this written well? I don't know the story, and I'm not a big comic book fan, but it does seem a little confusing to me, perhaps it's just the comic book world that's confusing. Tydamann (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

As per numerous policies, unsourced material may be removed. Wikipedia is not a place to cram in your personal feelings about a book. Find some sources for the criticism, or don't put it in. Phil Sandifer 19:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can someone give captions to the covers that tell who the various characters are?

This article needs more information besides the content of the story. For example, when was it published?

I kept the links to the criticism but ... is it noteable criticism? That's why I removed the actual content. If Scott McCloud or Mark Texeria or Joss Whedon weighs in on this book, then sure, link away. Some dude out of Ocala with an internet connection? Not so noteable. In conclusion, the heavy-handed, deep and rough criticism of the book (it's not even canon, people) sat really wrong with me. Lots42 02:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

You critisize "some dude out of Ocala with an internet connection" as a critic, but then go ahead and proclaim that this sits "really wrong with" you and deleat the information without any discussion. I've reverted until proper discussion can be had with more than 2 people and a consensis can be reached about deleating the information. The information is valid in terms of keeping it in. First, the fact that its canon or not is the result of heavy critisim, of both this series and the similar Wolverine: the End series. I think when someone like Claremont, perhaps one of the three most important writers of X-Men, writes X-Men The End, it's pretty authoritative. However, due to the critism, it has now fairly universally became viewed as an one possibility of how X-Men could end or an alternate reality ending. The critisim section, for one, goes to show the controversy at the time about the validity of the story arc as cannon. The very fact that you can now make a statement like "it's not even canon, people" belies the fact that there was a lot of discussion on this point at the time the series came out and this section comments on that. Second, there is nothing in the rulebook for sources in Wikipedia about only puting in information that has been said or written by the big wigs so to speak. While one statement by someone like Whedon or Quesada or Clermont might weight much more than 10 statements by a fan or a critic, the fact remains that an outside source is a source that is valuable, even if manute. In this case, the reason for so many citations at the end of the section is persisely because so many "big wigs" at Marvel have been silent on the issue. Thus, we are forced to use multiple sources from somewhat lesser authorities to support the claim that multiple critics commented on this. Besides, how likely is it that someone at Marvel would actually critisise the series that they actually pushed. It happens and when it does it's big news, but it's unlikely. So the lack of really conclusive source doesn't mean that the information is not valid. Please, by all means, improve it and find other sources to support the claims or disprove the claims if you don't agree, but please don't just deleate the section without any discussion because you do not agree with it, especially if you go on to critize some critic from Ocala (I don't have any idea who he is, by the way) without any support for your criticism. --RossF18 03:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't know who was the first one to link GeNext with X-Men: The End, but with each issue, there seems to be more and more differences between the story lines. Aside from Claremont writing both story lines and both story lines being a possible future with a lot of similarities, judging by Claremont's own interview, the story line follows more directly from X-Men: Vol. 2. It seems that most people who are supposed to be dead are dead so the similarities between X-Men: The End and GeNext outweigh the differences at this point, but having Cyclops alive is a big big difference. And besides, I think this story line might deserve it's own article pretty soon here. --RossF18 (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Genext section refers to an article containing concept art of Warpath and Rogue says that they were originally part of the Genext story. Thats not the case, as the Warpath image by Billy Tan belonged to his then upcoming run on Uncanny X-Men while the Rogue image by Chris Bacchalo belonged to his run the adjectiveless X-Men series. Thus im removing their mentions. IchiGhost (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The character Aliyah Bishop appeared only in X-Men: The End. You can check the following links

• http://www.comicbookdb.com/character.php?ID=12811
• http://www.comicvine.com/aliyah-bishop/29-40909/

Not enought notability and not enought coverage and not enought sources. --Crazy runner (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Merge: She has only appeared in the "The End" storyline, so there is not established notability for her own article. If a future writer decides to bring her back (doubtful) then the articles can be unmerged, so I definitely support a merge and not a deletion of Aliyah. Spidey104 14:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on X-Men: The End. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110319221902/http://forum.newsarama.com:80/showthread.php?t=157047 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=157047

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply