Board Thread:Policies/@comment-4548390-20170330210246/@comment-61022-20190601075653

Also, in the past, we have never tossed out prevously established continuity. We have pointed out conflicts, sure, but we have not tossed out what has been said before based on what is the current (and unfleshed out, or unresolved) story in the here and now.

Point of comparison, for ADour's sake being an Iron Man fan and all, the retelling of Iron Man's origins in 2004 where it went from Vietnam to Afganistan. We do not say it was Afganistan and NOT Vietname (or South East Asia to be more generic) we present all sides of all the conflicting info because we know that it will probably change at some point. Leave it open enough for interpretation in other words.

Sidebar on that, you're all fond of not making main pages too lengthy. Inserting the "All-New X-Men" into 60s era continuity makes an excessively long portion. Is All-New X-Men stuff expanded history? Is it main page stuff? We haven't discussed that, at least. In the grand scheme, I'd say that All-New X-Men continuity is LESS important than say the 50+ years of non-All-New-X-Men continuity.

So, again, it's not as simple as accepting it at face value. We're also talking about what is relevant to the main page, or what goes into Expanded History.

I will conceed to an All-New X-Men being part of Earth-616's past if again, you can explain make a compelling argument for it, but also explain how --format wise-- we display it on the site. Because at this point, all we're doing is consoldiating information and saying THIS deserves to be on the main page over this because THIS is newer. Which, I would argue is not the way to look at it.

Especially with the original X-Men. All of them have been through so much change before Bendis did All-New.

So my argument is less about HERE And NOW and more how EVERYTHING fits. We're not DC. It's not reboot every decade. All of it matters. Nothing is discounted.