Talk:Deadpool & Wolverine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The starring parameter of the infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Template:Infobox film establishes the starring parameter should be based off the billing block. However, some editors are saying the starring parameter is supposed to be based off the tombstone credits. Do MCU articles really have a different guideline in place for the starring parameter and if yes, what led to this different guideline? Bluerules (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit: Okay, I found the WP:MCUFILMCAST guideline being cited. However, the guideline says "the cast list should be reordered a final time based on the main titles at the end or beginning of the film". The cast list is not the same as the starring parameter of the infobox. Different guidelines apply for each. Bluerules (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:MCUFILMCAST quite explicitly says "infobox" as well. You've also violated WP:3RR with your repeated reverts, please closely read WP:BRD and consider whether or not you shouldn't consider a self-imposed WP:1RR to avoid problems in the future. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:MCUFILMCAST quite explicitly says "infobox" in reference to casting announcements. It literally says nothing about the title credits being used for the infobox. Here's what it actually says:

"Once a film is released, the cast list should be reordered a final time based on the main titles at the end or beginning of the film. Ignore any grouped actor names (usually placed just before or after with and and credits) and note that main titles are not the same thing as the end crawl."

Again, cast list. Zero reference to the infobox. Notice how the guideline for casting announcements, the only guideline to reference the infobox, draws a distinction between the cast section and the infobox.

And I literally said I was done editing after my third revert. Closely read all the guidelines, please. Bluerules (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

A cast list is a cast list the all the same when it is in the prose or its place in the infobox. The policy makes no differing distinction between the prose and the infobox. They are both representations of the cast list.

Please stop. BarntToust (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

No really, we have other things to attend to other than dealing with you misreading policy, @Bluerules. "Draft:Avengers: Doomsday" is one of them. Please just don't drag us through this right now. You're wrong. BarntToust (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong for conflating the cast section and the infobox. Again, note how MOS:FILM, the basis of WP:MCU, makes a clear distinction between the two. Even the MCU policy separates the two. It is wrong to treat them the same. Bluerules (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The cast list and the starring parameter are not the same. Note how MOS:FILM, which WP:MCU is based off, very clearly makes a distinction between the prose and the infobox. The cast section and the infobox are separate entities with separate guidelines.

Please read all of these guidelines. Bluerules (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I did. Nothing proves your point. BarntToust (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Then you didn't read them. Bluerules (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

"Cast list" is both the section and the perameter. no explicit distinction is made between either. You. are. not wrong. you're just not right. The more niche description of the rules takes more precedence over the wider general policy. The niche description happens to refer to both, rather than each separately.

Please stop. BarntToust (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:FILM very clearly puts the cast section and the infobox under different guidelines. The cast section is "primary content"; the infobox is a "non-prose component". WP:MCU may take precedence here because it more niche, but it is still based on MOS:FILM and it still does not say the infobox is supposed to be based on the title credits. It says the title credits are to be used for the "cast list". That is not the starring parameter, that is the actual cast list, the list in the cast section. Again, if they were the same, they would not have been treated differently by MOS:FILM. MOS:FILM is vaguer about the cast section order, so I understand why a more specific rule is in place for the cast section of MCU articles. But Template:Infobox film is very clear about how to write the starring parameter. There is no need to change the guideline, especially when using the title credits over the billing block can make the infobox harder to read due to the larger amount of names.

I'm not stopping until we have better consistency here. I have no problem with using the title credits for the cast section because that's more organized. But again, using the title credits for the starring parameter is a needless deviation from other film articles that will only bloat the infobox. Bluerules (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I will note that the MOS is generally what we should follow unless an overwhelming WP:LOCALCONSENSUS overrides it for a very specific, detailed reason. See examples such as Spider-Man: Homecoming where this cast list and infobox list were adjusted for consensus. We mainly used the main on end credit order for instances where starring actors were not officially confirmed until the film's release (ie Spider-Man: No Way Home and Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. Although, that should actually not be a common practice, and we should primarily be basing this infobox order off of the billing order on the poster. I had presumed there was more of a local consensus to retain these names in the infobox, although, they should not. We only use the bottom billing order for Avengers: Endgame and no additional actors, who are reserved for the prose. The same should apply here. Let's not get overworked about policies vs. guidelines and focus on the content, please. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I assess that the policy for specifics does apply here due to it not covering just certain specific articles. Like how overwhelming consensus was not for just one article, but for all of the films in the project. And how Endgame and Infinity War had to find consensus to not use opening titles, because clearly that was the default. They had to find consensus to not use the opening titles in that specific case. So is this subversion? BarntToust (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Was the discussion for the WP:MCUFILMCAST about one film? Or was it concerning the films in the whole project? BarntToust (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

No. The local consensus of the MCU taskforce does not override or supersede the MOS. The MOS is a policy whereas the MCU taskforce has guidelines, but ought to follow and abide by the MOS first and foremost. IW and Endgame did not use the opening titles because we had the bottom billing. Homecoming, No Way Home, and MoM are the only exceptions that come off the top of my head to the MOS, though I caution this should not become a norm with these comic book media articles. We go by billing first and foremost. The MCU film cast guideline was from a general broad discussion when this taskforce was created and exceptions for those I mentioned were reached via local consensus. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

aha. so to do the opening credits, someone would have to go for a discussion to have them.

They stay in the cast prose, but in the infobox, they are just the 4. BarntToust (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

So to recap: the opening credits are used in the prose, while the poster billing determines the infobox. That follows general and specific consensus down to a tee. BarntToust (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so now that we follow billing first, the producer order gets changed now too, and all the righteously for it. BarntToust (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Some of the other films have inconsistency like Quantumania which has a billing block but uses the main titles instead? This seems like a bigger issue, and the previous Deadpool movies used the billing block both in the infobox and cast list. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay then, we've established that "nobody is above the High Table" with the revelation that we were operating outside MOS, and those past films apply too. The previous Deadpool films don't follow the MCU guidelines, so both the prose and the billing have to be changed. BarntToust (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey, Deadpool 2's infobox and the cast section match the poster's billing block. So, watching Deadpool 2, the opening credits are literally a joke. Literally, a meta-joke in the film. So they follow the billing block. BarntToust (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Quantumania, like NWH and MoM, deviated from the billing block and used the main titles after consensus was found to do so because it included starring actors not in the poster billing. That is acceptable as long as consensus exists. This is not as big of a deal, honestly, and this article using the poster billing is correct as is. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m confused though, because by your logic DP&W should use the main titles as well since it has starring actors not included in the billing block. I’m just trying to make sense of what you’re saying. Or would this also require consensus to use the main titles like Quantumania? MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, should we discuss then? Trailblazer says there needs to be local consensus for the credits to be used. So, I vote aye for the sake of it.

