Talk:Deadpool 2/Archive 1

Cable?

Can we note that Cable has been confirmed for this film? Npamusic (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Characters' real names

CAJH, even though Domino and Cable are confirmed to be in this film, their real names are not mentioned in the sources. Should we still keep them? Or do the names border on WP:SYNTH? --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You should ask from other users. They are more strict about these rules than I am. CAJH (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, they definitely are, and overly so.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2018 (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) 10:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The page itself should be a part of the X-Men (film series) page--- BUT that page needs a retitled, as there are multiple series now spawned therefrom. A move has been pushed for several times, with the consensus currently being that it would stay the same, until the studio releases an official title for the franchise.--206.81.136.61 (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

We need a Mummy-Scorpion King film franchise article, as the 1990s/2000s iteration of the Universal Monsters franchise, it was successful (unlike the Dark Universe iteration). Care to do the honors LyraNymph? The Mummy-The Scorpion King film franchise -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Poster Image

The page's poster is terrible resolution/quality with darkness added to it. This needs to be changed to the actual official poster. Also the film's title has changed....--206.81.136.61 (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. You have may have to clear your cache to view it though. The previous version came from here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There's no consensus for page to be moved. The common name appears to be more popular.(non-admin closure) Mahveotm (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Deadpool 2 → The Untitled Deadpool Sequel – Listed as such on official website 196.47.225.15 (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Think this one needs a full WP:RM. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@196.47.225.15 and Lugnuts: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose: As of now the WP:COMMONNAME still appears to be Deadpool 2.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose: We'd never capitalize a non-title that way, and see also WP:THE. If this were moved to something like that, it would be "untitled Deadpool sequel", except that's ambiguous, since there's more than one thing (even more than one thing in this franchise) named Deadpool, so it would have to be something more like "untitled Deadpool film sequel". Anyway, Deadpool 2 does appear to be the common name; it's normal film journalism practice to refer to sequels this way in absence of a more specific title being announced. When the production advances far enough that a real title is known, the article would have to move away from something descriptive ("untitled" whatever) anyway, so its present name really doesn't matter, and Deadpool 2 is actually statistically the most likely final title, anyway. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 21:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose leading "The", neutral on other suggestions. Obviously, the name "The Untitled Deadpool Sequel", definite article included, is unsuitable as an article title. ONR (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Support: In the same way that Spider-Man: Homecoming's sequel will not be titled Spider-Man: Homecoming 2, but the filmmakers still refer to it as such colloquially. Hence, the draft article is titled Untitled Spider-Man: Homecoming sequel --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment you couldn't very well call it Spiderman 2/Spider-Man 2/Spider Man 2/Spider-man 2, there being two other films already being called that, so that's not an analogous case. Untitled Deadpool sequel or untitled Deadpool Sequel is unnecessary when there's already a common name for this. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose: As Triiiple said, the COMMONNAME is still Deadpool 2. And in response to those saying we cannot have an article titled Untitled Deadpool Sequel, note that this could still be an option if it becomes more common because it is the title being used by Fox (meaning, the film is not actually untitled, as some are assuming here) which is sourced in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose: I'm too lazy to write out my reasoning so just read everything above this comment. Don't @ me. --Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose since Deadpool 2 is the common name. I'm fine with stating in the opening sentence that it is not officially titled, but definitely don't open with "Untitled Deadpool Sequel" or have it in general use. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Erik, the source we have in the article (straight from Fox) says that the title Untitled Deadpool Sequel is what they are currently using, so it is not actually untitled at the moment. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The source reports the studio saying, "This film is not yet titled so we are temporarily referring to it as Untitled Deadpool Sequel." There is no such thing as Untitled Deadpool Sequel. Technically, Wikipedia's adaptation of that would be to apply italics to the title and to write in sentence case, meaning "Untitled Deadpool sequel", which is an acceptable but longer-winded variation of Deadpool 2, which we can note is colloquial. All the sources call it that because it's easier to call it that until an official title is set up permanently. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose WP:UCN use the common name, commonly found in use. WP:OFFICIALNAME do not use the official name just because it is in official usage, use the common name. WP:CONCISE use the shorter name. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

