Talk:Deadpool (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Original source for Film release date?

Shouldn't the original source of the release date be added to the page? Here's the source. Also those last http://'s need to be sourced properly. 2601:C:780:234:AD23:CD86:6456:C2A9 (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ed Skerin?

What happened to his inclusion on the film? Was he ever confirmed to be apearing in the film or is he still in talks for the role? Npamusic (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Synopsis and official logo/costume revealed.

Here's a sourceNpamusic (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Ed Skrein confirmed via Official Website.

I'll add him to the page. Npamusic (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Ed Skrein is playing "Ridge" in Deadpool

here is the source: source 1. Npamusic (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

R-Rating confirmed by Ryan Reynolds and Joblo.

Here's the source Npamusic (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Not really relevant to the article, but it's fantastic news! Sock (tock talk) 22:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Are we sure it's not an April Fool's joke? And I think this can be covered somewhat, because this was a big question in the industry if a Deadpool film could be pulled off if Fox wanted to go PG-13. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

If we find strong enough third party sources, there might be some warrant to adding this. (And I stand corrected on my statement above about April Fools.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's your source, from the actor's twitter. [2] ZeEnergizer (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

ZeEnergizer, the link no longer exists. Npamusic (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sock (tock talk) It actually is relevant because it has been debated among comic fans and critics/journalists alike about the rating of the film. Npamusic (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

But there was never any point in which anyone confirmed a rating. Usually, we only include rating information if there was a dispute over the rating (like with Blue Is the Warmest Colour or But I'm a Cheerleader). I suppose a sentence stating that the rating was undecided would be fine, but we need at least one other source to back up that the studio was unsure of which way it'd go. Sock (tock talk) 04:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

here are a couple sources: source 1, source 2, source 3. source 4. Npamusic (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The R-rating does satisfy WP:FILMRATINGS in one sense: there is some significance in the rating, because Deadpool is the first X-Men film to receive that rating (but in my home country, X3 was certified "adults only", despite being PG-13 abroad.) Kailash29792 (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Then add it somewhere on the page Npamusic (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Citations and archiving

We have WP:OVERCITING here — the cast does not have to footnoted in both the cast section AND the prose casting section. If it's cited in the latter, there is no need to double-cite it in the former.

Also, this article is way in need of archive links. I've added one or two but there are a lot of footnotes and if every editor could do one or two it would spread the work around and we could get it done before links have a chance to rot — as two of them already did that I rescued. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

12 Days of Deadpool

Though MOS:Film didn't exactly specify this kind of marketing campaign, it doesn't exclude to the rule of "Do not merely identify and describe the content of customary marketing methods such as trailers TV spots radio ads & posters Instead use reliable sources to provide useful commentary about a method". It is still a marketing method. Mind you, a trailer is more qualified as an encyclopedic material than this one, and a trailer requires a critical commentary just to pass MOS. User:Favre1fan93, if you cannot find critical commentary to back this "12 Days of Deadpool", then don't put it here, plain and simple. We just cannot list down every marketing method in film articles. Thats why certain some marketing methods and marketing partners were removed in the film articles of Fantastic Four (2015 film) and X-Men: Days of Future Past for the lack of useful/critical commentary. You put this article for review, and this "12 Days of Deadpool" would be criticize for its lack of useful commentary. You might as well include magazine covers and TV interviews just because MOS:Film didn't specifically mention it, if we are going with your logic.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMMARKETING: "A film's marketing campaign may be detailed in its Wikipedia article if reliable sources exist." Y "Do not merely identify and describe the content of customary marketing methods such as trailers, TV spots, radio ads, and posters." (their emphasis) we don't have any of those (yet). Y From you: "You put this article for review, and this "12 Days of Deadpool" would be criticize for its lack of useful commentary." No it wouldn't, because we have not gone against the MOS. This is the umbrella title for a marketing campaign. If we were to further state as such "On X date, a new poster came out." That would fail the MOS. This is all leading up to a new trailer, which then we would need the critical commentary. For a comparable situation, see on Guardians of the Galaxy (film) (a Good Article I might add) the inclusion in its marketing section, the "Galaxy Getaways" viral marketing. It is the same premise as this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thats what you basically wrote, you just identified and described what Fox was trying to do with these teasers which would lead to the 2nd trailer release. Nothing different from just copying and pasting from a news site. And the marketing section requires useful commentary. And viral marketing needs useful critical commentary, go check the film article of Cloverfield.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like User:Favre1fan93 chose to ignore what I said. Interesting how he chose to bring up a "good article" while MOS:Film clearly stated this:

"Do not merely identify and describe the content of customary marketing methods such as trailers, TV spots, radio ads, and posters. Instead, use reliable sources to provide useful commentary about a method, such as a trailer's intended effect or the audience's reported reaction to it. For example, the viral marketing campaign for Cloverfield began with an untitled teaser trailer that generated strong hype."

So see? Viral websites aren't exception to this. Favre1fan93 basically merely identified and describe the content of customary marketing method which is the issue here. If we cannot mention posters, trailers without including an useful commentary, I don't see the point of even mentioning this one since its not even as notable and important to the subject compare to a trailer or a teaser poster.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Karan Soni as Dopinder, the cab driver

He's seen in the TV Spot released yesterday. Npamusic (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

IMAX Poster released

An IMAX theatrical release poster was released as a part of the '12 Days of Deadpool' campaign. I have added it as the poster on the page, seeing as it is more detailed and overall looks more epic and superhero-y. However, it has been removed several times, and I think that this is something that should be remedied. The poster can be seen via, x-menfilms.com which includes other X-Men film information and posters as well.