I mean, based on the context of the film, yes, the poster-billed characters have the most screentime, and are the most prominent in the film. Other characters, while they star, they are not as much in the centre so much as the billing block 4 are. BarntToust (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

There would need to be a thoroughly discussed local consensus to deviate from the MOS, although, that should not be a common occurrence and I don't think is necessary here given those other actors did not have as prominent roles in this film compared to the others. The MOS should be upheld first and foremost with exceptions only being a rarity, and that should not become a new normal of this taskforce just for the sake of it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Exactly what I'm saying. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. But kind of in a contradictory fashion, as a way to admit that my first stance did not hold up in the face of what is proper. BarntToust (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:MCUFILMCAST applies to the cast list in the lead, infobox, and cast section. It is not expected that those three lists should differ from one another except for in rare circumstances where local consensus has determined that such a difference is necessary. This film is not one of those cases. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't had this on my watchlist and browsed the above, but the crux of MCUFILMCAST is meant to accurately represent what one can source from the film itself for cast order. Not everyone can access the poster when watching a film, so the film's main (or main-on end) credits are the order we should use (point 4). The vast majority of the time, these represent the same order as the poster's billing block. Posters are created and "printed" weeks before a release, so that's why there can be a difference there. The main credits from the opening of the film should be used here as nothing shows we should deviate from those. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with this. local consensus has been that the credits are to be used in all cases. The MCU project is multi-films, and the local decisions that have been made are NEVER case by case basis: the very element of this project is for continuity for many, and this is a way that makes things informative, and is absolutely functional to give information; there may be many, many different posters, but there is one opening credit sequence, that's why this is done this way. Keep opening title format. BarntToust (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

"local consensus has been that the credits are to be used in all cases" The consensus established by the MCU taskforce was to only deviate from the poster billing when absolutely necessary. I do not think that applies here. The film MOS for infoboxes is to use the poster billing, we should not go against that unless an overwhelming majority consensus is in favor of it (which it is not here). We are being consistent here by following the film MOS and by only listing the billed actors in the infobox in the same order as in the Cast section (and vice versa). There really is no need to add the other actors from the main on-end credits to the starring parameter as, again, they were not as noteworthy or important roles in the grand scheme of things. We can't just change the billed cast lists every time we think some actors should be placed more prominently. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: point 4 of MCUFILMCAST says to follow the onscreen order. I remember InfiniteNexus went through all the films a while back to make sure all were ordered by that and not the poster billing block. We still have our unique cases, but otherwise the on screen order is what's used everywhere. Sorry if I'm misinterpreting your stance, but I was reading it from you as to stick with the poster order, which we shouldn't be doing as the on screen one has superseded that now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I saw no words insinuating that the credits are to be used in all nor some cases, I saw that "when the credits come out, change it to there". It also provides provisions, which I interpreted as "in case the credits suck (I use this word because Deadpool is in the MCU now, and from past behavior, the second film literally made them into a joke) or are somehow liable to take up "half the article" like they would have been in Infinity War and Endgame. It's simply the way it is. I mean, the unity with the new main cast photo in the respective section would have been really aesthetically pleasing, seeing as it's just the billed four, but that does not really work with the established method. I mean, there's specific local MOS for numerous reasons. BarntToust (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I have been away for a few weeks and am slowly going through my watchlist. Skimming through the discussion above, let me clarify a few things. MOS:FILMCAST is a guideline, not policy, meaning it is malleable. WP:MCUFILMCAST is neither a policy nor guideline, but an explanatory supplement documenting the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of the MCU taskforce that builds upon MOS:FILMCAST, which states that any form of billing may be used to order the Cast section. There is no guidance on the infobox. In this case, the MCU taskforce has opted to follow the main titles by default; this was done because there had been a series of Phase Four films that deliberately excluded certain cast members from the billing block for spoiler reasons (Olga Kurylenko in Black Widow, Ben Kingsley in Shang-Chi, Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield in No Way Home, Julia Louis-Dreyfus in Wakanda Forever, etc.), and it also solved previous concerns with The First Avenger (the billing block excluded Hayley Atwell and Sebastian Stan) and Ant-Man (the billing block excluded Anthony Mackie). All of the previous films were adjusted except Infinity War and Endgame because special consensus existed for those. The infobox's template documentation is neither a policy nor guideline, and in any case, clearly states an alternative approach may be determined by local consensus. As with everything, we mustn't be preoccupied with blindly following "the rules" and should use WP:COMMONSENSE — although MCUFILMCAST and MOS:FILMCAST don't explicitly mention the infobox, the infobox should generally follow the Cast section for consistency and simplicity. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Infinite, well explained. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, Bluerules almost had some of us fooled into thinking a guideline was something factual and definitive enough to indomitably and without question stand against an explanation of consensus. Which if you didn't know, consensus can (and in this case does) stand to contradict guidelines, which are pretty much helpers until they are not and consensus for a special, alternate (specific) course of action is found and taken. Like the consensus here, which essentially employs WP:Ignore all rules for reasons that have been detailed above by InfiniteNexus. Don't forget the idea that again, continuity for a multi-subject topic is important, which makes this apply everywhere.

