Talk:X-Factor (comics)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the X-Factor (comics) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Comics: Marvel Mid‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Definition

what does the general term x-factor mean?

An unknown factor affecting the outcome of a process. -Sean Curtin 05:59, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

X Factor

I fail to understand why 'X Factor' point here, not to the disambig page. I'm going to move this off accordingly--XmarkX 08:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't realise that this page was 'X-factor' with a hyphen--XmarkX 08:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

X-Factor (1986-1991)

I just wanted to take issue with the last paragraph of this section: I find the assertion that X-Factor existed "awkwardly" within the broader mythos to be a little too subjective. This might be the case when looking backward from where the franchise was during the early- to mid-nineties, but I would argue that this series should be viewed as the very vehicle that brought those solid original characters back into the fold. It also lent a consistency to the mythos, because it served as both a means to move the 'mutant story' forward while still containing a direct link to its rich past. This was, I feel, especially important during the late 80s when Claremont's 'Uncanny' stories (though I love them) left the parent team in a state of near-constant flux. I think that this period of X-Factor made the movement into what one might call the 'modern age' of X-Men(the early '90s, based on sales, anyway) a lot more fluid. RobM22 11:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)RobM22[reply]

I agree that the "awkwardly" sentence is problematic. For one thing, I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean. Does it mean that it was less closely connected with the other X-titles. Because I think, arguably, sometime between Fall of the Mutants and Inferno, X-Factor became more tightly integrated with Uncanny X-Men than New Mutants was. And Excalibur was arguably the most loosely connected of all. Does it mean that events in X-Factor were significant to the overall X-Men stories? If so, I strongly disagree. Lots of events in X-Factor had repercussions in other titles. Does it mean that X-Factor was awkwardly written. I also disagree with that; I think that statement would need support. Some readers don't like the original X-Factor because it brought Jean Grey back. However, I don't think the article should give that particular the opinion the imprimatur of broad fan consensus. --JamesAM 21:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Grey and the Pheonix

My understanding is that it was John Byrne, not Kurt Busiek, who devised the idea of having Jean Grey be a separate entity from Phoenix. In fact, I recall him saying at the time that he'd been asked how Phoenix could be brought back, and he said, "Well, this is how I'd do it...", outlining the approach eventually used. And, of course, it was Byrne's story in Fantastic Four which offically revealed what "happened". I've never heard of Busiek being involved at all. -mhr 23:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Busiek suggested it to Roger Stern, who suggested it to Byrne. From the rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe FAQ:

2-4. Why is Kurt Busiek credited in FANTASTIC FOUR vol. 1 #286?

When Marvel launched X-FACTOR, a title (originally) starring the five original X-Men, it had a teensy problem: Founding X-Woman Jean Grey had died in X-MEN vol. 1 #137. So a prologue to X-FACTOR was done in AVENGERS vol. 1 #263 and FANTASTIC FOUR vol. 1 #286 that brought Jean back, allowing her to join the team.

Without getting into the details of Jean's "death" and return (which would be on-topic elsewhere), the idea that was used to put her back into play was conceived by Kurt Busiek. Kurt had been a fan when he'd come up with this, but by the time Marvel needed Jean back several pros had gotten wind of it and he was working at Marvel. So Busiek was credited and paid for his concept, but he didn't actually contribute anything else to FF #286. This was _not_ Kurt's first published comics work or how he broke into comics; he'd written for Marvel and other publishers prior to having his idea used here.

One reason for the confusion is that FF writer/artist John Byrne was not credited. This was because he was dissatisfied with unspecified changes made to the issue. He _did_ write the story, and _did_ support the retcon of his own work in X-MEN #137.

There have been many Usenet posts from Busiek confirming that this is how things went, if you feel like searching Google Groups for them. -Sean Curtin 06:22, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Check out the Pheonix Rising trade paperback which features and introduction by Busiek himself where he explains the whole story. Evidently it was an idea he came up with in college and mentioned it to Roger Stern early in Busiek's career and, well, you all know what happened next.