We don't use IMAX posters in the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Favre1fan93: I have no opinion on this nor care about the outcome, but ... is the precedence for not using IMAX posters documented somewhere as a policy or guideline? I'm just curious so that I can refer to the precedence later. Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943: As far as I'm aware, no. But I've always seen/had it told to me, you'd want the image to give a general overview of the film, so you use the general release teaser first, if it exists, and eventually the theatrical poster. IMAX posters, or character posters, are specialized ones that aren't meant to encompass the whole film, as it were, just a specific aspect of it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943: Feel free to use the IMAX poster as there's no rule for not using IMAX posters in infoboxes.The poster also showcaess the other characters in the film which is more ideal to use IMO compare to the current poster used in the article. If Favre1fan93 reverts your edit, then I'll revert his edit since there's already a 2 against 1 consensus regarding using the IMAX poster in the infobox and there was never a rule/guideline that "WE" editors don't use IMAX posters in the infobox.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Steel1943. I thought it was confusing to be that way as well. The IMAX poster is more detailed, and shows a lot more of what the film will entail. I think any film poster that expresses the film's premise more definitively aught to be the image for the page, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.81.136.61 (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Umm... I don't understand what is going here on regards to me ... I don't support or oppose the IMAX poster. Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

SuperHotWiki is right there are no rules but the infobox image should ideally be the generally most representative version of the film and/or its marketing. The IMAX version, with its limited number of screens, does not accurately portray the general release of the film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

SuperHotWiki is also wrong in that consensus does not equal numbers of votes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• And just like that someone reverted the image back to the cheeseball poster that really has nothing to do with the fact that the "the infobox image should ideally be the generally most representative version of the film and/or its marketing" as :::TriiipleThreat just stated.

The micromanaging that goes on on this site is so petty - overly so. Just looking at the trailers for the film, and then looking at the IMAX version of the poster anyone can see that the IMAX one is a more accurate description/depiction of what the film will be. 'Nuff said. - Burningblue52 {talk} 02:52, 04 January 2016 (UTC)

Archiving links

I've done a couple just now, and I'd urge all the editors who work on this page regularly to start going through and archiving citation links at Archive.org and/or WebCitation.org. Otherwise, it's very likely that in a year, 20-25% of these links may be dead. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Movie Rating

Favre1fan93, you have repeatedly deleted mention about the film's rating because "there is not substantial coverage about it". That is not true, there has been substantial coverage about it. Seeing as how it's the first R-rated Marvel film, you can't expect that there wouldn't be.

Here is a sample of the substantial coverage:

"Meet Deadpool, the first 'hard-R' rated superhero." - Entertainment Weekly

"R-Rated 'Deadpool' Trailer Panders To The Converted" -Forbes

"Confirmed: ‘Deadpool’ Will Of Course Be Rated R" -Screenrant

"'Deadpool' Star Ryan Reynolds Gets R-Rated in Hilarious Comic-Con Interview" -Entertainment Weekly

"What Deadpool's Hard R-Rating Means for the Movie" - Moviepilot

"Comic Con 2015: Deadpool Trailer Puts R-Rating to Good Use" -IGN

In other words, the film's R-rating has generated significant amount of coverage about its impact and how it will affect the movie for viewers. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Finding reliable sources is the first step, now add the coverage to the article. Per WP:FILMRATINGS this should include "how a film is produced to target specific audiences, the late editing of a film to acquire a specific rating, or controversy over whether or not a film's rating was appropriately assigned." The MOS also suggests that the coverage be include in the release section but can be covered in other parts of body.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure that Blade and Blade II were both R-rated, and such jingocentric coverage about an arbitrary rating established on a completely localised basis does not belong in the article or any article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Punisher War Zone also definitely has to be an R film. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I find there to be sufficient coverage from reliable sources to mention the film rating in the article. It is not the first such film to get an R rating, but it is rare. This mentions that rarity and also mentions Punisher: War Zone. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This does state that this would be Fox's first R-rated film for a Marvel character. Punisher War Zone was produced by Lionsgate. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

"Fox films for a Marvel character" is such a small subset, I don't thing that factoid alone satisfies WP:FILMRATINGS. It could however be mentioned with more in depth coverage of the R-rating as suggested by the guideline.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Also the wording "will be the first" is problematic as we don't know how the MPAA will rule. "Intended" is better.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:FILMRATING is being interpreted too strictly here; I was involved with writing these guidelines. They are not limited to the examples written down; it says, "Coverage of ratings can include..." The essence of the guidelines is that a rating needs to be talked about in some tangible capacity to warrant mentioning it in the Wikipedia article. I find that is being done here and see potential to have content in the article body. The original problem was not ratings being written about in the wrong way, it was ratings just being plopped into the articles without encyclopedic merit, only serving to tell readers if it was okay to see a film. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I actually think there would be more merit in discussing the rating if it wasn't R. Ever since the film was announced, online communities debated, "Would Fox actually make the film R to be faithful to the comics, or conform to the bottom line and get more ticket sales by making it PG-13?" So since they did make it R, I feel as though this is a non issue, because if it went the PG-13 route, the coverage would be more in line with what WP:FILMRATING is looking for IMO. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:FILMRATING is not looking for specific coverage. It just requires coverage to warrant writing about ratings in Wikipedia articles. Editors can determine a consensus about whether or not to include the coverage linked above, but WP:FILMRATING does not dictate the kind of content. While your argument holds water, we have to remember not to assume readers' knowledge of these matters. Superhero films in general are intended to be blockbusters, so studios do not want to restrict their audience too much. So it is worthwhile to put Deadpool in the context of these films. If others really do not see an opportunity now, we can keep a lookout for commentary when MPAA officially announces the rating, as well as follow-up marketing and the theatrical release itself. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, the reason why it's been getting so much coverage is because it's the first Fox R-rated superhero movie. It's significance has been mentioned by multiple outlets, and that is why it satisfies WP:FILMRATING. If people don't want to mention it, I'd like there to be a consensus not to include it first. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's be clear here, if there is a reason to add it (and there isn't because it's a simple rating applied by a manufactured system), it definitely is not some made up achievement like it being Fox's first R-rated superhero film. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are reasons here that have been articulated. I don't understand the dismissive stance claiming that there is no reason at all. Wikipedia summarizes coverage from secondary sources, and these exist here to leverage, and WP:FILMRATING does not forbid using this coverage. Whatever consensus we determine should not be bound to that guideline. I find the bar being set too high here. Even Featured Article Prometheus (2012 film)#Post-production summarizes coverage about its "simple rating applied by a manufactured system". Ratings can indeed be absurd, but it is up to us editors to document the filmmaking and marketing decisions behind them. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Prometheus discusses the film being made with full-on horror content but being filmed deliberately so that if the studio turned around at the last minute and said they wanted a teen-friendly cut to make more money, then that could be achieved without harming the overall film. The edit being made on this article is simply to declare it R-rated and proclaim this as Fox's first R-Rated superhero film which is not a notable thing. If there is something to be said about the R-rating such as impact on finances, or reasoning why, that could be included, but not that it is Fox's first R-rated superhero film. It's also even more untrue considering there is an R-rated cut of Daredevil out there. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Now that the film has been officially rated R, I guess we can add it? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Release date