NOTE Aidan0007 (talk · contribs) just tried to move this by cut-and-paste move to the proposed title that just failed -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Title

In the given source Fox says “This film is not yet titled so we are temporarily referring to it as Untitled Deadpool Sequel”. We only italics and capitalize titles, not placeholders. ScreenRant / Fox may have their own manual of style but we are not required to follow it. We are only beholden to our own.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

But isn't this a placeholder title? I don't think it is the same as us having no title to use and so referring to the article as "untitled Deadpool sequel". - adamstom97 (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

There’s no title, they say as much in the quote.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

But they then go on to say what they have been referring to it as. What is that, other than a (temporary) title? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

How about putting it in quotes? 'The Untitled Deadpool Sequel' or "untitled Deadpool sequel" ? -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

That's what I did.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It's currently italicized, and not enclosed within quotes (unless you mean wikimarkup, which isn't displayed text, it is code) If this refers to some other revision, I haven't seen it so far. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Triiiple was talking about a previous revision. That formatting would be accurate if there was no title, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. Fox stated that they are referring to the film as Untitled Deadpool Sequel. That sounds like a title to me, even if it is not intended to be an official title. The appropriate formatting either way is to italicise. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no commonly-used title of Untitled Deadpool Sequel, and to present it as such is misleading. We don't put internal references front and center in the opening sentence of a Wikipedia article when they are not widely used. We stick to purely descriptive and acknowledge the colloquial use of Deadpool 2 in the meantime. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has said that "Untitled Deadpool Sequel" is the common title, it is "Deadpool 2" that is the common title. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Why have all references to the title in the article been changed to an unconfirmed title? I can’t find any official sources claiming The Second Coming is the title of the movie, just speculation based on the caption of one piece of promotional material.2600:1:92DC:795E:45B2:36:7590:FE80 (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting

There has been recent news coverage about this film because its release date has changed, and none of the coverage refers to the film as other than Deadpool 2. So to use anything else is to apply undue weight. Editors need to stop playing it up when there is no basis to do that in the sources themselves. We follow the sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. All coverage calls it Deadpool 2. So should we. oknazevad (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Variety calls it Deadpool 2. It'd be nice to have access to some other databases, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Erik: can you explain to me how I am violating WP:NPOV, because it seems to me that you are doing that yourself. NPOV states: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. There are two sides here, the common name and the official name. By removing mention of the official name you are not explaining both sides and are exhibiting editorial bias. You may not like it, but it is the official name and we need to state that in the same way that we would state any official name. I am not advocating for the sole use of the official name, I have already pointed out that we in fact use the common name all throughout the article. But we still need to say what it is actually called in the lead, even if we are going to call it something else later on. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not the official name. If it was the official name, reliable sources would be using it. It is simply an internal name. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 05:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. The people making the movie know what it is actually called. The official name of a movie is not decided from the consensus of interested journalists or internet commentators. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a description, not a title. Whatever their website says, I really doubt Marvel plans to release a movie titled The Untitled Deadpool Sequel. In absence of other official titles, I'd say WP:COMMONNAME applies, wherever that may lead us. (Although, if there was a film in the making that the producers actually want to release as "The Untitled X Sequel", Deadpool would be the best bet...) Daß Wölf 01:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

No one is saying that they are going to release it as such (though they might), just that it is officially referred to as this at the moment, similar to Untitled Avengers film. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, IMO an official title would count for something, but an official description, and such a formulaic one as that, counts for much less. It seems a bit pointless to write something like, "The film's production company refers to it as Untitled Deadpool Sequel." If it were something like an episode's production code, that would make sense, but really, "The film's production company has not yet released an official title", or some such, does a better job here. Daß Wölf 02:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

