Talk:Deadpool/Archive 3

Wolverine and the X-Men
Is there a source to confirm that Deadpool will be in season 3? I haven't seen anything stating that, nor whom would voice him, as I was under the impression that it was only just recently confirmed what was the focus of Season 2, but I could be mistaken. Also, Wolverine and the X-Men isn't actually in continuity with Hulk Vs. due to several continuity issues that arrise in episode 7 Wolverine Vs. Hulk as well as many other issues that arrise in later episodes. None the less, we need a source before stating that Deadpool will be appearing in the series and who will be providing his voice.--TriPredRavage (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about season 3, but season 2 is confirmed and cited. I added that Nolan North will be Deadpool's voice actor for the series.--Zactar (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it doesn't matter anymore because the show was recently cancelled :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.243.144 (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Questionable citations
I'll admit I'm not the most knowledgeable about the subject here, but I came looking for information and a lot of what I'm finding is... just a bad article. Claims are made and a citation linked, but when that citation can actually be checked -- it doesn't necessarily have a thing to do with the text here. Case in point: anecdote about initial conversation between creators Liefeld and Nicieza is definitely questionable (and pivotal point of argument regarding the subject) -- cites unverifiable reference. A few paragraphs down things start sounding like a TV Tropes wiki article with reference to a "magic sachel" (linked, TV Tropes style to an article on "magic sachels") but the associated citation makes no mention of any such thing. This illustrates exactly why Wikipedia is scorned as a source. 75.106.96.59 (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Frequent Reverts/Removal of Content
I know a lot of wikipedia articles have a tendency to degrade over time, but this is really a mess. So many sections have been deleted out of this article that didn't need deleting. You people really fucked this article up. It's not only disappointing but just downright sad. This article used to be huge and now it's tiny. I'm sure some stuff needed citing and editing, but not all this cutting. A lot of good info was cut, too. I'm a wikipedia deletionist and I think this is horrible what's been done to this article! 67.187.245.33 (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome to four months ago. The whole thing was more or less cleared out by just two users, and one continues to persist in deleting anything that he alone doesn't find relevant, despite what WP:Comics says. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While I don't find the swearing and insults helpful, I do agree that some of the deletion is a bit extreme. But I can see why a lot of it was deleted about a month ago. Before then the article was far too long with too few sources and too much individual detail. The current length and format of the article is just about right in my opinion, but it needs work regardless. And by "work," I don't mean deleting anything and everything that seems wrong. I mean rewriting, citing sources and getting the facts straight. And please, for the love of God, keep it civil and quit edit warring. It would help tremendously if all editors involved would pay attention to WP:BURDEN and WP:NOT. Those should help clear up the situation when it comes to adding content. Friginator (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree; the problem lies in the fact that it seems like every time I try to fix something, it gets deleted... -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried to be civil, but at this point, WesleyDodds, your edits are doing more harm than good, as you're removing relevant, sourced information, leaving incorrect information in its place, and deliberately ignoring standards set by WP:COMICS. Unless you stop vandalizing this article, I will be forced to call in a dispute moderator immediately. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

WesleyDodds is clearly not vandalizing the article per WP:NOTVAND, even though his lack of communication and compromise is annoying. So please try to keep calm, as this isn't a matter of life and death. Friginator (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I AM staying calm, though I admit vandalism is probably the wrong word. My point about calling in a dispute moderator stands, though, since it seems like this is the only way anything's going to get done, much as I hate to admit it. You have to admit that a 4-month-long-and-still-going edit war isn't exactly a normal occurrence on this site. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See No original research, Verifiability and Manual of Style (writing about fiction). This is where the rationale behind my cleanup edits comes from. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We don't need to source every last word; you're deleting the most general, common-knowledge statements, including some whose source is the very cover of an issue (there are multiple with the "Breaking the fourth wall brick by brick" slogan painted on the front, for example). And again, according to WP:COMICS, characters are entitled to an "alternate versions" section.  Heck, articles like Superman and Batman have entire separate sections devoted to their alternate versions.  If you're going to delete them for Deadpool, you're going to have to immediately do the same for EVERY other comic book character that has an alternate version; no sense holding articles to different standards after all.