Release date is the 12th in the US only

It is released in the UK on the 10th, and a lot of other places in Europe on the 11th. Can the article be changed to reflect this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypohamish (talk • contribs) 05:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Actor's challenges

Here's a source on that: [3]. Hula Hup (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Official Running Time for Deadpool

The official run time for Deadpool has been classified by the BBFC as 108 minutes (1 hour and 48 minutes long). Here's the link for proof: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/deadpool-2016. Please insert the new runtime on the Deadpool movie wiki page.

And it has been used. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2016

the budget of this film is 40 million USD End yourself kid (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for this? JMcGowan2 (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 23:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

All reliable sources say the budget is modest, yet undisclosed.Pistongrinder (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

uk release date

| released =

• February 10, 2016 (2016-02-10) (UK)

Gamereaper95 (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Per WP:FILMRELEASE. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Torture

The wording "subjected to days of torture methods" is surely wrong. Subjected to days of torture, or subjected to days of painful treatment is surely more accurate.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Good catch on that unwieldy, wordy phrasing. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

First Rated R Marvel movie needs to be changed...

In the Box Office section, it says "The Hollywood Reporter called it "no small feat" considering it's the first Marvel superhero film to be rated R."

This should either be completely ommited or changed since it is not the first Rated R Marvel movie.

DrkBlueXG (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not a Marvel movie either. It's a fox movie of a Marvel property. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Rob Hayter as Bob, Agent of HYDRA inclusion as cameo to list?

He was in the film during the end fight scene and is credited on imdb, should he listed? §Marky Guerrero (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Box Office Record Breakers are Over Abundant

I get that the movie set new records, but do we really need to list such Petty Records such as: February Preview, February IMAX Preview, R-Rated IMAX Preview, Winter Season Opening Weekend, Holiday/Long Weekend Opening Weekend, R-Rated PLF Opening Weekend.

What's next? Record for R-Rated Movie with Man in Red Tights IMAX Opening Weekend? Record for February Best Long Weekend Holiday Season for Sunday at 3:20PM R-Rated IMAX Opening PLF Weekend?

Come on, It needs to be trimmed.

DrkBlueXG (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2016

Ryan Reynolds mentioned but his name is not a link ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Reynolds ) in Summary frame in Starring section. 194.69.104.60 (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done It is linked above as he is a producer. A persons name is to only be linked once in infoboxes. CrashUnderride 13:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to this infobox rule? I can't seem to find it and because it's not intuitive I'd like to see the explanation for it given somewhere. Thanks! DangerMouseMA (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Cut scene

This link elaborates on a scene cut due to its vulgar nature: [4]. Hula Hup (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why you pointed this out. However, I do find it interesting that there is no mention of the movie's "R" rating in this article. This is not unheard of for superhero movies, but it is a first for 20th Century Fox. Seems noteworthy enough to me (see Wikipedia:Notability). I'm wondering if it ought to be mentioned, perhaps in the "Release" section. I see from above that this was discussed at length last year, but nothing ever came of it.Pistongrinder (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Please note WP:FILMRATING. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Good to know.Pistongrinder (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The exclusion of that scene could illustrate a future mention of the R rating. The source also says that two actors came up with lines, which should be mentioned as part of the film's development. Hula Hup (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The movie's rating is now included in the lead and the "Box Office" section, which state that Deadpool had the biggest opening ever for an R-rated movie. I think that settles the matter.Pistongrinder (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"Weapon X"?

I don't believe it's ever stated outright that the program is actually the Weapon X program. I believe it's not because of comments made by director Tim Miller. Where is the source for that information? Isn't it a variant on the Weapon X program without actually being program itself? Can someone clarify this? I know Ed has said its weapon x, but he doesn't out right say it to that affect, making it confirmed. It wasn't even stated in the film itself. Npamusic (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

the facility is called 'the Workshop'. Npamusic (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2016

"Wade turns to Vanessa, and removes his mask to show her his face."

should read

"Wade turns to Vanessa who removes his mask, revealing his face."

since SHE REMOVES THE MASK (he remains too embarrassed), which is part of her showing him that she loves and accepts him regardless of what he might look like.

The ref below isn't the best, but at least it's third party verification of what I just saw in the movie (finished it 15ish minutes ago, looked it up because I was curious about something, then saw this inaccuracy--just trying to help)

Trumpsashithead (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

References

North american box office records.

The north american box office records list is a little excessive. Perhaps we could put a show/hide button on it?  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  00:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Cannonball, Garrison Kane

This section needs to be changed. As it reads right now Cannonball is the one with metal arms and Kane is the hickboy. The reverse is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.72.159.179 (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Opening credits

Is there a good spot somewhere to mention the unique/unconventional opening credits of the film, which list no real names but jokes about the cast and crew (i.e. "The Comic Relief" instead of T.J. Miller)? That seems like a noteworthy detail worth including in this article, I'm just not sure where or how it should be presented.Pistongrinder (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Unless we can find something like a critic praising that aspect, I can't really think of a good place for it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Andre Tricoteux

The are no sources that say that Andre Tricoteux gave the on set motion capture performance for Colossus. He was only credited as the stunt double for Colossus. There are sources that sya he was cast as Colossus, but then replaced. So unless someone adds a new source that say he was, please do not add that Andre Tricoteux gave the on set motion capture performance for Colossus. JDDJS (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I have added a new source for this. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2016

69.121.136.113 (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Lots of people die in this movie!!!!