No thanks again to Bluerules, for essentially gaslighting me and probably Trailblazer101 into believing guidelines are always definitive and that the legitimacy of multi-subject projects having specific consensus-based style choices that happen to carry across for continuity is somehow not so. Please don't start up this stuff again here or anywhere else, Blue. WP:AGF tells me to consider that you thought the guidelines were definitive, but really, it'd be best for you to just not unless you'd like to contribute in a way that fosters growth. BarntToust (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I never said Template:Infobox film (which isn't even a guideline) is factual and definitive. What is factual and definitive is the WP:CIVIL policy, which you've violated by accusing me of trying to fool and gaslight people. I feel the starring parameter should use the billing block for the reasons I've stated in this discussion. Others feel the title credits should be used. Whatever the consensus is, I'll follow it, even if I disagree. That's how Wikipedia works. How Wikipedia does not work is accusing other editors of malevolence and trying to discourage them from continuing to edit. That's violating something that is supposed to be followed. Bluerules (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE is using the order that's shorter, easier to verify, more clearly stated, and more commonly used. The billing block order typically has less names than the title credits and we want less to avoid the infobox from cutting too deeply into the prose. The billing block order can be easily verified through the publicly available poster (which is right on this page). The title credits are not publicly available and for this film, we don't even have a way to verify them. We are simply taking other editors at their word about what they remember, which could lead to conflicts if different editors remember different title credits. Template:Infobox film, which was also built through WP:CONSENSUS, is clear on how the starring parameter of the infobox should be written: "In general, use the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release as a rule of thumb for listing starring actors." WP:MCUFILMCAST is not clear on how the starring parameter of the infobox should be written: "Once a film is released, the cast list should be reordered a final time based on the main titles at the end or beginning of the film." This aforementioned "cast list" is vague because it's not clear if it's referring to the cast list in the cast section, the starring parameter of the infobox, or both, which can lead to disagreements over what it's saying, like the one we're having now. By contrast, WP:FILMCAST clearly establishes "the cast list" is referring to the cast section, not the starring parameter. And film articles have consistently used the billing block for their infobox, including the featured film articles. Why are only MCU film articles deviating from this? Because "certain cast members" were excluded from the billing block? If they're excluded, they're excluded; we shouldn't be looking for loopholes to include cast members because we think they should be included in the starring parameter. Getting into who we think should be in the starring parameter, instead of using the concrete and consistently applied billing block, also leads to disagreements like the one we're having. The cast section gives us the freedom to provide sources and other information to justify a cast member's inclusion in the cast list, as well as having more room for more cast members. It is more consistent and simpler to use the billing block for the starring parameter of the infobox. Bluerules (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I have generally not seen a cast list deviate from the infobox. If the article chooses to follow the poster billing block, then both are ordered as such. If it chooses some other method as allowed by WP:FILMCAST, then again both use that. MCUFILMCAST would apply to the cast section, lead, and infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I have not seen an infobox deviate from the billing block on a featured film article. I have seen plenty of cast lists in the cast section deviate from the infobox on featured film articles. There is nothing to suggest the cast section and the infobox should follow the same order. Articles such as Aliens, Baby Driver, Casino Royale, Dredd, The Fifth Element, Ghostbusters, Manhunter, Prometheus, Resident Evil: Apocalypse, Saving Private Ryan, and The Thing differ between the infobox and the cast section, but received featured status. While this is veering into WP:OTHERCONTENT, it is notable these articles all became featured after using the billing block for the infobox and a different order for the cast section, contrary to what others here have recommended. WP:MCUFILMCAST never says the cast section, lead, and infobox should follow the same order - it only mentions a vague "cast list" - and as demonstrated, featured film articles often don't follow this approach.

Respectfully, it is telling that you refer to the cast list in the cast section as simply a "cast list". This demonstrates my point that "cast list" is vaguely defined in WP:MCUFILMCAST and we assume "cast list" refers to the list in the cast section, not both the cast section list and the infobox starring parameter. Template:Infobox film gives a clear recommendation for the starring parameter; WP:MCUFILMCAST does not. Bluerules (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I will add Template:Infobox film states for |starring=: An alternative approach may be determined by local consensus. MCUFILMCAST is that alternate approach. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Template:Infobox film says, "In general, use the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release as a rule of thumb for listing starring actors." The billing block is still the recommended approach. If a consensus sees it differently, that's the will of the consensus. But the consensus should make a compelling case for deviating from the billing block. I'm not seeing that when the billing block is shorter, easier to verify, more clearly stated, and more commonly used. Bluerules (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

There is consensus within the MCU task force to use the onscreen titles for all three cast lists within each film article and that isn't going to change. If you had support from other users with stronger arguments then that would be one thing, but you are just beating a dead horse now. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a consensus within WikiProject Film to use the billing block for the starring parameter and determine the most appropriate list for the cast section. That isn't going to change. If the MCU editors choose to have their own consensus, then I do not have the right to change it, but I do have the right to question it. I still question why MCU film articles deviate from other film articles, including the first two Deadpool films. I will not edit against the consensus, but I will speak out against it. Bluerules (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I will note the infobox documentation is something generally not scrutinized as much as MOS:FILM is (ie when updates happen there, they don't trickle down to the documentation for update if needed), but I am fairly certain most film project participates would agree that which ever option chosen for the body of the article allowed by MOS:FILMCAST should also be followed for the infobox. If you feel strongly about the disparity, I suggest you start a discussion at MOS:FILM or the infobox talk page about it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I was planning on taking this discussion to either WikiProject Film or the MCU task force when I have less going on.