 * Again, you're the only one who thinks these "mass cleanup" edits are necessary; everyone else, including CameronDodds, has been trying to actually improve the page, while I've honestly yet to see you add anything new to it. Again, if these mass deletions continue, I wholeheartedly intend to call in a dispute moderator if it means that something will actually get done. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do need to cite everything of note. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you mean Cameron Scott, but anyway, I'm definitely feeling at this point that WesleyDodds is just reverting everything without much thought as to why. For example, in this edit he ended up restoring vandalism and incorrect numbering. That kind of editing isn't constructive or justified in this case. So here's my two cents: Cyberlink420 should make sure everything is sourced and encyclopedic per Wikipedia standards, and WesleyDodds should take it easy and let him do it. The repetition here is getting really annoying. Friginator (talk) 03:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Errors have been fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, yeah, I did mean Scott. My bad; it's getting too confusing to keep track of everything. :P But yeah, I'll work on tracking down sources if I can be assured that it won't get deleted every morning... -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the Comics Wikiproject does not say character articles are "entitled" to "alternate versions". Some article might have them, some may not. It is in no way manadatory, and like any section in Wikipedia, is reliant on how sources you can find. I should also note that the exmplars page is out of date, and they aren't guidelines. To include any alternate versions, you need secondary sources describing them and establishing their notability. That character from the Superman/Batman annual is particularly suspect. Any section needs enough sourced material to fill it. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Except in this rever (like a number of previous ones) you remove the entire section despite there being a number of sources. A better approach might be flagging what needs sourcing rather than removing the section - I would have reverted your reversion myself if I'd seen it first. You have reverted three times within 23 hours and this is infringing [{WP:3RR]] and I wouldn't do anymore.
 * Also a reminder to everyone: WP:BRD. We seem to have got into a cycle of B followed by R followed by either another R or more B. As it is now in rhe R version I'd recommend everyone do more D or this article will have to be locked down and handing out warnings if needed. (Emperor (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Very good point. One thing that would help is if editors here would pay closer attention to what they're adding or removing. In this revert by Cyberlink420, ALL changes by WesleyDodds are removed, even though some were perfectly reasonable and warranted. That wasn't helpful on Cyberlink420's part, and I've restored those sections. I'm also going to change this section's header per WP:TPO to something more appropriate. Friginator (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My bad, guys. I admit I kind of jumped the gun on that one, as I only noticed the removal of the fourth wall/merc with a mouth bits and not the anti-hero line.


 * As for what to keep and what to change, I personally think the alternate versions need to stay, though the Superman/Batman version might be better off as more of a footnote than as its own subsection; the others are significant enough for inclusion, IMO, and we may need to also add a section for all the alternates that show up in Merc With A Mouth and Deadpool Corps when the time comes. I'd also like to try and find a source that mentions DP's cameos in the 90's X-Men toon besides just YouTube videos of these appearances (because, you know, no primary sources and whatnot).  Most importantly, though, we need to get another fictional biography written, though it has to be MUCH shorter than its predecessor and less in-universey.  On that note, do we want said bio to be a single all-inclusive description, or should we separate it into sections by series (i.e. a section for the limited series, a section for the first ongoing, a section for Agent X, a section for Cable and Deadpool, and a section for the new series)?  Also, how would we go about integrating retcons like the stuff in T-Ray's arcs, as well as side-stories like Merc with a Mouth and Team-Up? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend against it - the FCB was removed because it violated WP:WAF (as well as things like WP:PLOT). You'd be better off expanding the PH section and include details in an out-of-universe way - with a focus on the earlier stories (as there tends to be a bias to more recent material in most Wikipedia articles unless people keep an eye out for it). Feel free to add sub-sections where they seem to work naturally (obvious ones include a C&D section with others either side) and something that deals with his origin and characterisation. That seems the best route to setting the article on the road to GA. (Emperor (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC))
 * So, add major, notable plot points to Publication History where applicable (i.e. Cable and Deadpool being linked at the start of C&D, or 'Pool supposedly meeting his demise at the end of the original ongoing), but written in an out-of-universe style, plus smaller separate sections for origin and characterization? I can manage that.