How is this topic even debatable? The film's official page is with the title The Untitled Deadpool Sequel, and is shown as such on the studio's page as well. At this point that is the official title. Should it be changed in post-production that would be similar to how the Cloverfield films change titles, or how a film takes an official title after a working-title/codename-title has been used. Regardless, given the studio's naming of the film as such...shouldn't an encyclopedia follow? Unofficial names (i.e.: Deadpool 2) are misleading and inaccurate. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I firmly believe that the Deadpool 2 Wikipedia page should be moved to become The Untitled Deadpool Sequel. It seems like that is the official name of the film. The studio itself list The Untitled Deadpool Sequel as their official title. Until or unless the studio refers to the film as Deadpool 2, the Wikipedia article should reflect that

^[1]

Gyasiman (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gyasiman: Please read WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

User:TriiipleThreat, how does your response apply to this issue at all? The examples given for WP:OFFICIALNAMES is more directly associated with historical figures. With a film's official title being different than the page title, it would make more sense to have the page redirect from a reader's search of "Deadpool 2" - directing it to the page, with it's official title being the page-title.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

LOL, WP:COMMONNAME says "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used" and WP:OFFICIALNAME says "[Official English names] should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used". But directly to your proposal it says "If the official name differs from the article name, then there should be a redirect from the official name to the article," not the other way around. For example: we use Dr. Strangelove, not the official title Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Fox presents it as, "The Untitled Deadpool Sequel" on their website - https://www.foxmovies.com/movies/untitled-deadpool-sequel "THE UNTITLED DEADPOOL SEQUEL IN THEATERS MAY 18, 2018" But I agree that Deadpool 2 is fine for the article title, titles on wikipedia are usually shorthand / or common usage, the example of dr strangelove above, theres others too 81.102.13.3 (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

References

[1]
https://www.foxmovies.com/movies/untitled-deadpool-sequel

The Creation of Adam

Second Coming?

Anon IP edits

Anon IP 206.81.136.61 has been making name changes to the cast list, when Deadpool 2 is not even available and the only names we can go by are from the first Deadpool movie. Second, he's relying on first names appearing on sweaters in a jokey parody poster for the movie, and yet he also added last names the first movie did not give. Finally, advertising and marketing materials are not the manifest content of the movie. For characters recurring from the first movie, we can only give the name from the first movie unless an official cast list or official synopsis for Deadpool 2 says different. We can't give names for any new characters in Deadpool 2 until the movie comes out or they're stated in an official cast list or official synopsis. Jokey marketing materials are neither the movie nor an official cast list or official synopsis. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae you choose to ignore official marketing -even though it is indeed official and directly from the studio. The joke is poking fun at Mickey Mouse Club. It's not making fun of the characters. Their first names are all included, which only goes to show that they are being true to the source material. Here's one for ya - in recent MCU movies the characters have only been referenced onscreen by their birth names instead of their superhero aliases, but we all know that Iron Man is Tony Stark / Iron Man. I don't see the need to single out an editor in your comment here^ when they were obviously providing a reliable source; it comes from the movie's official marketing page poster here. It isn't destructive editing (as you have stated in the comments of your reverts several times), and is clearly directly from those involved with creating the movie - who all definitely ave more reliability than your personal opinions - a.k.a. the production team. You, along with any nay-sayers who continually deny that the film's current official title is the meta-title, The Untitled Deadpool Sequel (which is hilarious if you know the character), need to ease up on your inflammatory rhetoric...how much more official can film updatees be, than from the studio creating them? Exactly. I don't think an official cast list exclusively identifies characters, and is definitely not the only way to name characters in a movie. Good find and constructive edit, User:206.81.136.61 206. I for one appreciated them and believe they were helpful for the page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