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Weapon X program is NOT featured in this film!

Francis clearly states in the film that it is the Workshop, not the Weapon X program. Ajax actor obviously misspoke when he was doing his interview. It's clearly stated in the film. Here is a source to back this claim: source 1 - I cant seem to find any other sources but he doesn't call it the 'Weapon X' program in the film, he calls it the Workshop. Npamusic (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The source you just provided explains that the Workshop is part of Weapon X. But they are talking about the comics anyway and state that the film is less clear. So all we can really go off is the film, which refers to a workshop, and one of the actors, who says it is part of Weapon X. Hence we mention the Weapon X connection, but not in the plot section since the name wasn't used in the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

well if anything gets a mention in the Cast section it should go as followed - "Ed Skrein as Francis Freeman/Ajax: The owner of the Workshop, a variant of the Weapon X program who blah blah blah". It couldn't hurt. Npamusic (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

But you are making that up. We can't decide ourselves that this is "the Workshop, a variant of the Weapon X program", we can only go on what we have been told, which is that he is part of the Weapon X progrom, but they obviously decided not to use that name in the film, perhaps because they in general tried to avoid the continuity of the other films. So again, we should say Weapon X, but not in the plot summary. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this an X-Men film?

I'm confused because some people say it is not part of the x-men film series. When I saw some edits of this page, one person edit out the x-men reference saying that it is not an x-men film citing Ryan Reynolds, before it was undo and put back in the x-men film thing. So is Deadpool really part of the x-men film series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:648:8503:282E:949B:15FF:91CE:173C (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This is being discussed over at Talk:X-Men (film series) as well, and the short answer is yes. Deadpool is a spin-off of X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which is a spin-off of the original X-Men trilogy. So though the film tells its own story and is ultimately pretty separate from the other films, it is still part of the overall film series (just as Rogue One will be a part of the Star Wars film series, even if it is telling its own separate story from the current Star Wars saga films; that is what spin-offs are). - adamstom97 (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Post Credits Scene

Since there seems to be a bit of an Edit War with including the Post Credits Scene in the Plot Section; maybe there can be a compromise with adding the info from the Post Credits Scene from the Plot Section to the Sequel section? DrkBlueXG (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Been of the party that it should be included, especially since every recent Marvel movie has had mentions of events happening in the post-credits sequence, not to mention the original source of material, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, also had the post-credits scene mentioned in its plot summary.Dibol (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it depends on how it is written. It should be included if it is written so as to further the plot of the franchise (as many such summaries for other Marvel movies are). Unfortunately, the plot summary here is a bit of a mess anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I feel post-credits scenes in general should only be included when they involve prominent aspects of the plot. This isn't one of them. Even if other Marvel movies have post-credit scenes worth mentioning, this one doesn't really since Wade is just saying that the movie is over and that there will be a sequel. It's not like he's saying what will happen in the sequel or what happened in between the ending and post-credits bit. Nothing really major. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

At the moment, the summary reads "In a post-credits scene parodying Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Wade bids the audience to leave because the movie is over. Wade however has a change of heart and announces a sequel featuring Cable before reminding the audience to pick up their trash." That is obviously ridiculous and completely un-encyclopaedic. I would be fine with something more like "In a post-credits scene, Deadpool talks to the audience (parodying Ferris Bueller's Day Off[ref]), announcing that there will be a sequel to Deadpool, and that the character Cable will be featured." However, this information can easily be included elsewhere in the article (most of it already is, actually), so I guess I aggree with SNUGGUMS and support having no post-credits summary. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I added it to both this article and the mention of it on Ferris Bueller's Day Off. There was a mention of it here before I linked it to Ferris Bueller, but I did expand it. If this article had a cultural references section, I would suggest that most of the information going there. The post-credit scene is important for this movie, though, because it is one of the first mentions of Cable being in the movie. The scene, specifically the mention of casting of Cable & the Ferris Bueller connection, seem to be in most of the news articles about the movie right now. But of course, I'm biased since I was the one who originally wrote about the connection. Elisfkc (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I'd be fine with your suggested statement. Elisfkc (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact that it spoofs Ferris Buelker isn't really worth noting. If the mentioning post-credits scene at all, it would be better to use something like "In a post-credits scene, Deadpool tells the audience that there will be a sequel to Deadpool, and that the character Cable will be featured". Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Having just seen the movie for a second time, I feel like there should be a Cultural References section. Something like:

Since Deadpool is a metafictional character, he is able to reference not only the X-Men Universe and his own movie, but also reference other parts of popular culture. This includes Adventure Time, Gandalf, The Lion King, Star Wars, Green Lantern, Taken, 127 Hours, Mrs. Magoo, Daredevil, and IKEA, as well as the post-credit scene referencing the post-credit scenes of Ferris Bueler's Day Off and Iron Man.

