Talk:Deadpool (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Plot dispute

You (User:Adamstom.97) got me on WP:3RR, but your arguments are laughable:

• "generally poor changes" - no details
• "unnecessary added wordiness or minor elements that do not need to be mentioned in a general summary, plus some changes for changes [sic] sake": The alleged "added wordiness or minor elements" added a staggering three bytes to the length. My second version shortened it by 55.

As for my changes to the older version quoted below:

• It is an important detail that they didn't know Wade was a mutant beforehand.
• "causing Wilson to develop a mutant healing factor": He doesn't develop one; it was latent in him and activated.
• "attempts to return to Vanessa, but is afraid of her seeing his new appearance": clumsy phrasing
• "Wilson decides to hunt down Ajax and cure his disfigurement." ditto
• "He demands a cure to his disfigurement": This is wordy. We already know what the cure is for.
• "Deadpool and Weasel attempt to get to Vanessa first": This is one of the "minor elements that do not need to be mentioned". Also, I just noticed that it's inconsistent to call him Wilson before and Deadpool here.
• "Deadpool convinces Colossus and Negasonic to help him, and the trio attack the site.": My version is shorter and clearer.
• "reveals that there is no cure for Deadpool's disfigurement": How many times do you have to explain what the cure is for? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I applaud Clarityfiend coming here to discuss the plot changes. I'd suggest that being hostile and calling another editor's work "laughable" may not be the most constructive and collaborative way to speak.

Unless the film (not the comics) specifically says Deadpool is a mutant and that the healing factor was a latent mutation, then we can't say it. I don't recall that, but I've only seen it once.

It would be helpful if Clarityfiend would add his "shorter and clearer" or less "clumsy phrasing" here for side-by-side comparison.--Tenebrae (talk)

The drug activates latent mutations, it doesn't create them. Nobody knew if Wade was a mutant, and Ajax commented that if he wasn't, all the pain would be for nothing, or words to that effect.

"attempts to return to Vanessa, but is afraid of her seeing his new appearance"" vs. "cannot bring himself to contact Vanessa, afraid of how she would react to his new appearance"

"Wilson decides to hunt down Ajax and cure his disfigurement." vs. "Wilson decides to hunt down Ajax for the cure." (This is actually an improved version of what I originally wrote.)

Yes, I was pissed that both sets of changes I wrote were rejected out of hand with "unconvincing" rationalizations. And now that I think about it, Adamstom.97 violated 3RR. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand that you are unhappy with how this played out, and I admit that I could have handled the situation better, so I apologise. I just want the best for the article, and so am happy to discuss any of these points further. First, here is a response to each of your changes:

• "an experimental cure" -> "a cure" – the fact that the cure is experimental is significant, since there is no actual "cure" for terminal cancer, and it goes wrong later in the plot (its not like a proven cure that goes wrong to an error in surgery or something).
• "days of torture to induce stress and trigger the mutation, but without success" -> "days of torture to induce stress to try to trigger any mutation he may have, but without success" – "to try to" is redundant and unnecessary, we are already stating their intentions. And the mutation has already been discussed, which is why "the mutation" is all that needs to be said. If you feel like the initial description is inadequate, then we could discuss that.

• "to try to" is not redundant: as I've repeatedly pointed out, they didn't know if Wade was a mutant.

• But we are already saying that they are trying it. "days of torture to induce stress and trigger the mutation" does not, in any way, imply that it will happen. And we immediately say that it doesn't.

• "survives the ordeal and attempts to return to Vanessa, but is afraid of her seeing his new appearance" -> "survives the ordeal, but does not return to Vanessa, afraid of how she would react to his new appearance" – this is incorrect. He attempts to return to her, then realises that he doesn't want her to see him and starts avoiding her.

• "attempts to return" and "her seeing his new appearance" both sound very awkward. Perhaps "seeks out Vanessa, but then does not reveal he is alive, afraid of how she would react to his new appearance"?

• I'm fine with that.

