User talk:Hotwiki/Archive 10

Hotwiki's talk archive #10

Wolverine
I don't want to get into an edit war, so I'm not going to bother restoring the text you've removed again, but yes, I do think it's worth mentioning Jackman's statement, and I'm not aware of any guideline or convention that recommends against it (I explained why I didn't think WP:CRYSTAL applies in my edit comment). Your use of the word "would" in your edit comment is also slightly misleading. "I would come back" is conditional. The line about Jackman's statement (which should probably be rewritten as "will" anyway, since it's already been confirmed the movie is being made) is not. --Fru1tbat (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, its not exactly 100% confirmed that the Wolverine 3 will be Hugh Jackman's last X-Men film, he said "it would be" so that could still change.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...
Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article New York Dolls (album)? The criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

X-Men: Days of Future Past
Thanks for being civil with me. I know I might have seemed confrontational, but do know that my intentions meant no animosity towards you or anyone else. As such, I would like to thank you for considering my edits and suggestions in the article's talk page. I tried my best to remove any excessive info and I recognize you felt that certain ones should be added again, and I can respect that. So far the information in the plot summary seems fine, but do you think it's still too long? Demented-P (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If its over under 600 words, then I think its okay.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

X-Men: DofP - Box Office
Hotwiki,

It would be appreciated if you did some research before deleting my edits. The box office grosses have been updated on Box Office Mojo to the numbers I used in my edit. Secondly, here is it suggested that we avoid the use of words like "domestic" and "international" (and this obviously includes "overseas" as well). It is also suggested that we include worldwide statistics, so I believe worldwide opening weekends and worldwide rankings for the year of release or the distributor are relevant. It is also suggested that we include audience demographics for the opening weekend in English-speaking territories, which I have included. Finally, I would like to ask, why you disagree with the inclusion of the midnight and the opening-day gross. It is relevant to the opening weekend and it is a measure of how front-loaded the film was. Many other films include these grosses in their box-office sections and I would like to know your argument as to why they are redundant. Thank you. Spinc5 (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe that it is useful to apply criteria to rank a film. For example, one criterion can be the year of release or the distributor. I did not say "third-highest-grossing comic book film of 2014" (that would be applying two criteria: year of release and genre). I just said "third-highest-grossing film of 2014" (I only applied one criterion: year of release). Although applying two or more criteria at the same time is extreme, applying one criterion is relevant. Here it suggests including box-office statistics in the box-office section. I have also pointed out other flawed points in you version of the Box office section and I will keep reverting it back to my version if you do not reply with a decent argument to my messages, concerning why your version is closer to the guidelines. I shall even start a discussion on the film's page if necessary but, in any case, I am not giving up. Please consider showing signs that you acknowledge my existence, because being ignored is very annoying. Thank you. Spinc5 (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read more film articles, "ranking informations" like its the 3rd grossing film of the year in the U.S. or worldwide (which is probably going to change in the next 6 months) is rarely mentioned unless its the highest grossing film of the year or its the highest grossing film of the series, the later is already mentioned in the article. And some of your inputs are questionable like writing a sentence like "it only held the number-one spot for 1 week"? Thats so trivial, this is not Box Office Mojo and its Wikipedia. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * These are my issues with the X-Men: DofP box office section.
 * 1) You say: "It was also the highest debut ever for a 20th Century Fox film in 11 markets including South Korea, Brazil, the Philippines and India." You have used the distrbutor (Fox) as a criterion to rank the openings weekends of the film in various countries. However, I used the same criterion (distributor) to rank it among Fox films on the all-time overseas chart, which is far more important than how well it opened in a specific foreign country. Can we at least be consistent in our approach? I have provided an argument for the criteria that we apply to rank a film and all you say is that it is trivial. Then, you find a box office website using the same criterion that I used and you just copy whatever you find there. Just because a BO webiste states a record, doesn't mean it has a place in Wikipedia, and these are not my words but yours (see your reply above).
 * 2) Then you say "It became the highest grossing X-Men film in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, France, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, Malaysia, Lebanon, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Singapore, Slovakia, South Korea, Sweden, Thailand and the United Kingdom." but as a reference you use the list of DofP's grosses in various countries, with no comparison available. This record must be explicitly stated, but it isn't. The only thing I can imagine is that you checked the yearly box office for all of those countries to see what all other X-Men films have earned. However, Box Office Mojo reports grosses in dollars. Records in individual foreign countries are always determined by the gross of a film in the national currency. The exchange rates vary greatly from year to year and even within a year, so the numbers in dollars can not be used to determine if a film has broken a record. Thus, I suggest we remove this list of countries. If you do not believe me, I could find a few articles in which this becomes apparent, but it would be much easier if you did some research yourself.