To keep this very simple, the edits made by this IP were not helpfull, and their attempts to reinsert the information was tantamount to vandalism. I completely agree with Tenebrae's assessment of the poster and its use by the IP. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not vandalism if it's official marketing. That's how simple it is.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no cast list at the URL below, and a goofy Mickey Mouse Club pastiche doesn't mean those are official character names that will be in the movie — which is the only content that matters. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Users: Tenebrae and Adamstom.97 - When the promotional poster was released as official marketing for the film, there's no debate on this one. The joke of the poster is that Deadpool is nothing like Mickey Mouse. If you haven't seen Mickey Mouse Club before, the cast's first names appear on their sweaters. Obviously - that's what the poster does for the characters of the film. I don't see why it's a debate at all. The character's names are all confirmed via the official promotional poster.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. the promotional poster is used on the film's official news subscription page, at www.deadpoolcore.com - at this provided link.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

And none of these things are the movie itself or the official credits, which can change practically up to the day of release. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The film has now officially released (through Ryan Reynolds) a character power-ratings promotional set of videos once again revealing once more the characters' birth names. This once again is solid reference to the earlier marketing posters/images/videos. The animated promos can be viewed here.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

These sorts of things often get made up for marketing, it doesn't mean that they line-up exactly with the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Adamstom.97 - Totally not true. You're now inventing rules regarding a film's marketing. The 'things' you are referencing are official film videos. They are done as trading cards to stay in-line with the whole Deadpool persona. Nothing here is "made up". They were released by Ryan Reynolds on the Deadpool social media pages. You cannot dispute that.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I never disputed any of that. What I am saying is that cute marketing things like this are not the same as the film, and it is WP:SYNTH to assume that this information applies to both. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Your logic behind that boggles my mind... the videos serve the purpose to introduce characters to those who don't know them, and reintroduce those who are fans. It is official character descriptions from the film. How much more specific could it be?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Besides that, Shatterstar's actor has confirmed his role in the film...but you keep reverting the edit. As you don't WP:OWN the page, any editor can add solid information without you reverting it all.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

They are not "official character descriptions from the film". That's the problem. And be careful throwing accusations like that around without anything to back them up. No reliable source confirming Shatterstar's actor has been provided, which is why I keep removing him. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I originally added a source where Lewis Tan confirmed he is in that team photo, and confirmed that speculations regarding him playing Shatterstar are correct. That is solid confirmation from the actor himself. You selectively agree and disagree with sources. When a film's official marketing names characters in its film - that as straightforward black and white as it could possibly get.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Read this entire article. The actor's social media post at the bottom says it all. "You guessed it" after months of fans speculating that he is in the film, in that scene, and playing Shatterstar.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The sources you have provided do not feature any actual confirmation from Tan, and do include a whole lot of SYNTH. We need something more explicit from Tan or the creative team to make a definitive statement here. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Concur with adamstom97. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Official Website

Box office projections for unreleased films

Black Tom Cassidy

Shiori Kutsuna

Stefan Kapičić

Stefan Kapičić is not included in the films billing block. A first film decision won’t suffice as reason to include as I don’t see a consensus for that, as well as there being other actors (Leslie Uggams, Karan Soni) are also returning and not included in the billing block either. What’s the choice of including one and not the others? Rusted AutoParts 23:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the discussion took place, but the decision being referred to was: Kapicic is listed in the main credits of the film, is clearly a major character in the film that is at least on par with NTW, and is widely covered by our reliable sources especially for production and post-production information, and so he may not be in the billing block and may only be a voice actor but it was agreed to add him in based on consensus rather than billing. This is rare, but has happened before when there was consensus that other factors may be involved (not billed because he is a voice actor, or to keep the casting secret for example). So for this film, I carried that over as we tend to do before we get a billing, and then we got the billing and he wasn't listed again but we also learned that he would have a bigger role in the film so it still seemed relevant. Anyway, we will know for sure if the situation is the same when the film comes out next week, and can re-evaluate then. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Favre1fan93: @TriiipleThreat: for some outside input. Rusted AutoParts 03:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The billing block is used as a starting point, but then WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can adjust that as necessary. If it does, then hidden notes should be included explaining such a decision in the article so other editors are aware as to why the billing order may not be followed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