Requested move

X-Factor (superhero) → X-Factor (comics) … Rationale: "X-Factor" isn't the name of an individual superhero; it's the name of a series and the team that it's about. … Please share your opinion at Talk:X-Factor (superhero). --Phoenix-forgotten 18:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support See above. Phoenix-forgotten 18:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Ardenn 20:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: not all incarnations would classify as superhero (ie volume 2 and 3) Dizzy D 22:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support (comics) is the preferred naming. --waffle iron ^talk 22:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the Pheonix Rising' trade paperback which features and introduction by Busiek himself where he explains the whole story. Evidently it was an idea he came up with in college and mentioned it to Roger Stern early in Busiek's career and, well, you all know what happened next.

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Phoenix-forgotten, I actually put in for a requested move in the June 1 section of the Requested moves page. I suggested the same move. You might want to strike or remove yours from June 5. --waffle iron ^talk 22:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Nightst a llion (?) 10:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link fixing

I've gone through and fixed quite a few of the disambig links from the move. There are no more articles that link to X-Factor (superhero), but there are a lot of links to X-Factor (which redirects to X Factor) that are comics related.

You can find the full list at Special:Whatlinkshere/X-Factor. Any help would be appreciated. --waffle iron ^talk 23:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the disambiguation pages for X-Factor should redirect to X Factor. Any pages specifically about the comic book that link there, should be fixed to link to X-Factor (comics). Fortdj33 (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Should X-Factor Investigations be merged with this article?

Survey

Support: This article says itself that "X-Factor" is the name of several different teams and contains roughly the same information as is in X-Factor Investigations. Moreover, the book is still entitled X-Factor. --Newt ΨΦ 00:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose X-Factor has had so many incarnations that lumping them all together makes the article too large. The members of X-Factor Investigations aren't the most continuous with previous incarnations. The way I see it, the articles are currently written so that the X-Factor article is about the team that used that name, not the publication history of the comic books named X-Factor. --waffle iron ^talk 00:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --InShaneee 00:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chris Griswold 06:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is essentially conflating several different series that have little or no overlap except for a common word in their titles. Cribcage 23:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree. That's the idea I was grasping for but couldn't put into the right words. --waffle iron ^talk 23:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A number of characters in the new series were also featured characters in the first series. --Chris Griswold 08:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The three teams that have used a variation of the name have been quite dissimilar: a new younger X-Men team, a set of more international heros under the control of X-Corp and a dectective agency. To argue absolute continuity just because of a name and one or two members seems silly. --waffle iron ^talk 15:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps the focus of the article should be changed to the publication history of the X-Factor books rather than about the fictional teams that are featured in them. This would be more in line with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), and would limit the in-universe treatment of the fictional history contained in the book. It does not seem it would be too difficult to change. --Newt ΨΦ 16:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went ahead and modified the lead to show it's possible to change the focus. I admit it will take further editing of the rest of the article, however, the headings could be seen to already treat the material under the new focus. The focus seemed scattered before anyway, switching between talking about the book and the team without much segue or coherence. --Newt ΨΦ 16:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I agree with Cribcage -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 21:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aznsilver67 15:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Jamdav86 12:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Keeps size of the main article down. --Basique 16:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having X-Factor Investigations cover the latest incarnation on a separate page hurts nothing, and there's already a "see also" on this page in case anyone is interested in the current version. That X-Factor Investigations page does need a little bit of love. It needs an "ongoing storyline" tag. A lot has happened in the last nine issues, and someone needs to chronicle that, I don't even see a Civil War update, External links, or a history section. Give it some love and hopefully the merger threat will go away. --Basique 16:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The two articles only similarity is the name. Keep it seperate, but add an if you were looking for disambig tage at the top.-Giant89 17:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bradtcordeiro 23:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Substatic 09:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision closed with no decision to merge. --Chris Griswold 08:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I did my best to edit X-Factor Investigations to remove extraneous and/or detailed plot information, add a publication history, and cite it. There's not a lot there. It could definitely be merged, and as I found out trying to write the pub history, would probably make more sense if thought of as a continuation of Marvel's usage of the X-Factor title. --Newt ΨΦ 19:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Award nomination

32nd GLAAD Media Awards

---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]