Talk:Deadpool/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Why no mention of "Shush" from the Wolverine movie?

The current text of "he opens his eyes and makes a noise" is already a spoiler, and "makes a noise" is just not specific enough and makes the mention sound moronic (in my opinion, anyway). What possible reason is there to "not add info on 'shushing' or breaking the fourth wall"? Straffin (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a reason. Someone claimed some false authority by adding a hidden note into the article. this is not acceptable. Vexorg (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Check the archives before leveling that acusation.

The long and the short: You want to include an interpritation of the scene - ie "Breaking the 4th wall to sush the audiance." - you need a reliable, verifiable, secondary rource. Blogs - and the page at Comic Book Movie Fantasies falls into that category - are not considered reliable as they are self published material produced without editorial oversight.

And adding a particular point of view or personal preferance in the face of guidelines and consensus is "not acceptable". Slowly edit warring to get your own way is also not acceptable.

- J Greb (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that there has been consensus on this issue. Again, check the archives. And like Greb said, you still need a reliable source. Friginator (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

My bad. missed the archives. :) Vexorg (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand why we can't include the "shus" noise without interpreting as a braking of the fourth wall.93.173.139.241 (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Its because any interpretation offered would be Original research or simply opinion without cited proof backing up the claim. Neither OR or opinions are allowed on the wiki page as previous discussions already show. Thefro552 (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So it would be an onomatopoeia? That wouldn't be appropriate either. "BAM!" "POW!" and "BOOM! aren't the type of words that should be used in an encyclopedia. Friginator (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Deadpool Bugle

Just to start out, I'm not affiliated with the Deadpool Bugle, I'm just a big fan.

I've added links to www.deadpoolbugle.com in the external links section, but it always gets removed. I've read the rules, they say "most fan sites" are prohibited. So lets have a logical discussion if this site makes sense to be included.

I have a couple points I would like to make about it:

• The entry on Daredevil, a much bigger character than Deadpool, links to www.manwithoutfear.com, which is a similar style of fan site. So there is precedence
• There is no fan material on the page. It isn't fans just posting fanart or fanfic. There isn't even any opinion or personal comments on any posts.
• There is even content like previews and press releases, so it has a lot of legitimate news like a news site, not a fan site.
• All the news on Deadpool is collected here, and things like new releases are all listed here. If a someone read this article and wanted to actually go read Deadpool comics, I can't think of a better place for them to find out about the current Deadpool comics.
• More than one of the references are linked to the Deadpool Bugle (and I didn't add any), so clearly it does contribute news

I'm not even sure it should be considered a fan site. I think it is more a very focused news site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.123.128.17 (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There have been no objections, so I am going to add the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.123.128.17 (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with putting it in the External Links section. It is a fansite, (keep in mind that most most fansites post news of some sort), so it would help to describe just what the Deadpool Bugle is next to the link. But I don't have any objection to simply linking to it. Friginator (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You can ignore that comment. Fansites shouldn't be added per WP:ELNO. Friginator (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Wolverine movie

Guys, again, Wade Wilson appearing in the Wolverine movie is NOT Deadpool, it's NOT canon, and makes no sense including it in the Deadpool character page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.21.29 (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources refer to the character as Deadpool, do you have a reliable sources that backs up your statement that movie's character is not the film's adaptation of the comic book character? - SudoGhost 01:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Redirect?

Could someone explain why the Weapon XI page redirects to here, and why it needs to be? As far as things go, Weapon XI hasn't been revealed officially, so any page about the Weapon, even a redirect, would kind of be unnecessary. --JB Adder | Talk 08:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Deadpool is referred to as Weapon XI in the movie. Unless another character shows up with the name, it stays here. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No Mention of tendency to Break 4th Wall?

I may be a newbie, but why isn't there a seperate entity mentioning Deadpools trademark of breaking the fourth wall? This is the reason I came to enjoy this character in the first place. His appearance in MArvel Vs. Capcom 3 is a direct tribute to breaking the fourth wall. 204.194.141.30 (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• From the introduction: "The character, known as the "Merc with a Mouth", is famous for his talkative nature and his tendency to "break the fourth wall", which is used by writers for humorous effect." --Jasca Ducato (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Know Your Meme

I'm not real sure about it, but we could mention that Deadpool is a common sight on the website Know Your Meme due to the fact the rejected entries area is called the deadpool. It's due to this that commenters will post something Deadpool related if the entry is a bad one. Adam the silly (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Fictional Character Biography

Deadpool is missing his fictional character biography, It should be added.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Can someone...

... Change "Deadpool will be getting married..." to "Deadpool got married." I just can not do it. (Phone, that's why.) It is in publication. --DangerousJXD (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Deadpool film scheduled to be released in February 2016.

Here's the official source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:780:234:842E:9A17:BABF:4DAA (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Deadpool Film ; Tim Miller and Ryan Reynolds and After-Credits Scene

Here's a few more sources as of 2012/2013 that state that the film is still in active development by Tim Miller and Reynolds:

Source(s):

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=110917 http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Ryan-Reynolds-Deadpool-Movie-Update-Sadly-Doesn-t-End-With-Deadpool-Movie-38384.html http://splashpage.mtv.com/2012/01/31/ryan-reynolds-deadpool-ripd-2/ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/ryan-reynolds-deadpool-movie-will-651021

Here's X-Men Origins: Wolverine' after credit description: (i know, YouTube isn't a source, I know) it's the only place you can view the scene.

http://www.mediastinger.com/x-men-origins-wolverine-extra-scene-after-credits/ http://www.movie-moron.com/?p=5993

Description: A post-credits scene shows the ruins of the building where Deadpool, Victor and Logan fought. Deadpool's arm is shown, as it slowly pulls its implanted blade back inside his body, then it moves further, in search. Deadpool's head is seen, mouth no longer sealed, opening his eyes and whispering a short "Shh", revealing that he is still alive.