Like I mentioned above, there are many featured film articles - the ones that set practices for other articles to follow - that deviate between the infobox and the cast section. As far as I can tell, the infobox always follows the billing block (if there is one) and the cast section varies depending on what the editors found most appropriate. This tells me most film project participants don't agree the body and the infobox should follow the same option. They may limit the cast section to the billing block, but they don't deviate from the billing block in the infobox and they deviate from the billing block when recommended (e.g. the cast lists for Aliens and The Thing should be more than one name because there's more than one prominent character in each). MOS:FILMCAST is looser in its recommendations than Template:Infobox film, probably because the prose allows for more flexibility than the infobox. Bluerules (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Before the change in consensus, several MCU articles were already making exceptions to WP:FILMCAST by adding cast members not listed in the billing block for spoiler reasons, after discussing on the talk page and achieving consensus. As mentioned, this practice dates back to The First Avenger in 2011 and Ant-Man in 2015. The new consensus only removed the need for duplicate discussions and established consistency across articles. Like the billing block, the main titles are an objective form of billing, and the consensus of those who edit MCU articles is that they are a more accurate representation of the films' cast. This doesn't conflict with WP:FILMCAST (billing (such as from its poster, opening credits, or main on-end credits)) or Template:Infobox film (An alternative approach may be determined by local consensus). If you feel the wording of MCUFILMCAST is to vague, we can discuss how to clarify it. The fact that some FAs are inconsistent between the infobox and the Cast section is irrelevant; two wrongs don't make a right, and while FAs are meant to be the gold standard, they certainly aren't perfect. As for verifying the order of the main titles, there are lots of recordings available online. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:MCUFILMCAST conflicts with WP:FILMCAST by conflating the cast section and the infobox. In MOS:FILM, FILMCAST applies only to the cast section, which is considered primary content in prose. The infobox is treated separately as a non-prose component/template, but MCUFILMCAST gives guidelines for both the cast section and infobox, while saying a vaguely defined "cast list" should follow the main titles. Since MCUFILMCAST conflates the two, unlike FILMCAST and Template:Infobox film, it is unclear if the "cast list" refers to the cast section, the infobox, or both. The "cast list" typically refers to just the cast section.

I'm happy to discuss the wording of MCUFILMCAST, but my main point of contention is still about how to write the infobox. The issues with using the title credits over the billing block for the infobox go beyond the wording of MCUFILMCAST. It's not "some" featured film articles that deviate between the infobox and the cast section; there are many that deviate between the two. It is relevant that featured film articles become the standard without having the infobox and cast section follow the same order. Featured articles may not be perfect, but when they consistently use the billing block for the infobox and often use a different order for the cast section, then perhaps it's the MCU articles that are wrong.

Even though Infobox film permits using alternative approaches, the billing block is still recommended for the starring parameter. The main titles are also an objective form of billing, but the billing block is typically smaller (which fits better in the infobox) and easier to verify. I don't think I need to explain why unauthorized uploads of copyrighted material are not considered valid sources. I know I'm not going to change a consensus by myself, but I still don't see the validity in deviating from the billing block just to add a few cast members who usually don't have a starring role to begin with. We have the cast section to provide a more comprehensive list of who appears in the film. Bluerules (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

We follow the onscreen titles for all cast lists (infobox, lead, cast section). That is what WP:MCUFILMCAST says, and it does not go against any policies or guidelines. You can keep arguing against it but our answer isn't going to change. Again, you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no cast list in the lead; mentioning cast members in prose does not constitute a list. The infobox is not treated as a complete cast list; it is meant to be reserved for those with "starring" roles. MCUFILMCAST only says "the cast list" should follow the main titles without clarifying where "the cast list" is. It goes against MOS:FILM by conflating the cast section and infobox, which have separate guidelines in MOS:FILM. Funny how I'm being told to drop the stick when it's okay for others to reply and argue with me. I was done arguing until I was accused of fooling and gaslighting people. Bluerules (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You are being obstinate and wasting everyone's time. There is very clearly a list of cast members in the lead and the infobox, and there is consensus for MCU film articles that those lists should match the main list in the cast section. No matter how many times you argue otherwise, that is not going to change. So please just stop. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The prose in the lead is clearly not a cast list. A list breaks up information; the lead does not. Refer to MOS:LISTBASICS for the difference between what you claim is a list and what a list actually is. And while the infobox can be considered a list, it is only listing off the cast members who received "starring" designation in some way, not every cast member who deserves mention. I have not seen any other film articles conflate the cast section and the infobox and I have not seen any other articles treat the prose in the lead as a "list". If you think I'm being obstinate and wasting everyone's time, then stop replying. But it's not going to change that every other film article, including the featured film articles, recognize that the cast section and infobox have separate guidelines. Bluerules (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

A list of names is not a list? If you aren't going to be serious, you aren't going to get serious responses. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

A sentence with several names in it is not a list. If you think putting a bunch of items into a paragraph constitutes a list, good luck trying to find all your groceries. MOS:LIST makes it blatantly clear that a list is when the names/items/etc. are broken up. MOS:LISTBASICS flat-out demonstrates that what you claim is a list is not a list. I can't think of anywhere else where this would need to be spelled out. And you say I'm not being serious. Bluerules (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure @Bluerules, "I" have been the person being uncivil here (even when I made provisions that you may have not known about the consensus, which I wasn't either, my bad.). You clearly have, with reckless abandon, ignored the consensus or were unaware of it and obviously continue to bludgeon everyone else about a clear exception to the "general". I even listened to you and was fooled by your incorrectness. Whether or not it was intentional or malicious, which bad-faith is definitely not what your intent is, you have definitely tried to assert your position over ours as being the "correct" way, and have completely ignored or have been oblivious of the in-place consensus. It was indeed not bad, but perhaps the word is gaslighting, since you seem to disregard consensus and have tried to assert your position as, like I've said above, the absolutely proper way, and with this project's consensus "meaning totally nothing". I'm not really going to listen to you anymore when you admit this is not a matter of correctness, but rather "I haven't seen it before, so I have to question it whether I am thoroughly educated on why it is or not." Have you looked at and addressed the logistics of the consensus? No. Why, other than "it's different" are you going on this tangent? We have reasons, we have justification, we have consensus, you have "it hasn't been done like this before". It works. Drop the stick, the poor horse is done for.

Accuse me one more time of being "uncivil". See how much that helps the argument you don't currently have. The other film articles follow their merits of the parameters, but those are irrelevant when they have, with proper discourse, been contradicted for good reason. I advise you to go about your business. You ain't gettin' the last word here, because while this isn't a matter of being right, you definitely are wrong. There's no sense in challenging things that, at the end of the day, don't endanger, defame or kill anyone, and you have many better things to do with your time, as do all of us. Pick your battles please. It has been decided that opening credits are to be used for various reasons, and for continuity's sake, such is to be applied across the board. I trust you are a constructive, helpful, amazing Wikipedia editor, but you have caused a ruckus, and there's no way to sugar-coat it.