 * On that note, how should I write the origin story? The thing's been changed so many times over with all the retcons, it's hard to keep one story straight.  Should I write it as it originally appeared with notes in relevant areas mentioning major retcons, or write it as it currently stands? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No - this is the reason it is almost impossible to write an in-universe biography of comic character like Deadpool, unless you go with the current "party line" and run with the approved origin of the moment (and change it as the whims of different writers change, so it gets to be a mess) you end up in original research territory. Best way is to discuss it in the order it is presented and note the major changes (making sure you at least have primary sources, preferably using, but ideally also including interviews with creators as to their thinking behind this). How this is presented will depend on the character. If, for example, the change in origin is reflected in an adjutment to the character's personality and abilities (as the origin story is usually the explanation for the powers and their motivation) then I'd recommend discussing it all together in one "characterization" section. It may be the origins change but the power/abilities and personality stay pretty much the same, so it'd make sense to have an "origins" subsection and the follow up with one or two section for the others. Basically see how interlinked they are and use your best judgement. If you want to sandbox something up first then I'd be happy to look it over. Just remember to try and get secondary sources (as well as primary ones) - there are quite a few interviews around so it it should be possible to cover the when and how but also the why (which is an interesting angle but also helps round the article out).
 * That plus fleshing out the PH should give a solid and well-rounded article - if the referencing is solid (if in doubt reference it) then it should make a good B and we can look at pushing it on from there. (Emperor (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Just to say I meant, although should be pretty useful too. (Emperor (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC))
 * I'll probably adapt the "Early Years and Weapon X" section from the original bio written on the old page (which can be seen in my sandbox) into the backstory part of the Characterization section. Obviously, it needs to be less in-universey, and it could use a few secondary sources, but the biggest problem is that it's WAY too long.  What do you think should be shaved off? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a tricky one - personally I think it'd be easier to start from scratch. The important thing is to describe the origins in the order the details were revealed and it is very difficult to do that based on what is in your sandbox. I will kick this out to the rest of the Comics Project and see what they think but best start would be to run through the comics and quickly sketch out what was revealed when and then bring it together so it reads OK. (Emperor (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

This is ridiculous, especially now with all the new comics out. Scott needs to grow up and/or be banned, and someone needs to put the fictional history back up, because this is just pure vandalism and makes the page much less informative.--Chipmonk328 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.127.20 (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see wiki-standards and editor bickering have killed the March 09 article that made Deadpool interesting to me. Bravo! --76.114.67.80 (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh right. I was gonna add the following:

"==Personal History== Wade Wilson was dying from cancer when the Weapon Plus program offered him a chance for a cure. Undergoing procedures which attempted to recreate the healing factor of Weapon X (aka Wolverine), Wilson's cancer went into overdrive, scarring him externally and neurologically. Despite the healing factor sucessfully manifesting itself, Wilson was left in a near-catatonic state; he was deemed a failure and was sent to a facility where rejects of the Weapon Plus program were locked away. While there, he became the subject of betting among the other inmates in what was known as the dead pool. In this game, the inmates gambled on whom the warden would kill next. Wilson survived and eventually mustered enough lucidity to escape. Wilson thereafter used his abilities to become a renowned - if unstable - mercenary, taking the name of Deadpool to reflect the odds that he beat.

Any backstory before Wilson's induction into the Weapon Plus program is vague and subject to change - he can't remember it exactly himself due to his mental condition. Whether or not his name was even Wade Wilson is subject to speculation since one of his nemeses, T-Ray, claims that HE is the real Wade Wilson and that Deadpool is a vicious murderer who stole his identity. There have been other dubious stories about his history - at one point the supervillain Loki claimed to be his father. Frequently, revelations are later retconned or ignored altogether, and it is unlikely that his pre-Weapon Plus history will ever be revealed."

...and was about to go trawling the Net looking for sources to cite, but if it's the case that it'll get deleted no matter what, should I bother?--213.94.176.14 (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support that edit, perhaps with a "main article" link to a "Fictional character biography of Deadpool" article to put the rest into. I've reverted a couple of additions recently, but that's due to people putting in a massive 13k bio that ends before the start of "Cable and Deadpool," and is completely unsourced.  I may have inclusionist tendencies, but that's just *way* too much detail for the article.  rdfox 76 (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sidekicks
What about Kid Deadpool, Lady Deadpool, Widdle Wade, etc.? 67.163.242.5 (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sumo wrestler?
The article is categorised under "fictional sumo wrestler" - this is hardly something that I would have thought he'd be defined as. (Emperor (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC))
 * He did, however, spend time in Japan as a sumo wrestler, so it's accurate. (See the "Deadpool and Widdle Wade" Special from a few years back that got reprinted in Deadpool #900.)  rdfox 76 (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm not doubting the fact he has done sumo wrestling but superheroes with a long publication history will have done a range of things (especially a character like Deadpool) but it isn't how you'd define them - the categories can't cover every single aspect of everything a character has ever done so you need to focus on the main ones. It is also wise (especially with odd and unusual categories that someone might question) to have it supported in the text ("It should be clear from the verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." ) but, unless his career was a long-running feature (or important in some other way), I'd imagine it'd be removed as over-detailed and possibly trivia (if someone asked you to describe Deadpool so they could get a handle on the character you'd say Marvel superhero, martial artist, Canadian, assassin, etc. but throwing in sumo wrestler isn't that helpful and is more than likely going to lead to confusion). There has had to be a lot of clean-up in the categorisation of comics characters (especially in the general "occupation" area, as well as superpowers). (Emperor (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC))