My only issue is I’m not seeing the discussion/consensus in regards to including him in the billing block. Rusted AutoParts 03:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: see this discussion. No consensus was found to have alotted him an exception. I’ll ask you again to undo your edit. Rusted AutoParts 06:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts don't ping me here, when you clearly took your argument to my talk page and told me do revert my edit. No I will not revert my edit, as you are the one that disagrees with the page's original layout (which was including Colossus in the bulleted section). Further more do not WP:OWNBEHAVIOR bullet 5 on my talk page and then ping me to a discussion where you're clearly the only one who doesn't understand the previous format. Colossus is one of the main characters in this movie. The rest of the X-Force (besides Deadpool, Cable, and Domino) could also arguably be moved to the bullets with greater details but Colossus has been there since the film's announcement. Your distaste for such a layout does not render you the page's regulator, nor my boss. You are the one that needs to be more collaborative (to reference the phrasology you used on my talk page several times).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: I’ll ping you where I please, you aren’t my boss. And no, it’s always been the billing block. Kapicic maybe been listed prominently before but that was before the billing block. You’re the one wanting to include him amongst the billing blocked actors, you gain a consensus first. Rusted AutoParts 06:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, ^two editors commented here before me as to why the character is listed above the paragraph section. The paragraph should be arguably small as possible given that cast listings are always in bullet-format. You're the one who disagrees with other editors. Make your argument and move along. And don't boss other editors around anymore while you're at it.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: @TriiipleThreat: asking again for input. @DisneyMetalhead: telling me to “state my case and move along” is bossing me around. You’re not my boss (since we’re playing this little game ;)). Rusted AutoParts 06:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I’ve searched high and low for the discussion you mentioned and just can’t seem to find it. Would you happen to remember some of the other editors who participated in it? This is an issue I’d like to have squared away. And even if it was decided to include him in the first Deadpool I feel there should be a second discussion for this one because this could lead to confusion for many who may not know of an agreement to include a non billing block entry. Rusted AutoParts 03:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I have been avoiding this page until I could see the film (which I have now). If you can't find evidence of a discussion taking place, then it is likely that there was no discussion and that I just made the decision myself when I was revamping Deadpool (film) (I did a huge overhaul of the page to get it to GA a while back). In that case, I would like to have the discussion now, which can include both pages. Having seen this film I would support having both articles formatted as the first film's page currently is (with Kapicic added to the end of the cast). If others disagree, I he can just have his own paragraph below the list. But I strongly feel that it should be the same for both articles as his roles in both films are equivalent and he is similarly credited on screen for each. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m okay with him being included higher if it’s felt he’s deserving of it, I only wanted to confirm this was a consensual decision so as to avoid things like undue weight. Some could see his being put up there and feel that Leslie Uggams or Karan Soni or another member of the cast not included in the billing block should be there too. Rusted AutoParts 17:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: You are clearly aware of this discussion given you have already participated in it, so can you please stop altering the order of the cast list based on your own personal preference and perhaps provide some input to this discussion? Also, you keep adding character names that are not used in the film (including its credits). Don't. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: "Don't"? The character names are pre-established in previous movies and/or marketing materials. Secondly, I give justification for any and all edits that I have ever done on Wikipedia. Thirdly I strongly support the input that Colossus, as one of the main characters of the film and one of the most important roles in the film, should be moved up to the bulleted listing. Having a paragraph about him really doesn't make a lot of sense.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You have been told this hundreds of times at so many different articles that it is just ridiculous, you really should have learned by now. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: "Ridiculous"....? Okay, I refer you to WP:CIVILity - Avoiding incivility, bullets 3, 6, 8 & especially 9 - i.e.: 3. "Try not to get too intense...Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are 'superior'..."; 6. Be professional.; 8. Avoid condescension; & 9. "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment...Even if you see the comment as ridiculous, he or she very probably doesn't, and expressing ridicule is likely only to offend and antagonise, rather than helping." 'Nuff said. As I've stated before failing to acknowledge information that is 'common knowledge' and pre-established in the series isn't ridiculous at all. It's factual. Secondly, this page needs a lot of cleanup. The three paragraphs under the bulleted cast - that looks "ridiculous" (to use your own rhetoric).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You can regurgitate bullet points of any guideline you want, doesn’t change the fact you may consider it “common knowledge” but it doesn’t comply with what sources or the film even says. It’s all by credit and you just either don’t grasp that, or refuse to. And being told not to persist doing something you’ve been doubtlessly told not to do is far from uncivil. Rusted AutoParts 00:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: care to point me to where this “consensus” was formed that caused you to again edit in defiance? The only thing resembling a “consensus” is your opinion. Rusted AutoParts 04:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: You're continuing to show a lack of civility with your comments. You can regurge all the spite you have, even going so far as to back up an editor who has by definition neglected WP:CIVIL. I haven't defied any consensus against Colossus being moved upward on the page. The specific point where the editors reached consensus is when you stated "I’m okay with him being included higher if it’s felt he’s deserving of it, I only wanted to confirm this was a consensual decision". You brought up the debate, and then conceded. The End. Case closed.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: ....you’re not serious, are you? Please say you’re joking because I’d be extremely saddened if you weren’t. You’re choosing to interpret my words the way you want them to be. A consensus has not been formed because the polling in regards to inclusion has not even started. It’s not case closed, far from it. You’ve been told not to force your preferences, you’ve been told not to change the cast format until a decisions been reached. Your defiance will be reverted and it would serve you well to not change it any further until a definitive consensus has been reached. Rusted AutoParts 06:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