Awesome! Deadpool lives!--Jondel (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Bea Arthur

Why no mention of his ongoing obsession with Golden Girls actress Bea Arthur? -- 93.107.124.249 (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Or even the implication in issue 33 that he is Bea Arthur? 2620:117:C080:520:1A03:73FF:FE0A:7831 (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Creator

Rob Liefeld wrote & drew New Mutants 98. Rob Liefeld created Deadpool, and then sent the material to Fabian, as noted further down on this wikipedia page where it talks about Fabian talking about the resemblance to Deathstroke. Fabian scripted issue 98, and as such is credited as a writer by Marvel. However, Rob is listed as the first name in both the actual comic and the online digital comic hosted at Marvel.com, and as such, he should be credited appropriately here, both as writer & first name listed. If Marvel acknowledges this fact, then why doesn't this place?

Credits page of New Mutants 98: http://imageshack.com/a/img661/1320/VuSTpC.jpg

Link to the digital comic at Marvel.com: http://marvel.com/comics/issue/10441/new_mutants_1983_98

Terrysharcque (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think the names are listed alphabetically here, although that could definitely be my misinterpretation. That second source is useful, because it verifies your claims with an official source; not a small section of a random image on Imageshack, which is not a reliable source (it could literally be anything from that snapshot). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

If people are making changes to this part of the page without having the actual issue in hand, then they shouldn't be changing it. All it takes is to open the issue to see where that scan came from. I can post a full pic of the page if you want me to. Regardless of the order, he should be credited as writer and artist. Terrysharcque (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Terry, I think it's important to explain how Wikipedia works. For a change to be made on Wikipedia, you must have a reliable source. You were regularly mentioning the image, but since it was such a small snapshot, it wasn't a reliable source as it could be literally anything. The digital comic link, however, is a reliable source as it is obviously from Marvel themselves, and indisputably so. That was the problem. Also, you can't insist that people have the exact disputed thing to hand, as that's not how Wikipedia works either (as you're proposing a change, the burden is on you to prove that change is irrefutably correct). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Lol - not gonna tell you off. I guess you're right and I just didn't (and prob still don't 100%) get exactly how this place works. I guess what confused me is that didn't the person who originally put Rob only as artist have to have a reliable source showing that?

Also, there's been someone else changing it to Rob aside from me. Terrysharcque (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is a full page scan of the New Mutants 98 credit page. http://imageshack.com/a/img673/5364/M3V5WZ.jpg

And here is a link to mycomicshop.com's page for New Mutants 98, where if you look at the description, it says "The Beginning Of The End" as the title, which matches the credits page above.

[1]

Terrysharcque (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure Mycomicshop is admissable, but it doesn't matter anyway; the Marvel link is enough, and the full scan there seals it. As to the status quo being why it is; I assume it's based off the two interviews cited in the 1990s section. Other people agreeing with you doesn't necessarily mean anything; it would be possible, as they are all brand new accounts pretty much (or IPs), that you could have created them yourself - this is a tactic that sadly too many people use, even though it never works, and almost always sees them blocked indefinitely. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I've brought this matter to the attention of other editors in the WikiProjects Comics talk page. JosephSpiral (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The multiple accounts thing.....lol. sad, but kind of hilarious. Terrysharcque (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Picture

What happened to the old picture? When and why was it changed? The other one is more suited for an infobox and was just fine. I cant find anything in the edit history (except a bunch of IPs that don't put an edit summary). —DangerousJXD (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I found the edit in which the picture was changed. Was the old one deleted or something? —DangerousJXD (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why the edit was made, nor do I know what the previous image looked like. JosephSpiral (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, JosephSpiral. I think it was deleted. I don't see why. It was (I think) on the page for a long time and it was a better fit for the infobox. I also doubt there was any issues with it being free. It was him leaning against an invisible wall: meaning just him with a white background, like Storm's infobox picture. Weird if you ask me. —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I have now discovered it was indeed deleted. —DangerousJXD (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

You guys not realise that Deadpool is the archetypal schizophrenic? Delusions, hearing voices, visual hallucinations, disordered thinking, paranoia. Ding ding ding, bells ringings anyone? They even outright say as such in the comics. 81.158.101.195 (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Add a category such as '"LGBT characters in comics"- none of the categories refer to his sexuality and yet there is one mentioning (his supposed) Canadianess.

Also, add Hellcow to the partnership list. Just because it's a joke character doesn't mean it should be excluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.74.233 (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Done about the inclusion of the Hellcow in the partners, I was unaware that the classic Steve Gerber character was revived. I would not consider her any more that a joke character than Cable. She is a vampire sired by Dracula, he is a superman from the distant future with highly inconsistent motivations and characterization.

We do have a category about Category:LGBT characters in comics, though I am not aware of Deadpool bedding notable male partners. This is seriously the first time I have heard of Deadpool being Canadian. I thought he was unaware of his own origins. Dimadick (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)