Each of these could be explained more in depth, making it so that the post-credit scene could be be better mentioned, as well as moving it from the Plot section. Elisfkc (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea and definitely better than "In a post-credits scene parodying Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Wade bids the audience to leave because the movie is over. Wade however has a change of heart and announces a sequel featuring Cable before reminding the audience to pick up their trash." (what the article currently has). However, I'm not sure if pop culture references tend to be considered within scope of film articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It may not be the usual for movies, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included, especially since this movie has so many references. It could be a sub-section under a meta-fictional section. Elisfkc (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The MOS does seem to allow a section such as this as long as it is well sourced and doesn't go too in depth into the film (i.e. doesn't have a lot of plot details showing how the references are used in the film). However, it does seem like something that could get overly trivial and fanish if done wrong. Perhaps if somebody wants to make up an expanded, referenced section in their sandbox so we can all see what it is going to look like before we put it in? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Working on it in my sandbox. Give me a day to finish it up. Elisfkc (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, got the references I could remember and find references to (nothing on the Subway comment that isn't from a forum.) Take a look and make changes/additions here: User:Elisfkc/sandbox Elisfkc (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

See, that seems pretty trivial to me, just listing pop culture references like that. I think if we are going to do anything, it should be more of a paragraph; mention the main things like the post credit scene, Green Lantern, Wolverine, etc.; and have some sort of critical commentary so it isn't just a whole lot of trivial fancruft. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: ok, then make the edits to my sandbox as you see fit. I was trying to write up as many of the references as I could and describe where they were in the film, without giving away too much. Basically, give enough info to let those who've seen it realize/remember where the reference is, while keeping those who have not seen the movie in the dark. Elisfkc (talk) 17:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I added the reference to Detroit. If there are no additional edits to the sandbox in the next 7 days (March 8, 2016 4pm Eastern), I will add it to the page. If edits are made, it will be added 7 days after the last edit or once an agreement is reached. Elisfkc (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. This reeks of WP:TRIVIA to me. Instead of trying to list every pop cultural reference, how about trying to the fold the more talked about ("analyzed") examples into the prose of the pre-production section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: ok, then rewrite. Elisfkc (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Plot section

I haven't seen the film, but I have a hard time believing this, in the plot section: "He then removes his mask (and the paper mask of Hugh Jackman he was wearing underneath)" Does the film actually identify the mask as a mask of the actor Hugh Jackman, as opposed to the character Wolverine? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in the plot summary, which in general needs a good rewrite I think, but it is true. It's one of the many things that comes of Deadpool and his fourth wall-breaking. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Someone should add that the scene in the credits is a parody of the scene at the end of Ferris Bueller's Day Off.Cowcharge (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Plot: cancer

The article states that Ajax's procedure cures Wilson's cancer. In the movie, Ajax states that Wilson's new healing factor is fighting his cancer, but his cancer is still present. I'll get you the exact quote when the DVD comes out. I've corrected this before, but it's been reverted.

This is actually important to Deadpool's character; he is not cancer free. His body's continual fight against his regenerating cancer is used to explain his disfigurement in the comics (though not in the movie), and his regenerating brain cancer is used to explain some of his mental instabilities. At any rate, he is not declared cancer-free in the movie. Canute (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I must admit that this is a tough one. The movie and the comic, while obviously related, are separate entities, hence the separate articles. Unfortunately, we can't use details from the comic to enhance this article. That being said, when Wade rises from the ashes in the film, he narrates: "I didn't just get the cure to el cancer, I got the cure to el everything." So is he cured or not? I think the movie is inconclusive on the matter.Pistongrinder (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2016

The following text should be removed: It is the eighth installment of the X-Men film series DeadPool is a stand alone, origins film, and not a part of the x-men film franchise. While the characters Wade Wilson and Dead Pool appear in X-men Origins: Wolverine the current film is in no way attached to the franchise. Yes, two x-men show up in the current film but that does not anymore make it an X-men film than the Hulk being in Avengers makes it another Incredible Hulk Movie. The website Screen Rant provides an excellent list of reasons as to why the Current Dead pool is in no way connected to the one represented in the origins film.http://screenrant.com/worst-deadpool-scenes-x-men-origins-wolverine/

CorySelfInvictus (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  10:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Also Not done: Please see the "Is this an X-Men film?" section above, which links to Talk:X-Men (film series), where this has also been discussed. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Helicarrier?

It says in the Plot section that the last battle takes place on a Helicarrier. I know it is widely believed to be a hellicarrier but nowhere in the movie does it explicitly state this fact. Is there any sources that can be referenced? DrkBlueXG (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

here's a source for you. Npamusic (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Added. Thank You :) DrkBlueXG (talk) 18:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

But here's a direct quote from director Tim Miller who emphatically states that it is not a helicarrier. So now we have a source, ComicBook.com, that is contradicting itself. That being the case, I think the movie's director trumps a concept artist, it is not a helicarrier, and the reference should be removed from this article.Pistongrinder (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

He is saying it is not the 'Helicarrier', as in a S.H.I.E.L.D. aircraft, because otherwise there would be copyright issues with Marvel. Likewise, the writers have said that it was designed specifically to be different from the S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarriers. However, it is still what we would refer to as a 'helicarrier', being an aircraft carrier that can fly (or could fly, at one point). - adamstom97 (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. The problem, though, is that the first reference in this article does link to the S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier. At the very least, we should remove that wikilink immediately, shouldn't we?Pistongrinder (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it should be fine. That article is just about Helicarriers in general. It notes in the lead that the original comic version belonged to S.H.I.E.L.D., but the film section rightly doesn't specify that the Deadpool version does. If you want to clear it up further, you could find the interview where the writers talk about designing the Helicarrier and add it to that section over there just to confirm that it isn't part of S.H.I.E.L.D. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I just thought the term "helicarrier" was specific to the S.H.I.E.L.D. ship, and that anything else is simply referred to as a "flying platform." But if it's a more generic term than I understand it to be, that's fine.Pistongrinder (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

box office quote

" and the highest grossing 20th Century Fox film ever not directed by James Cameron or George Lucas"

What about the last x men movie?

I would like to add a brief edit to this page.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. clpo13_(talk) 22:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Ryan Reynolds name not link in Starring section

Ryan Reynolds listed but his name is not a link ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Reynolds ) in Summary frame in Starring section.

There is no Wikipedia rule that says a name cannot be linked twice in Summary section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.26.123.132 (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

GA nominee

Before that process can begin, I think we really need to clean up the footnotes. Formatting is inconsistent, and there are punctuation errors and virtually no archive links.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2016

Original: Ajax subdues Wade, impales him with a peice of rebar and leaves him for dead in the burning laboratory. Edited: Ajax subdues Wade, impales him with a piece of rebar and leaves him for dead in the burning laboratory. Perfectionist me (talk) 04:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Deadpool was not a Special Forces operative. The more appropriate word would be "operator".

See subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.50.108 (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done, see Wikt:operative#Noun.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2016

In section "Cast" under Colossus - current: "and Glenn Ennis was used as 'the inspiration for the chiseled jaw look behind the character'"; suggested: "and Glenn Ennis, a stuntman working on the film, became "the inspiration for the chiseled jaw look behind the character", contributing a digital rendering after Miller spotted him, saying ‘You know what, I like your face.’" Alternatively ending after "behind the character.".

Could cite http://www.theprovince.com/vancouver+stuntman+face+takes+heights+deadpool+ally/11720792/story.html 86.132.192.183 (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Doesn't really add anything that we didn't already know. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Good Article Renomination

I'm Renominating this for Good Article based on changes made. DrkBlueXG (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted that as premature because there still are pending accolades AND still hardly any reviews from critics. Definitely not broad enough in coverage for renomination. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Box Office section

The box office "records broken" section is looking seriously bloated and unencyclopedic. It's clear this film was broke a bunch of records, but that section's unreadable as is. Needs to be clear and concise (like it appears someone was working on with the table).

24.69.100.27 (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. This section is the bro equivalent of the overly eager hipster indie movie write-up that mentions the film won the "Best Cameo" award at the film festivals in Cleveland, Slough, Lille, Omaha, Bochum, Glasgow, Kranoyarsk, Thunder Bay, Harare, and Quezon City. Good grief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:8080:4550:6C8D:95B7:BF1C:FB64 (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with it to be honest. N. GASIETA|talk 04:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Critical reception summary

The source cited is titled, "The Deadpool Early Reviews Are Overwhelmingly Positive". My version of this is "Early critical reviews for Deadpool were overwhelmingly positive." Without explanation (edit summary, talk page comments, etc.), this was reverted to "Deadpool received generally positive reviews from critics."

I have restored my version and await any discussion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Genres in film lead

WP:FILMLEAD explicitly states, "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified." It purposely does not state primary genres or sub-genres to avoid over-linking and run-on descriptors. That is not to say that the film does not fall under multiple genres (as most superhero films do) and is not recognized for its achievements in other genres. This film in particular was also recognized for achievements in the action and comedy genres but is primarily identified as a superhero film. Other genres are listed as categories and achievements in other genres can still be listed in the lead and in the accolades section. Praise for its humorous elements can also be summarized in both the lead and critical response sections.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Legal Issues Surrounding Deadpool

There is an active lawsuit in the State of Utah between a local movie theater that screened Deadpool and the state Attorney General's office. The theater, which sells food and alcohol that may be consumed while watching a movie, was cited for breaking a longstanding Utah law that says you can not sell alcohol where full nudity is displayed. AP Salt Lake Tribune. The theater owners and the Attorney General are arguing over who is an expert witness on the effects of watching Deadpool while drinking alcohol on society. I think this would be an interesting addition to the Deadpool article, however I do not see a good place to add this. Any suggestions? thanks. --H McCringleberry (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is relevant to this article, since the film itself is not party to the lawsuit. It would be better served in the article about the theater chain.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

the article should mention that pornographic nature of the movie

it is not soft porn either but hard porn. far more extreme than james bond.84.212.111.156 (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe reliable sources commonly identify either as any sort of porn... Sergecross73 msg me 23:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"Comedy" film

Any reason why this is not categorized as a comedy film as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widgetsz89 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It is categorized as a comedy with the rest of the categories. However per WP:FILMLEAD, we only list the primary genre in the lead paragraph.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Deadpool (film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 02:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Article assessment currently in preparation and may take a day or two. This article was nominated one year ago and was not passed because it was not stable. The current article appears to be stable. If you could indicate why the current article appears to be approaching 200Kb in size and if you believe this is justified as is, or, if you might be open to considering the possibility of developing and/or abridging some of the sections. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

By my check, the article is just over 60Kb of readable prose, which is alright but could be cut down a little bit if we really want to. Some of the music section could go to the separate soundtrack page which would help. The reason this article is a little bigger than usual is because of the large development and marketing sections. They are both sections that I don't usually see there being much info for, but in the case of Deadpool the long development and extensive marketing are both pretty major parts of the film and I am reluctant to cut them down and/or split them off. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Begin assessment of article by section titles. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Lead section

Lead section appears a little long in phrasing and content. In the first paragraph, is it really necessary to give a three adjective description of the lead character: "wisecracking, fourth wall-breaking antihero Deadpool." If the film is introduced as a superhero film by genre, can he be called something like "the superhero Deadpool". Both the second and third paragraph can be shortened for wording. For example, these two sentences seem optional to the lead section as already covered in the main body of the article: "The group wanted to faithfully adapt ... to an enthusiastic response." Same approach to trim the third paragraph of the lead section, and is that first sentence distinguishing the premiere date from the general release date four days later really needed in the lead section when its already covered in the main body of the article.

I have removed "wisecracking" and the film's premiere (I had the premiere in there just because that is what we usually do for film articles), but I am hesitant to remove the fouth wall-breaking, attempts at more faithful adaptation, and test footage leak. Those are all very significant aspects of the film, that are widely discussed throughout the body of the article, and that should be reflected in the lead per WP:LEAD. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Better wording might follow the Deadpool character description and state: "... antihero Deadpool with a tendency to break the fourth wall". Second paragraph in lead section can still be shortened. Deadpool 3 should be left out of the lead since if Deadpool 2 is not a hit, then there will likely be no sequel to it. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• 1 Plot

Closing sentence referencing the sequel seems unneeded since the sequel has already started filming.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The scene is still part of the film, even if the sequel has started filming. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The last sentence in the plot section should be dropped as not being part of the plot of the film but more related to the marketing of the film. Once the credits start to role, the optional inclusion of voice-overs for the credits, promotional materials, and gag-reels are normally excluded from the discussion of the film itself. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• 2 Cast

Cast section seem to include extensive material about character development which normally would be covered in the development section or the writing section. Consider either starting a character development section or moving the material to the writing section under the production section. The extensive embellishments should be moved out of the cast section and significantly abridged.