Deadpool Movie Source
I noticed that the Deadpool writers were removed. Lack of source? Here's something that should help: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118013359.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 Would that work? Atin25 (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does this article have british Spelling
And why did someone change it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.230.114 (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Deadpool Corps #1- (2010-Present)
Newest Deadpool ongoing seires that's starting in April. I think we should mention this, because it is important to the story, isn't it? http://marvel.com/catalog/?id=14658--Ottertron 19:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's obviously worth including. But we have to abide by WP:CRYSTAL. Comics shouldn't be listed in a bibliography if they don't exist yet. Friginator (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to strike a deal with you: I will not edit the page for the Deadpool Corp, until of or after April the 7th, since that's the day the comic starts to comes out. But, you have to leave the other comics that have yet to come out. That sound okay? Or we could make a, "Coming Soon" type section where we can list titles that have yet to be released.--Ottertron (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, given that it comes out on the 7th (which I assume it will, we just can't guarantee it until it happens). If it doesn't exist yet, it should be removed from the bibliography, and I think we both agree on that. But what other comics are you talking about? But no, we couldn't do a "coming soon" section, as that also violates WP:CRYSTAL. We could list scheduled publications, but we can't promise that they will ever be released. Friginator (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I do agree that if something doesn't exist yet, then it should not be on there, however I do believe that if something is scheduled to come out, with a exact date then it's worth mentioning. I know that in the comic business sometime things can happened that will delay a title, however unless it's pulled completely altogether then it should still be mention, only with an updated schedule information. The WP:CRYSTAL is important and I will not deny that, but it should be followed in a sense and not to the "t". I mean, if you do this with just one comic, then a "tba-albums" article from an artist should also be taken down until either a release date or the album actually comes out. That still doesn't stop people from making, updating, and maintaining the article until and after the release. I'm not trying to go against the rules here, but merely make sure they readers get all the information where needed.--Ottertron (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (Did I get the right number of indents?) Given that, according to Diamond's shipping list for this week, Deadpool Corps #1 shipped yesterday for release tomorrow, I think we can safely include it now.  In the future, perhaps we could list similar books as "announced" or "solicited," once either an official announcement is made or the book has been solicited for retailer orders?  (If we can come to a consensus here, maybe we should run it by WP:COMICS to see what they think of making it a guideline for all comics articles, save everyone some trouble in the future...)  rdfox 76 (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.101.134.38, 21 June 2010
editsemiprotected

Please, change the picture. As a Deadpool fan i would like his wikipedia page to be on par with other great heroes. As a result, the current picture needs to go. This picture would be just fine-http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff284/BeEzYDaSnoMaN/Deadpool_SuicideKings_01.jpg

74.101.134.38 (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't give a valid reason to change the picture. C T J F 8 3  pride 05:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 192.85.47.11, 23 June 2010
I feel www.deadpoolbugle.com should be included back in the list of external links. It used to be, and it makes a lot of sense to have it. It is a dedicated Deadpool news site, and if anyone wanted to learn about current Deadpool news it is extremely relevant.

192.85.47.11 (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: See WP:ELNO. Spigot Map  16:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Daredevil article links to manwithoutfear.com, which plays a similar role. I don't see what about www.DeadpoolBugle.com violates the external links guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.123.128.17 (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no ficitional character history?
This article tells me nothing about Deadpool. Why was it all deleted? When I read this article it is all just publication history, abilities, and alternate versions. Those things don't really mean anything without character history. Ultrabasurero (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a massive personal history section, but it was far too long and drawn out, not to mention out of date; the characterization section is meant to take its place. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And it was completely in-universe, if you can write one that treats Deadpool as a character in a narrative and makes use of reliable third-party sources, you go for it. If it's "and then Deadpool fought the fantastic four and then he..." it's likely to be deleted pretty quickly. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from SignNinja, 27 June 2010
In Video games the move where he beats people with his health bar has not been confirmed and is a hoax

SignNinja (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Many sources state he does this, so we would need a reliable source that says he does not.  If you can provide one, please do so.  See also this thread.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * -Plus the game is in development, they could add it in later.-71.70.140.119 (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)