• "Deadpool questions and murders many of Ajax's men" -> "Deadpool seeks out, questions and murders Ajax's men" – of course he had to seek them out if he managed to question and then murder them.

• He goes to a lot of trouble to track them down individually. Your version gives the impression (or at least allows the possibility/ambiguity) that they're all together in one convenient spot. Also, stylistically, three elements in a series is nice.

• Whether they are together or not is irrelevant.

• "He demands a cure to his disfigurement, but is interrupted" -> "He is interrupted" – he is interrupted doing what? If you feel it is not necessary to repeat the cure line, then a shortened version referencing the earlier discussion? "He demands the cure, but is interrupted"

• That last one is acceptable.

• "several soldiers" -> "some soldiers" – there are more than just "some" soldiers there, from what I recall, and I believe 'several' is generally considered to mean more than 'some'.

• Are you a native English speaker? Because "several" is generally thought of as less than "some".

• Yes, I am a native English speaker. And a quick google of "some vs. several" came up with multiple suggestions that "several" means more than "some".

• "equipment stabilizing" -> "structure stabilizing" – could go either way on this one, but structure seem more vague.

• Structures hold things up.

• So does stabilising equipment.

• "and Colossus" -> "while Colossus" – also could go either way on this one.

• Stylistically, "and" is inferior IMO.

• "Ajax survives and attacks Deadpool again, but reveals that there is no cure" -> "Ajax survives and attacks Deadpool again, but after being subdued reveals that there is no cure" – I actually think there is a better way than both to do this bit. Perhaps "Ajax survives and attacks Deadpool again, but is subdued. He reveals that there is no cure"

• Redundant to say he survives, unless he's Zombie Ajax. "When Ajax attacks again, Deadpool subdues him. Then Ajax reveals there is no cure."? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think it is still important to note for the flow of the summary, given we just made a big deal of the collapse and how the others managed to survive. Just ignoring him until he attacks again is confusing. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, am happy to discuss this further and come to some sort of consensus for the changes. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2017

88.177.135.201 (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DonQuixote (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Deadpool (film series)

It has spawned its own film series separate from the X-Men film series, like how The Scorpion King relates to The Mummy. Need a little help in expanding this draft before even considering proposing a split. Be prepared! Lyra-Nymph (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you build a film franchise article for The Mummy-The Scorpion King film franchise, the 1990s-2000s iteration of the Universal Monsters franchise, that was prior to the last few attempts to launch the Dark Universe iteration. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add a hatnote to the Dirty Harry film

This page is about the 2016 comic book movie. For the 1998 Dirty Harry film, see The Dead Pool.

{{about|the 2016 comic book movie|the 1998 Dirty Harry film|The Dead Pool}}

-- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 07:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Post Credits scene addition

Please mention the post credits scene at the end of the movie, as it teases the sequel, Deadpool 2.

In a post credits scene, deadpool tells the audience "its over" and to "go home", and teases that the sequel will feature cable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.253.169.20 (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox formatting for parameter

When I viewed this article and the article for Deadpool 2 on one of my computers, I noticed there appeared to be a typo in the infobox. The "based on" parameter was displayed as "byFabian Nicieza" for this article and as "byRobLiefeld" on Deadpool 2. The format for this parameter was written as: "Based on|Deadpool|Fabian Nicieza|Rob Liefeld".

Wanting this typo corrected, I checked the articles on other X-Men films to see if the same typo was present in the infobox. It was not and this was due to the fact that the format was different, with the names being separated with "< br >" (no spaces) instead of "|". For example, the infobox for Origins reads "Based on|Wolverine|Roy Thomas< br >Len Wein< br / >John Romita, Sr." and the infobox for The Wolverine reads "Based on|Wolverine|Chris Claremont< br >Frank Miller".