This is the format used in all the GA film articles I have been involved in, and is based on guidelines at WP:FILMCAST. This information is specific to each of the characters rather than in scope of the overall production, so it seems better to have a short paragraph beside the character's name rather than information for lots of different characters sprinkled throughout the production section. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The narrative flow of these character descriptions still seems wordy even if you are set on keeping this format for the descriptions. Its understandable that you might be attached to all the nice references you found, though they should not interfere with the narrative flow of these descriptions. They seem a bit wordy even though well-cited. Try to shorten the wording in each of the descriptions. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to cut down on these. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• 3 Production

There is no casting section here. See comments for cast section above.

See above and my reply at the bottom. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Casting is normally seen as part of development in filmmaking and could, as an option, be added there as part of the development section as you already have done with your writing section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Since casting happened throughout the production of the film, even after they had finished filming, I don't really think that is an option here. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• 3.1 Development

It might be useful to start a financing section here to separate the money numbers from the historical and technical sequence of events in the filmmaking. Wording in this entire section can be trimmed for word length. Writing section is useful here though it may be also trimmed for word length. Does this article really need discussion of Green Lantern when there is already a main article for that Reynolds film.

I don't know if there is really enough information for a whole subsection on the financing of the film, since we only mention it in a couple of lines. Likewise, Green Lantern is only mentioned briefly when it had an impact on this film's development, and in a single line of the writing section. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Your text in this section still seems to be on the long side for what is being stated. I will include an example below to try to demonstrate what I mean. You can express much of this material in fewer words. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• 3.2 Pre-production

Length of wording is an issue here. The material is well-cited and referenced. It just seems to be very long for the coverage of the main points in this section.

See bottom. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

See my example below to an example of length of wording. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• 3.3 Filming

Not sure what the reference to "modern scenes" in the second paragraph here is referring to. Also, what is the discussion of Reynolds's improvs and off-the-cuff material doing in the closing paragraph of the filming section. Is it needed in this section?

That comes from the writing section, where the idea of the two timelines is introduced. And all the improv stuff is in the filming section because it happened during filming, and is a big part of the film's approach and tone. It is also referenced again later in the article, in the post-production section. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "more modern scenes" is used in the citation you give as a relative term in comparison to the "origin" scenes which were discussed by the writers. Your version of this phrase seems different from the article cited. This section can be made shorter without loss of content. For example, you state: "Reese and Wernick wrote a draft of the script every year between joining the project and completing the film, including a PG-13 version that was briefly considered by the studio." Could it be stated as: "The writers wrote several drafts of the script prior to finishing the film, including a PG-13 version for studio consideration," or your more concise version of something like that. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I do appreciate what you mean here, and will attempt to be more concise throughout the article, but the example you have given here is just removing information, not re-writing the same information in a more concise way, and that is something I would rather avoid if I can. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• 3.4 Post-production

Somewhat repetitive wording here: it was "revealed that" ... it was "revealed that". Wording throughout this section and its visualization section can be trimmed usefully. Separate editing section may be useful here to shorten some of these long sections and help reorganize the material between (a) post-production, (b) editing, and *c) visual effects.

I've cut down on the use of "revealed". I don't think the one paragraph on editing justifies having a separate editing sub-section though. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Narrative flow is still an issue here. The citations here are good, though it sometimes has the appearance of looking like a list of sentences, all cited, grouped together as paragraphs. You can shorten this material and still preserve its meaning. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• 4 Music

There is a main article for this and there is no need for more than a single short paragraph here. If it did not directly influence the production of the film, then it should be taken to the soundtrack page.

 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• 5 Release

Adequate to section.

• 5.1 Marketing

With so much detail, the reader learns little of why so much money and time were devoted to the marketing of the film. Marketing is often emphasized as part of the economics of filmmaking and not just public appearances and similar interactions. Wording in section can be abridged with emphasis on how much money was budgeted and why the marketing campaign was this extensive. It appears that the film did not sell itself, as would be expected of other films which might deal with famous historical events or be otherwise unique.

The section is intended to note that they had a smaller than usual marketing budget so tried to use the internet to their advantage, then go through some of the different things they did, with discussion at the end of the section about the unusual marketing and how it worked for the character, etc. Knowing that, is there anything specific in the section that you feel is unclear or could require further discussion? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Length of wording affects the narrative continuity of this section. It can be abridged without loss of meaning. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• 5.2 Home media

Adequate to material covered.

• 6 Reception

Adequate to material covered.

• 6.1 Box office

Adequate to material covered.

• 6.2 Critical response

Adequate to material covered.

• 6.3 Accolades

There is already a main article for this and the material should be abridged and shortened. The top ten list is not very useful and can be moved to the main article for accolades for this film and removed from this article.

I've moved the top ten list to the accolades article, which just leaves a short summary of that separate article, and some discussion on the Oscars. The latter bit does not fit at the list of accolades article since the film did not actually get nominated for any Oscars, but I think it is worthwhile discussing it here due to the wide coverage the situation got. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• 6.4 Industry impact

Impact and accolades are often discussed together, and a separate section on impact seems not entirely useful. The notable material here can be moved to some of the other sections as needed, and even moved to the accolades main article or even the development section of Deadpool 2. Writing an impact and accolades section seems unneeded when there is already a main article for accolades.

I don't really understand combining the impact and accolades sections, because a film's impact on the industry is not an accolade. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

This section should be titled as 'cinematic impact'. The film had a good box office, it did not change Hollywood forever. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It didn't really have an impact on cinema in general, but it does appear to have some sort of impact on the way the industry discusses superhero films. I'll try to cut this down a bit anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• 7 Sequels

There is no need to divide this material into 3 separate sections which should briefly state the related projects, which are independent of the current film discussed in this article. With filming already started on Deadpool 2, only the immediate sequel should be the point of emphasis in this section, briefly, since there is a main article for it.