Please. stop. We do the credits like this. For good reasons. It's been decided. BarntToust (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I was done with this conversation for three full days when you decided to tag me in a reply claiming I was fooling and gaslighting other editors. You keep telling me to stop arguing, but keep prodding and insulting me. You can deny it all you want, but such comments about me are violations of WP:CIVIL. Then you strawman my position by claiming I'm only opposed to the MCU consensus because it's "different". I'm not ignoring the consensus. Contrary to what you claim, I did address the logistics of the consensus and somehow in your giant wall of text, you failed to actually respond to my arguments.

The title credits are less concise, harder to verify, and based in vague guidelines. You didn't address any of that. Your "reasons" and "justification" involve personal opinions over who should be in the infobox, suggesting unauthorized uploads of copyrighted material could be used as sources, and believing a sentence with names in it is a "list". As far as the other film articles go, you've ignoring the point that the MCU articles aren't simply deviating from other film articles - they're deviating from featured film articles. The other film articles are written the way they are through reasons, justification, and consensus - and most importantly, they obtained featured status. They haven't been contradicted by anything. It's relevant they set examples for other articles to follow, examples that the MCU articles aren't following.

I never said this is a matter of correctness, making this yet another strawman. It's about what's better for the article. I have my position and you have your position. You have a consensus that I will not edit against, while also having to disagree with it. Again, I was done with this conversation when you decided to tag me and accuse me of acting with malevolence. You are in no position to tell anyone else to focus on more important things when you write walls of text like this one and keep the dispute going just to make accusations against other editors. Your consensus is not working when it increases the size of the infobox, contains information that's harder to verify, and following vague guidelines, which leads to disputes like these. When a "ruckus" happens, maybe it wasn't caused by another editor, but instead caused by problems with your guidelines.

It's your right to not follow the billing block on MCU articles, just as it's the right of other editors to follow the billing block on other film articles. But when you claim I don't have an argument and I'm just manipulating other editors, you have no right to demand that I remain silent because I'm going to demonstrate that I do have arguments and I do believe they are better for these articles. Bluerules (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2024

In the lead section replace X "It has grossed over $852.1 million" with "It has grossed $852.1 million"

The film has grossed $852,060,045 which rounds up and is under $852.1 million. Editors probably edited the previous figures in good faith and unintentionally ended up with this mathematical error but this is not a problem that should be happening at all. Qualifiers such as over should not have been used. (It would be weird to write under, it is also weird to write over.)

See also: MOS:LARGENUM "Avoid using "approximately", "about", and similar terms with figures that have merely been approximated or rounded in a normal and expected way, unless the reader might otherwise be misled." -- 109.79.66.250 (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done This word was left in when the numbers were updated and should have been removed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Taylor Swift effect?

Regarding the Marketing section of the article,... the 2024 Superbowl ad spot surely was impactful, but is it fair to go back to October 2023 when Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman were featured at the Chiefs-NY Jets game? In retrospect, that seemed like a marketing ploy. 184.166.97.71 (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Your speculation is not relevant here. So what, they are all friends. Not everything is connected. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh look, two actors show up at a football game. By that logic, I suppose every time Keanu Reeves walks down the street, he's "secretly promoting the next John Wick film"? or when James Gunn posts a cute photo of his cat on Instagram, "he's 'nepotistically' preparing another close family member (the cat) to star in a forthcoming DC Studios film"? Wikipedia ain't the place to propose wild stuff. BarntToust (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

People (in this case, Hugh Jackman) don't just casually travel halfway across the globe to attend - of all events - a measly NY Jets game. Just like AMC Theaters, which is headquartered in Kansas City, doesn't just happen to book theaters for a concert film at the same time Ms. Swift is dating a local football star, or the other way around. These things are marketing ploys (that worked, ntl!), but I digress. 184.166.97.71 (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source confirming that, or is that just your opinion? - adamstom97 (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

What in the Sam Hill are you yapping about IP editor? I've seen more coherent ideas come from the Fox News channel. You are spewing an actual conspiracy theory here. "oh, wow, a football game", probably people who are friends getting together and enjoying what one another does. Please, if you don't want to edit constructively, find a conspiracy theory website and post these outlandish ideas there. Ugh, enough of the concert film screening too. Yep, an area with a market for a paying audience, one that just so happens to be the same city that her boyfriend plays football in. Go to a conspiracy board if you'd like to post things such as this, not a Wikipedia talk page. BarntToust (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It would like to comment that Wikipedia is not a forum. Littlesquirrell (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Songs

How about including a list of the songs that are used as musical backgrounds and mentioning the scenes in which they are heard?"195.244.197.30 (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)"

You would need to cite reliable secondary sources discussing it first. DonQuixote (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Such as this one (mentioned in the FAQ at the top of the page)? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The songs in the film are already mentioned at the dedicated Deadpool & Wolverine (soundtrack) article. I don't think we need to call out individual ones in this article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ryan Reynolds

Template:Ryan Reynolds has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect date

In the 2nd paragraph (on mobile just below the info box) it says that deadpool 3 began development in 2016 but that is impossible because deadpool 2 wouldn't release until 2018 so its very likely this date is wrong 199.247.149.18 (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not incorrect or impossible. As is clearly stated in the article, development on two sequels to the first Deadpool film began at the same time. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

