Talk:Avengers vs. X-Men

Disambiguation

If there a page for the 1980's 4-issue minseries with a similar title? I'm looking for it, and if it exists, I would have appreciated a disambiguation link at the top of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.220.6 (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

X-Men: Schism

I noticed that the Avengers vs. X-Men article references another storyline named X-Men: Schism, but there is no page for such storyline. Shouldn't someone create it, to help people understand the X-Men' situation by the beginning of AvX? I can help writing it, but I don't have a Wikipedia user account to create it by myself... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.4.202 (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There is now a page.--88.111.125.204 (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Weekly? Monthly?

Is the core 12-issue series weekly, monthly, or something else? 38.111.35.2 (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It is biweekly. That is, one issue released every two weeks; two issues released per month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.4.202 (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Some issues were an excpetion to this such as 10!--88.111.125.204 (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

sales section

I think the sales section is far too blow-by-blow, especially given there's a chart immediately above it showing the figures. How about "Avengers vs. X-Men dominated the sales charts, and was only beaten to the #1 spot only by The Walking Dead #100 in July, and Uncanny Avengers #1 in October." (appropriately referenced, obv). It's really hard to make out the forest for the trees in the paragraph we have at the moment, which frankly reads like a machine-generated attempt to turn a tabular data into English. Morwen (Talk) 17:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, editors often complain that they cannot develop good comic book articles because of the lack of coverage by reliable sources and coming from a background in film articles, where this type of analytical coverage is encouraged, I know it can be done. It should be any different though it might not be as interesting to read as Giant Man punting Wolverine out of plane. The information is straight forward and easy to grasp. Also I added the chart to illustrate the prose, not the other way around.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The answer is not simply balancing out the appallingly written blow-by-blow plot summaries by having equally dreadful prose about sales figures or critical receptions. It is one of the worst paragraphs I have ever seen on a Wikipedia article in grammatical English. It makes User:Rambot's paragraphs look like poetry. Morwen (Talk) 19:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Nor should the answer be to reduce one of the most notable WP:real world aspects of the series into a single sentence snippet.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The particular count of comics sold per issue, down to 6 significant figures, is not real-world notable. That it is was consistently the number 1 seller (barring a few exceptional events and a series spinning out of it) over the summer is. I've suggested wording that establishes that. If you think we need more, then yeah, fine. But that paragraph reads like it ought to be a wikitable. Morwen (Talk) 19:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. I have an idea that might work.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)±

I mean, actually make it a table and then have a sentence like the one I had summarising it, by all means! Morwen (Talk) 20:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, check back in a couple of hours.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sweet. I will. Morwen (Talk) 20:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that much better now? So, next my attention will turn to Avengers_vs._X-Men#Core_miniseries_3. There are 3 very long paragraphs, one for each reviewer, each systematically giving a rating, and a (usually) a quote for every issue of the series, in order. It looks like a wall of text.

It does not provide information about what the consensus between reviewers was, the reader has to derive that for themselves. And since we're doing this with a wall of text per reviewer, you have to keep flicking back and forward and finding your place.

On the other hand, this is a tricky issue - each issue was reviewed independently and there aren't any overall looking back reviews are there (artistically reviewing every single issue of a modern comic as a work in itself seems like reviewing every 5 minutes of a film individually, but that's hardly something we can do anything about) - and it's not obvious to me how to structure this either. One thing we might try is split it into three sections, not by source, but by act. Morwen (Talk) 10:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any consensus between reviews and looking back the reviews vary widely. What I did was add a table, to help readers with side-by-side comparison.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)