This is the format used for all film articles that I have looked at. If you really think that this article should be doing something different to that, then I can look at changing the section, but I don't see why this one should be any different. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

All three sections should be combined into one brief section here. Also, if Deadpool 2 is not a hit, then its unlikely that it will have a sequel in a third installment. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll try this then, but we can't start speculating about what will happen in the future (see WP:CRYSTAL). We can only go off what we know, and at the moment we know that they are developing a third film. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• 7.1 No Good Deed

No need for separate section, see above.

• 7.2 Deadpool 2

No need for separate section, see above.

• 7.3 Deadpool 3

No need for separate section, see above.

That should get things started. Ping my account for any clarifications. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: Thanks for taking the time to review this article, I really appreciate it. I have gone through and replied to your points above. One thing that you bring up quite a bit is the the length of my wording is an issue. I have worked hard to cut down unnecessary quoting and say things in shorter and shorter paragraphs as I developed this article, so if you think it isn't good enough could you please give more specific examples? Also note that I am following the general structure that is given at MOS:FILM, with Development, Pre-production, Filming, and Post-production sections. This means that a lot of information is given in chronological order, such as cast members being stated as they were revealed to us rather than in a single section together (we do already have that in the cast section though). I have only created sub-sections of those production sections where the content has truly justified it (writing and visual effects). - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That was a good start on your revisions. You are correct about the issue of narrative expression and narrative length as being a concern here. Since your citations and references are done so well, the improvements to the narrative in the article as a whole would make the citations more accessible if the narrative is more concisely and plainly presented. Possibly try this for one section, like the writing section, to see if you might adjust and trim the material to improve the narrative flow. The amount of effort you put into the citations and references is easy to recognize as done well. Ping my account when your updates are ready. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: I understand what your concern is with the amount of words I am using, and have tried to go through the article and cut down on that. Let me know how I've done. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Your edits in the sections overnight are a useful move forward in enhancing the narrative flow in this article. Regarding your sticking to your section title of "Industry impact", my example was from Star Wars (film) which preferred "Cinematic influence". "Franchise impact" or "Franchise influence" might also be an option. The other option might be to merge this section with the section that comes right after it in this article and to present the sequels and sister projects together as relating to one another. The Marvel franchise impact and influence would then be in the context of the sequel having started production. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Its not really about the sequel though, its more about other Hollywood studios trying to copy Deadpool. And I think "Cinematic influence" is a bit of an exaggeration, as there is no big impact on cinema in general (yet). For now, the section just notes how some industry executives and studios have responded to the film's success, so I still think "Industry impact" is the most appropriate title. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

After reading that section again, the section title referring to the film 'industry' as a whole seems to not match the contents of that section which discusses only one genre of film, the superhero franchises, as commented on by interested parties at Sony, Fox, Warner Bros, and Marvel. More to the point seems to be that the "R"-rating of the film seems to be the recurrent topic of this section and its implications for the future of filmmaking in this genre alone. Possibly a title like "R"-rating impact might be closer to what is actually discussed in this section. 'Industry' is ambiguous and overly general here as a label. There is also a sentence on R-rating from this article's Marketing section which you could move to this section, and similar material from elsewhere in the article, to make your point about rating system implications for superhero films. The Marketing section is already somewhat long and the move of the ratings discussion from there to this section would unify the R-rating discussion in this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't be discussing the production and marketing of the film in a sub-section of "Reception". The film's rating and tone is a major element that came up in all aspects of its production, which is why it is mentioned throughout the article in places that it is relevant. It would be problematic to instead have a whole sub-section of "Reception" discussing a major part of the film that had not yet been mentioned anywhere in the article. The problem here seems to be that you are interpreting the title "Industry impact" as meaning "This film had a massive impact on the entire film industry, read this section for more!" But in actual fact, it just says that the film has had some sort of impact on the film industry, and if someone reads the section they will find the specifics there—that the film has inspired several members of the film industry to attempt to replicate its success. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be online at this time and it would be useful if you could provide me with one or two examples of any recent film that has an Industry impact section. I only need one or two examples. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

From a quick first look I have found a TV article, Adventure Time, that uses it in a similar way to here (a specific aspect from the project being replicated by others in the industry). I can have a better look for film examples later if you want. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

One or two examples from films would be good. Films that can be nominated for film awards just like Deadpool was nominated for film awards during the last film awards season. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've had a look around and there seems to be a reasonably consistent use of "Cinematic influence" for this sort of thing, as you had mentioned with Star Wars earlier. I am coming around to that one as an alternative title. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a good direction to take and adapting the section title to that would be useful. After you do that, it might be interesting to look at Motion Picture Association of America film rating system, in the section titled "effects of ratings" there, to see if something notable can be added to this influence section regarding effects of ratings. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added some stuff on how R-rated films were received before Deadpool to try and show the change in thinking that is being discussed. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Closing comments

It was nice of you to do that extra research last night about ratings and to add that useful discussion in the article. The article is now promoted. You might want to check the spelling in the lead section where you state, "Reynolds lead to a green light from Fox in 2014," where the verb tense might look better as "led to". As I stated above, the references and citations in the article look well constructed and should provide a good foundation if you decide to develop the article further towards an FA article. It might be interesting to see if the ratings debate comes up again for Deadpool 2 when it is time for it to be reviewed by MPAA. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks John, and thanks for sticking with me through all that re-writing and back-and-forth (also good catch with the 'lead/led', that is a mistake I make quite a bit). Just a note that for some reason the bot thinks you have failed this review, sending me a failure notice and not adding the GA icon to the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Too detail-oriented

The whole article seems to me far too detail-oriented. I know nothing about X-men, and after reading big chunks of this article, I still know nothing. It looks to me like this article failed to provide a high-level view of the film, story, etc, and eventually became just a huge collection of unimportant pointless details.

This article is about the film Deadpool. If you want to learn about the X-Men then go here. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)