On a different computer, I saw that the "byFabianNicieza" typo does not appear with the current formatting, but it does still appear on the aforementioned computer of mine. So as the "|" character in the "based on" parameter appears to be creating a typo on certain computers and the "< br >" appears to be the proper format due to its usage on other articles, I am inquiring if any other editors are in favor of changing the formatting for this infobox parameter. Bluerules (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

As I have explained elsewhere, if a template is displaying incorrectly then that is a template issue. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not a template issue if the general template is displaying correctly. The only thing displaying incorrectly in the infobox template is the "based on" parameter, due to the formatting. As I said, if both formatting approaches present the same appearance on most, if not all computers, there is no correct or incorrect format; the result is the same. However, if one formatting approach is creating issues and making it appear as if a parameter contains a typo, then using a different formatting approach that does not create such an issue is recommended. Bluerules (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be confused. The template that you say is not working is Template:Based on. And if you go there, it pretty explicitly says don't use <br />. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I see what caused the misunderstanding here; by "template", I was referring to the infobox template as a whole, not the "based on" parameter. Yes, the issue is with the formatting of the "based on" parameter. If that's what the policy states, even though I do not see difference between "|" and "< br >", then I won't argue further on adding the latter to the article and I've changed the Deadpool 2 formatting to restore the "|". The "byFabian / byRob" typo is also no longer appearing on my computer with this formatting, although I cannot speak for anyone else who may still be seeing this. If the template is no longer displaying incorrectly for anyone, then this matter is likely resolved. Bluerules (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The issue appears to be quite random, so I'm not sure if it is actually fixed or not. I have left a note at Template talk:Based on anyway, hopefully someone with knowledge of the template is able to sort it out. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I obviously can't speak for anyone else who might be seeing the issue, and I can't say what's causing it either. I can at least say it does not appear to be showing up for me anymore. Thanks for the help, hopefully this will be resolved fully soon. Bluerules (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Short Films & Promotional Videos

Would someone be able to find a place for this information on this page? All of these videos star Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool.

In the lead up to the release of Deadpool, a short film and a series of promotional videos all starring Ryan Reynolds as Wade Wilson / Deadpool were made.

Short Film:

• How Deadpool Spent Halloween

Promotional Videos:

• Touch Yourself Tonight
• Touch Yourself Tonight: Just for Her
• Rootin’ For Deadpool
• Cat-astrophe Averted
• Manchester United Dream
• 12 Days Of Deadpool

References

Rights to Ego

I do not understand how the rights to Marvel characters are divided up. How is Ego the Living Planet possibly owned by Fox? He first appeared in a Thor comic, and isn't particularly associated with either the X-Men or the Fantastic Four. None of this makes any sense. john k (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It does seem confusing. Perhaps it is to do with the number of Fantastic Four and X-Men comics he has appeared in, even if he was never any more associated with them than he is with Thor? - adamstom97 (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Reason for genre classification?

Any reason why Deadpool and Deadpool 2's wiki articles only allowed "Superhero" as a general genre while Kick-Ass and Kick-Ass 2's wiki articles allowed "Black Comedy" to be appended to the "Superhero" general genre? Both film series are very similar in terms of content and genres involved, and both film series relied heavily on comedy - enough to be given mention for the Kick-Ass film series. So why not do that for Deadpool film series as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.180.159.2 (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Per MOS:FILM we only include the primary genre, which in the case of Deadpool is "superhero". If other article do not follow that guideline then that is there problem and should probably be addressed. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Introduction

Are we sure that a paragraph describing casting and the selection of actors really belongs in the introduction? Isn't the intro just supposed to be a brief summary of what the movie IS and what it's ABOUT, rather than a place for detailed technical information about the film? This is stuff that belongs under a section titled "Casting" about 3/4 of the way down the page, not in the introduction.

Idumea47b (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEAD, the lead section of a Wikipedia article gives an overview of the entire topic, summarising "the body of the article with appropriate weight". The cast of the film is noted throughout the article, and their casting is mentioned in the appropriate place in the body. Those elements are then summarised into a short listing in the lead's first paragraph, and a single clause in the second paragraph noting when the overall casting process began. If that is not due weight, then it is less so (but I think you will agree that we do not need to add anymore to the lead about the cast and casting process ). - adamstom97 (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)