20th Century Studios

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we give them a studio credit like on the Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny article? They have a copyright mention Jediknight15 (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed multiple times, including in the thread right above this one. We need a reliable source to confirm that 20th Century Studios is one of the production companies for this film. A copyright mark on a poster or trailer is not enough. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Deadpool and Wolverine | 20th Century Studios Australia/New ZealandI found this on their page. That enough? Jediknight15 (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That page doesn't explicitly state 20th Century is a production company, and it is likely on their site because they are a copyright holder. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I just came back from the film; when the credits roll, "In association with 20th Century Studios" and "In association with TSG Entertainment" both appear in the credits. I'm not too familiar with policy, so what do we do with this information? GeniusReading2310 (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

based on how we handled the studio's involvement for the pages Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules (2022 film) and Diary of a Wimpy Kid Christmas: Cabin Fever, i suggest that we do the same thing and include an {{efn}} for either Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures or Marvel Studios that reads "The film's copyright is registered to/shared with 20th Century Studios." after looking at the end credits myself, the official copyright notice reads "©2024 20TH CENTURY STUDIOS / © & ™ 2024 MARVEL" continuing, "For purposes of United Kingdom copyright, MVL Film Finance LLC was the owner of the copyright in this film production immediately after it was made." Flyless Kyle (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not mean we ought to do that here. That copyright credit and "In Association With" credit are rather trivial and not related to the distribution, let alone being remotely close to a production credit, so I do not see the validity or use in adding a note on this to the infobox. Most readers do not care about these weird credits, anyway, as these are all just technicalities that all business use, rather than something specifically new for this film. It is still WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to note either of these studio's or their credits at this time. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI, per the MPA's classifications notice that included this film, it lists Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures as distributor, so if there is any official 20th Century credit, it would be as a production company (which at this time, all indications are that was not likely the case). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Although for the Alien Romulus, they still credit 20th Century Studios as distributor, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures is not credited, for Deadpool & Wolverine, it would possibly that the 2021 20th Century Studios logo would appear in the movie as a variant. TCFFanmade2006YT (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing that yet. Even if a logo for that studio appeared, we would still need a reliable source for what its exact involvement or credit is, if any. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I could suggest however that, on the other hand, Avatar 3 should list Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures as distributor rather than credited 20th Century Studios as distributor despite being one of Walt Disney Studios' production companies since Disney's acquisition of 21st Century Fox's properties in 2019. I made a question on Quora about whenever the Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures credit expect to appear in a future 20th Century film following the release of The Amateur (e.g. Avatar 3).

It would be nice if The Amateur itself becoming the last 20th Century film to credit itself as distributor when the film comes out next year if that's confirmed a day before its release on 11th April 2025? SolshineBenie (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not the place for general discussion of 20th Century's credits on other films. Please keep comments relevant to this film. Regardless, we go by what official crediting lists, not our preference. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

My apologies then! SolshineBenie (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

https://x.com/DeadpoolUpdate/status/1802536005053841784?t=upQKHpqWQIGo0EIIsqbNIg&s=19

20th Century Studios involvement is officialy confirmed in the poster of Deadpool & Wolverine, as per Twitter. TCFFanmade2006YT (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Still doesn't confirm how it is involved. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The poster is in the Chinese writing at the moment so we have to wait until the English translation of the poster credits confirm it. SolshineBenie (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

https://x.com/SoraThePanFloof/status/1802861222481834298?t=kh0m5UxWQSBwfa2cBmUmug&s=19

Here we go. Now in English writing 2601:408:701:BD10:AB50:CF1D:DF89:D9E4 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah but as expected, the billing block as no 20th Century mention. Even though this is a blurry, unofficial image, it only has "MARVEL STUDIOS Presents - A KEVIN FEIGE production - A MAXIMUM EFFORT / 21 LAPS production" at the top of the billing block. So still, nothing to add to the infobox. We'll have to wait until the final credits to see what sort of copyright, trademark, or otherwise credit 20th Century gets, if at all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

But that is an official but blurry image SolshineBenie (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, the logo for 20th Century Studios (a copyright holder) appearing on any of these posters does NOT confirm they are a production company. The blurry billing specifically states "Marvel Studios presents A Kevin Feige production A Maximum Effort / 21 Laps Production". Nowhere does it list 20th as among the production companies. If it were one, it would have been in that listing. I think this puts the case to rest and is more similar to Paramount's logo displaying at the end of The Avengers and Iron Man 3. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

We know that but i know before about the Paramount logo does appear in Avengers Assemble and Iron Man 3. So despite the 20th Century Studios logo appearing in that poster, being a co-production of the film still not yet been confirmed and therefore the alternative poster of the film is considered to be a prototype at the moment. SolshineBenie (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's... what I said. Just because 20th isn't credited in this one doesn't mean it will somehow be credited on any new poster. This isn't some "prototype", it is an official poster. We have a source for Disney being the distributor and 20th has never been credited as a production company thus far, so no evidence supports its inclusion whatsoever, even after all this discussion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I see now!! SolshineBenie (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

so not even a logo on the bottom of a poster means anything regarding 20th Century Studios (meaning it'll not open up with the 20th Century Studios logo (with maybe a 4th wall break to show how the Fox logo got in the void) and it'll mean nothing (no copyright or credit either) literally. Even with Paramount Pictures doing the same with Indiana Jones 5, Avengers (2012), and Iron Man 3. And no 20th Century Studios film has been distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures at the end of their films. Why can't Disney give 20th Century Studios credit for something they originally owned until 2019 when they were bought? They're not using the company to disturb their mature content (since Hollywood Pictures is gone) while Disney disturbs the G to PG-13 content. 2601:408:701:BD10:AB50:CF1D:DF89:D9E4 (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thus far, everyone who has pointed to the logo has speculated about 20th Century's involvement without providing any sources that actually back-up those claims. See WP:SYNTHESIS for more on this concept. We cannot go off of a logo alone as proving 20th actually produced this film, and the fact it was not listed as a credited production company in this billing or as a distributor is enough weight that it is not credited other than for holding copyright to the Deadpool and Wolverine characters. We have a source affirming Disney is distributing this film, and it does not matter what other films or studios have done in the past, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. From a real-world perspective, this is not out of the ordinary or hard to grasp upon, so I'm not sure why so many are hung over this logo and studio when it is clearly not directly involved. This talk page is also not the place to speculate about this logo or what it entails, and I will note that any further comments of that notion ought to be removed for being irrelevant, per WP:NOTAFORUM. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you at least state "This Is the first Deadpool film not to have 20th Century Studios' involvement" (the logo in the void doesn't count as being involved) if this turns out to be true when it releases in theaters? 2601:408:701:BD10:AB50:CF1D:DF89:D9E4 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