...I'm totally serious. Also, the editor you were apparantly waiting to hear from also agreed that Colossus should be higher on the page...--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Calling people uncivil as a defense for your repeated disruptive behaviour is not going to help you. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Poll

Okay, this topic is getting so very frustrating it’s time to definitively decide once and for all the decision here.

@Kailash29792: @TriiipleThreat: @Favre1fan93: @Adamstom.97: @Tenebrae:

The Question: Should Stefan Kapičić be included prominently in the Cast section amongst the actors credited in the films billing block?

(Place vote under the choice you make)

Yes

No

My stance is I’m for whatever but until it’s decided to do or not do, he shouldn’t be there for the time being. That’s not me “conceding” @DisneyMetalhead:. So hopefully this’ll get this sorted. Rusted AutoParts 06:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't exactly remember the credits order in the film, so I say we follow the credits as seen on the poster. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe Tenebrae posted the cast below here. I see Kapicic is included below Uggams, Soni, Marsen and Kutsuna. Doesn’t make Kapicic feel as significant now if we take that into considerstion. Rusted AutoParts 06:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The character is one of the main and most important factors in the film. If you're 'whatever', @Rusted AutoParts:, why the debate?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Also, you need to include all editors that have contributed to this page. An unbiased opinion from addition editors is also suggested here.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia is not a democracy and consensus is not decided based on votes, so I'm not sure what you want to achieve with this section. Secondly, many of the editors who were previously involved in this discussion appear to have not been active at this page for a while, so there is no point in rushing anything until they make themselves known again. And thirdly, you are doing this all wrong. I previously was supportive of giving Kapicic a bullet point, but your reasoning and behaviour is starting to change my mind, as well as the arguments put forth by other editors here. I honestly am quite happy with the current formatting of the section, and will be making a similar change to Deadpool (film) in the near future unless anyone objects to that idea. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah this poll wasn’t my best idea, I got frustrated with it because this just feels like an evolution from talking about this to just a one on one argument with Disney. I’m always repeating myself in saying I am indifferent in the result, if people feel that we should keep the status quo of using the billing block, or if there’s enough editors that feel he should be up higher, it really doesn’t matter to me on that level. I know I’m likely coming off extremely annoying here but I just want to put the matter to bed. Rusted AutoParts 15:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts, I'm glad someone else has pointed out your fundamental faults here. You keep saying that you're 'indifferent' and then claim that when I say you're impartial that it's an incorrect statement. News flash reads: Impartial and Indifferent are synonyms. You need to 'ping' users when you talk about them^ as I pointed out on my talk page. I haven't provided my argument at all, simply stating that he's one of the main characters (i.e.: Part of the main mission, part of the story's climax, part of the "family" that Deadpool has at the end of the film, and possibly going to appear in X-Force). I grow very tired of this particular discussion and your indecisive opinion (is it that you're 'indifferent' or are you going to continue reverting all editors' opinions in moving the character further up on the page). Put the worries 'to bed', and don't forget to tuck them in as well while you're at it.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Credits

Here are the official cast credits, minus a couple of that I've removed since they would constitute pre-release spoilers

Wade Wilson / Deadpool ....................... RYAN REYNOLDS
Cable ............................................................JOSH BROLIN
Vanessa.............................................MORENA BACCARIN
Firefist.................................................. JULIAN DENNISON
Domino ..........................................................ZAZIE BEETZ
Weasel.............................................................. T.J. MILLER
Blind Al.....................................................LESLIE UGGAMS
Dopinder.........................................................KARAN SONI
Negasonic Teenage Warhead ......BRIANNA HILDEBRAND
Black Tom......................................................... JACK KESY
Headmaster.............................................. EDDIE MARSAN
Yukio.......................................................SHIOLI KUTSUNA
Voice of Colossus................................... STEFAN KAPICIC

...

Buck....................................................... RANDAL REEDER
Head Orderly Frye.................................NIKOLAI WITSCHL
Sergei Valishnikov ..................................... THAYR HARRIS
Peter........................................................... ROB DELANEY
Shatterstar.........................................................LEWIS TAN
Zeitgeist.................................................BILL SKARSGARD
Bedlam ...................................................... TERRY CREWS

...

Hong Kong Boss...................................................PAUL WU
Sluggo ...................................................ROBERT MAILLET
Luke – Redneck #1........................................ ALAN TUDYK
Redneck #2 .......................................DICKIE GREENLEAF
Swat Captain (School)...............MICHASHA ARMSTRONG
Child Protective Services Officer.................LISA BUNTING
Bus Driver...................................................JOE DOSERRO
Cable’s Wife .............................................. HAYLEY SALES
Cable’s Daughter..................................... ISLIE HIRVONEN
Tree Trimmer #1 ............................................. JAG ARNEJA
Tree Trimmer #2 .........................................GERRY SOUTH
Prison Guard .................................................MIKE DOPUD
Cereal Kid...............................................LUKE ROESSLER
Neighbor #1................................................ ANDY CANETE
Neighbor #2...............................................TANIS DOLMAN
Neighbor #3.........................................ELEANOR WALKER
Branding Boy...........................................HUNTER DILLON
Older Firefist ..................................................SALA BAKER
News Reporter (Irene).............................. SONIA SUNGER
News Cameraman.....................................PAUL WERNICK
News Helicopter Pilot ..................................RHETT REESE
Chinook Pilot ...........................................ABIOLA UTHMAN
Black Tom Gang Member............................. TONY BAILEY
Priest ..............................................................DAVID COOK
Park Bench Couple........................................ALEX KLINER, ELAINE KLINER
Ground Chuck Mutant ................................. DAVID LEITCH
Vocalist on “Tomorrow”.............................ALICIA MORTON

--Tenebrae (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2018

Black Tom?