That is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and unnecessary to state anywhere, either in the lead or otherwise. 20th Century Studios is NOT involved in this and I don't see any sources indicating that will change from now to its release next month. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, you did forget about Lincoln (film), Shopgirl and Bridge of Spies (film). Jediknight15 (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Clearer shot of the billing block. It does seem that 20th Century only is getting a copyright for the film, though I don't know how we reflect that, if we even need to. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it needs a mention (especially in the lead) as that would be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Still not sure why so many cared about this in the first place. 20th isn't credited as a production company, so there really isn't any place to include them unless we have any sources that make light about this in some noteworthy way. At the very least, we may want to include the copyright on the poster file itself (it would be preferable to have the billing on the file, though I know that is not always available). Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I found the American poster with billing here and have since uploaded it, and noted 20th's copyright on the file, as well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

So what does the poster mean for 20th Century Studios? Are they just a copyright holder or are they distributing the film (with the logo shown on the theatrical poster)? Both Deadpool films before this one weren’t produced but distributed by 20th Century Studios (Fox at the time). 2601:408:701:BD10:11A4:44A2:9F4F:F9DF (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

As explained above, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures is the distributor, per this source. 20th Century only receives copyright credit for its involvement in the prior Deadpool films. We don't know if/where it's logo may be shown in the film, either, nor does it mean they are a production company. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Just want to mentions that the source you provided doesn't have any information about Deadpool & Wolverine.

Also, "20th isn't credited as a production company" is no longer can be a proof that 20th Century Studios not join in the production of this film since all New Regency films since 2022 also don't credited 20th as a production company. Plus, I found that IMDB is listed 20th Century Studios as one production company ([1], but I don't think this can be the best support source)

But by the way, instead waste time to argue these things, with I think the best way to conform "is 20th Century Studios received credit for this film" is wait the film's release and eveything will be clear. 2001:1970:57A3:D100:0:0:0:27C8 (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Altough we can not put the IMDB source of Company credits of Deadpool and Wolverine as 20th Century Studios is credited as "co-production, in association with" which the movie is distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures through their Walt Disney Pictures banner, so ofc, let's have hope if the 20th Century Fox logo appears but getting destroyed as a logo variant in the opening. TCFFanmade2006YT (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

https://www.ign.com/movies/deadpool-wolverine

In the IGN page of Deadpool & Wolverine mentions 20th Century Studios as distributor under the name of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. TCFFanmade2006YT (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Those are not the official credits and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation is a former name of 20th Century that is still sometimes used. IGN is also not the best source for these credits, anyway. The facts still stand that 20th Century Studios is NOT a production company or distributor, and I added an FAQ at the top of this talk to emphasize that for anyone else who may have this question. No other sources are going to reliably prove otherwise, so I would encourage those attempting to find a way to justify something that has been proven to be incorrect to just WP:DROPTHESTICK. 20th is only a copyright credit, and I feel this may be the last time I re-explain this for the time being and let the FAQ speak for itself. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to note that the only possible way 20th could be credited in this film is "Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures through the 20th Century Studios label". But nobody can prove this technical knowledge right now. That is how, I believe all modern 20th Century films are distributed, as you'll know that 20th Century's theatrical and home entertainment distribution are handled by Walt Disney Studios MP and Walt Disney Home Ent, respectively. But hey, nobody can prove that, so I agree with you Trailblazer, let's not do anything until we see some receipts. Thank you for putting a great deal of your time into discussing to the other editors just why they don't need to jump the gun on this. With love, BarntToust (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I can support that. SolshineBenie (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing to support here as there is still no reliable source for anything, nor do we know if any source will provide any relevant details about this yet. If a source does eventuate that sheds some light about this copyright credit and logo use, then we can have a separate discussion about it (rather than dragging this on for longer than it needs to be). I will note that the marketing art for The Fantastic Four also include the 20th Century copyright credit, so this is not something inherently new or out of left field. All it takes is time and patience, and may I remind everyone of WP:NORUSH, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. Thank you. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we understand that. SolshineBenie (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I uploaded a new version of the poster image (which now includes the MPA rating box, Hollywood Records' logo, etc.) that was missing from that earlier one. Looks more complete now. It does need to be resized though, so if anyone can do that bit that would be great! I tried myself but I couldn't for the life of me get it to look good without hampering quality! Also, adding my two cents: I completely agree with Trailblazer101's approach to this issue. In situations like these, it's always prudent to take the wait-and-see approach: do not speculate, synthesize info, or theorize! ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 22:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jedi94: I tagged the image for Wikipedia's internal bots to come and reduce the size. Usually the safest/most accurate way to get it done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101 Hey, thanks for again repeating my sentiments on how we treat treat why/how the 20th Century logo appears, and thank you for pointing out the credit of F4 art. I do believe @SolshineBenie was remarking that this is possible, not that anything tangible exists to support. We would do well to understand how most of the companies work in distribution, so we can better comprehend this project we all seem so dedicated to work on. I wanna thank you once again for explaining and carrying discourse around this topic. I think that if anything comes of this, a new discussion is needed. It does take a bit of scrolling to get here to add a comment, lol! Thank you for establishing order to this discussion, it really helps to benefit this article. With much love, BarntToust (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 it's on this in this article as followed:

"Hugh Jackman as Logan in 'Deadpool & Wolverine'. 20TH CENTURY STUDIOS/MARVEL - https://ew.com/deadpool-and-wolverine-cover-story-cameos-future-marvel-mutants-ryan-reynolds-hugh-jackman-8672079 2600:6C5D:0:A41:EC69:8561:4580:1FD6 (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@2600:6C5D:0:A41:EC69:8561:4580:1FD6

also:

https://www.20thcenturystudios.com.au/movies/deadpool-and-wolverine 2600:6C5D:0:A41:EC69:8561:4580:1FD6 (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, that is just a copyright credit that 20th retains for this film. It does not confirm them as a production company. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Via sources like Variety and Metacritic: A Walt Disney Motion Pictures Studios release of a Marvel Studios production, in association with 20th Century Studios, TSG Entertainment. Producers: Kevin Feige, Ryan Reynolds, Shawn Levy, Lauren Shuler Donner. Executive producers: Louis D’Esposito, Wendy Jacobson, Mary McLaglen, Josh McLaglen, Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick, George Dewey, Simon Kinberg 2601:408:701:BD10:CDEA:41D4:9D54:57DD (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Per page 3 of the official credits PDF, 20th Century Studios and TSG Entertainment's "In Association With" credit is not the same as a production credit. Again, this is a Marvel Studios / Maximum Effort / 21 Laps Entertainment production. 20th's copyright credit and TSG co-financing the film DO NOT make them production companies, and they are clearly not credited as such. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

If anyone has seen the film, please let us know if the 20th Century Studios logo appears in it as an actual opening logo. Thanks! Mattgelo (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

That would change literally nothing. The logo is not shown in the end credits with the others (as seen from pages 27-29 here), and even if it were just the logo shown on screen, that would not change the fact that 20th Century Studios is ONLY credited for the copyright and "In Association With", but not as a production company. No technicalities will change that, even after all this discussion, no evidence has proved 20th being a production studio. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK, this is clearly not going to turn out any differently than it has already. As someone who is seeing the film tomorrow at midnight and works at a movie theater reviewing the footage, this will not matter in the grand scheme of things. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say to add 20th as a production/distribution company here, I was just curious, and I know it will not change a thing. Anyways, hope you enjoy the movie :) Mattgelo (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Then that falls under WP:NOTAFORUM. Please keep discussion here for any contributions to this article and refrain from making any general comments, as those are not appropriate here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Final time: My guess of the logo appearing is the same reason you see the Paramount logo on The Avengers, Iron Man 3, and Indiana Jones: and the Dial Of Destiny. So, my guess is, you'll still see the 20th Century Studios logo in the opening (and maybe at the end), but it'll say "Disturbed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures". I heard people say from their non-spoiler review that this is released under the 20th Century banner. So rather than complaining that it's not, we just watch the movie once it officially releases in our country (for me this friday because im from the United States) and then well see if thats true (and plus Disney usually has a banner to disturb R-rated films. And since Touchstone is dead, 20th Century Studios will probably be used instead) 2601:408:701:BD10:2651:5EE2:F196:ABF9 (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

That is all WP:OR and not appropriate to theorize here. Please stop making these comments as this crosses WP:NOTAFORUM. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Since you probably came back im gonna guess: 20th Century Studios only received copyright holding credit and with association credit too and the film doesnt open up with the 20th Century Studios logo. Is that correct? (Not trying to be mean) 2601:408:701:BD10:2651:5EE2:F196:ABF9 (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I can affirm that, as with many prior MCU films, no other logos are in the opening other than Marvel Studios' (no Disney, no 20th, etc). Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

can we give them a studio credit note like iron man 3 and Indiana jones 5? Jediknight15 (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

That is not how this works. The studio is not credited as a production studio. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Trailblazer101 (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jediknight15, kindly refrain from readding Deadpool & Wolverine in the 20th Century Studios's article despite the discussion here saying that the aforementioned studio is not involved in the production. I'm not sure why you insist on adding the studio here (and listing the film in the studio's article) despite multiple editors already providing source/s. Centcom08 (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Centcom08 I did not add that movie in the article, i only added the present date as the franchise is still going. by that logic, why has Star Wars still got a "present date"? Fox hasnt been involved in it since 2005 and maybe some re releases. Jediknight15 (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I noted about the film's "In association with" credits in the production section where we talked about TSG here. This feels acceptable and a way for us to at least note 20th Century as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a very brief mention like that feels appropriate, Favre1fan93. Considering all the Fox-era copyrighted material that is in this film, 20th Century Studios's minimal involvement here (and I stretch the use of the word "involvement") is at most just a legacy associate credit, ("in association with") like Paramount had with two other MCU films. There is no 20th Century Studios logo that opens this film, only Marvel Studios. Nothing more needs to be mentioned of it, and that includes within the infobox parameters, aside from perhaps a footnote denoting to a reader what Trailblazer101 has been extensively explaining for the last couple of months. But even that may just be catering to a select audience...~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 16:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you can add on distributor based on what Forbes said.

source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timlammers/2024/07/25/when-is-deadpool--wolverine-coming-to-digital-streaming-and-disney/ 122.3.133.206 (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Forbes is not reliable for this and doesn't support it. The material Favre added is sufficient and covers the relevant information. I don't think we need to explain this in a note as 20th was never known to be involved in a production/distribution manner, and that was only baseless speculation that I don't believe amounts to us addressing on here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing with just the single mention in the top part of the article. Since it's the conclusion of 20th Century's film series, I think mentioning that connection really brings the whole thing together. Doesn't even need to be long as what Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny did with the Paramount mention, I think just adding "in association with 20th Century Studios [and TSG Entertainment; optional]" in between the "produced by" and "distributed by" sections in the opening sentence would be enough to suffice. IAmNMFlores (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

As I have explained multiple times, that would be placing WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on that as the credit does not merit any actual involvement in the film's production and is only given because 20th was involved in the past and has copyright holding. We already note these credits at the end of the "Filming" section where it is relevant, though it does not need to be in the lead. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh I didn't notice that before. Yeah that's fair. IAmNMFlores (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Do I have the go ahead to add a citation next to the Marvel Studios production company that says "While the film is released under the Marvel Studios banner, the film is copyrighted to 20th Century Studios." I'm asking before I do that so I can find out if it helps to avoid confusion with distribution and production companies for this film? GTAGamer245 (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

No, this does not need to be noted as 20th Century's copyright status is not relevant to the production companies. Marvel Studios is the main production company. See the multiple times I have explained this in this very discussion. 20th's involvement (or lack thereof) is not that notable to warrant this type of mention. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.