The article insists that Jack Kesy plays Black Tom Cassidy in the film, but there is no citation given to confirm this. 208.47.202.254 (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I would assume that since it is out, that he's credited as such in the actual film. We don't need a secondary source if the film actually credits him that way. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

And yet, it seems that we do insist on citations for the rest of the cast members... 208.47.202.254 (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The "rest of cast citations" are pre-existing citations. I haven't seen the film, so I cannot attest to the credit. I'm merely telling you why it might have been. Not only do we generally not remove citations just because we don't need them, in some situations the primary work is the citation (like the crediting of an actor). Now, if someone has seen the film then they can attest to the credit. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The actor plays the character in the film, albeit in a minor role.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Before a film is released the rules insist on a citation for cast members to make sure people aren't making Crystal Ball predictions or other wild speculation without any evidence. Once the film (or tv show) is released then those citations are no longer needed. Many editors don't seem to be aware of the rules but there are so many rules that it is difficult to know them all. If even one person learns something from this comment then it was worth my time writing it. -- 109.78.247.34 (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to say? - adamstom97 (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying most Cast sections are full of redundant and out of date references that don't need to be there.

Many editors still don't understand WP:CRYSTAL is the reason for these citations. Once a film has been released the film itself is the primary source of the cast section, so the references are not needed anymore.

In this particular example there didn't need to be a citation for Black Tom because the film had been released already, confirming he was in the film.

I'm reiterating what Bignole said, because so many editors don't get it, and also this article could do with removing the outdated unnecessary citations from the cast section. -- 109.78.247.34 (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

We should not be removing citations just because the film has been released. Using the film as a primary source on its own is a barely-accepted practice for plot summaries, and stretching it further is just asking for trouble. Having reliable sources to support the info does not hurt. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources for actual information about the film beyond "actor is character" sure. General casting information is sometimes keeping. Old citations from before a film was released that couldn't even confirm which character an actor was playing, are hardly worth keeping, and I'm hope you'll agree are pointless cruft. -- 109.78.247.34 (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Reception

Currently, when I look at the reception section it is pretty much just positive reviews. Reception should hold a balance of positive and negative reviews, regardless of the Rotten Tomatoes score. Given that there are 147 reviews to pull from, it would be a good idea to bring in some negative viewpoints. They also are relying heavily on quoting the critics when they should be summaries of their reviews. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be universally positive, but "finding a balance" can place undue weight on criticism when a movie is well received. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It's still early stages and the article is going to be developed quite a lot over the next while, so the current state of the section doesn't worry me as long as it is improved soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Argento, that's not true. We are a neutral party. We present things in a neutral view. Rotten Tomatoes score shows that there are more positive reviews than negative reviews. The fact that the section contains a fairly equal (or should) amount of both is a reflection of remaining neutral and not ignoring the fact that there are critics that didn't care for the film. To quote WP:MOSFILM#Critical reviews: "To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to sample a reasonable balance of these reviews. This may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. films that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned), and best judgment should again be used." This film isn't universally acclaimed or panned, so that's not a concern (which only exists in those cases simply because there aren't enough reviews in the opposing side to be balanced).

Adam, being a young article doesn't excuse it from NPOV when writing about it, especially when there are clearly available reviews and someone is cherry picking the positive ones over any negative ones. Someone put the effort to do one side. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I stand by my comment. Over the next couple of days, I'm sure this will be sorted out. If you are concerned about the current state, then you could always go ahead and make some changes yourself. And I don't think Argento is wrong to caution against placing undue weight in a reception section, as it is a big issue. However, I do agree that we are probably going to want a more even section in terms of pros and cons from what I have been seeing from reviews so far. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight on criticism would be making it primarily negative reviews when it's not critically panned. You cannot place undue weight on something that was not universally in one direction, as is the case here. We don't proportion what we pull to the percentages at Rotten Tomatoes. The MOS clearly states this, as I pointed out. As for doing it myself, I would if I had seen the movie. Hence why I brought it up here instead of doing it myself. I'm not going to ruin a movie by reading through reviews when clearly, someone else has felt the need to add reviews. I don't subscribe to your testament that "it's new" so it's ok, because that hasn't stopped people from adding reviews. Those same can add some more. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)