 * 3) You still haven't answered why we shouldn't include the midnight and opening-day gross of the film, which are in my opinion an important part of any box-office article. It is a measure of how front-loaded the film is.
 * Thank you for you time and I hope to hear from you soon. Spinc5 (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. I didn't write the "It was also the highest debut ever for a 20th Century Fox film in 11 markets including South Korea, Brazil, the Philippines and India." Though I didn't remove it since it set RECORDS. Being the 8th highest grossing film of Fox isn't the same thing.
 * 2. Like I said before, if its highest gross X-Men film, its okay to put it. But if its the 3rd or 4th or 5th of something. Then it becomes trivial. And the box office grosses in those countries and for the other films are available in Box Office Mojo. Go to that site and see it for yourself.
 * 3. Midnight and opening day gross aren't that important since it is already counted in the opening weekend gross which has been mentioned in the article. Unless it broke records for having the highest midnight gross or the highest opening day gross but it did not.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Am I to understand that we shouldn't mention "Avengers is the third-highest-grossing film of all time worldwide" because it isn't a record? When we're talking about all-time worldwide rankings, I believe that at least the Top 5 or Top 10 merit a mention. And at least that doesn't apply any criteria: it is all-time worldwide among all films. So if opening-weekend records among Fox films in Brazil are relevant, we should at least consider to include some worldwide rankings that aren't records, don't you think?
 * 2) Have you even read my comment? I said, these records are NOT explicitly stated on the website you provide. Furthermore, you can not know whether they are true, because of exchange rates. For example, let's say that in Japan the exchange rate was 100 yen per dollar in 2011 and First Class made 100 yen. That means it made 1 dollar. Then in 2014 the exchange rate is 80 yen per dollar and DofP made 90 yen, so it made 90 / 80 = 1.125 dollars. In dollars, it made more but in yen it made less. Have you taken this into account before mentioning those records? For foreign countries, the records are always determined by the gross of a film in the national currency (e.g. yen, in Japan). Even if you did take that into account, it is original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia.
 * 3) I understand that we disagree on this point, but there are many films that include opening-day and midnight grosses and no one else seems to disagree. For example, a film may earn $50M on opening day and $110M on opening weekend. For a different film, the grosses may be $45M and $120M respectively. Doesn't that show that the second film is not very front-loaded? Isn't that an indication of how good word-of-mouth is? Why would this be irrelevant? There are 4-5 grosses that must be mentioned in any film's box office section regardless of whether it's a record or not.
 * Just to clarify though, the most important point is no. 2. The othert two have plausible arguments agaisnt and for, but Wikipedia guidelines fail to set a threshold for what is trivial and what isn't (For example, is 3rd worldwide trivial or not? Is 4th trivial? Is 23rd trivial? Who shall decide?). So basically, the matter becomes subjective and creates unnecessary arguments. Spinc5 (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Because this is Wikipedia and not a book. So only THE most important informations are being written. Did you notice how I didn't write that its the 2nd highest grossing X-Men film in Russia/South Africa and other countries? Because its not notable enough and didn't set any records. It is the highest grossing film of the year, highest X-Men film in a lot of countries, highest grossing film in the series. Those are really notable informations, compare to being the 3rd highest grossing of the year in North America or being the 8th highest grossing film of 20th Century Fox.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You are avoiding to address all my points. Do you agree or not with no. 2? And it's not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of whether you've understood my point, which is an irrefutable fact. Why are you trying to make something that is simple so complicated? Spinc5 (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well I don't know what you're talking about, I took all the box-office numbers for Box Office Mojo. DOFP earned more gross in those countries according to the numbers presented in Box Office Mojo.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Talk:Walt Disney Platinum and Diamond Editions for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Talk:Walt Disney Platinum and Diamond Editions is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Walt Disney Platinum and Diamond Editions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  McDoob AU93  13:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:GMA Network Shows (current and upcoming)
Hi! Please consider respect my edit. Even if they are under the same genre or they're both, they need to be seperated in order for the people to not be confused. Even if they are both Animated shows, Anime and Cartoons are completely different and still needs to be seperated; same with the Dramas. I'm not doing this because of fighting you, i'm doing this because i'm doing what is right and correct. If you hate my style and you don't like that they are diffrent, I apologize. -ElNiñoMonstruo (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You are the one who aren't respecting anyone's edit. That template has been like that before you joined the site. And just because you said so, everyone will follow your orders. Animes and Cartoons are just labels, they are both animated shows. Same with foreign dramas and local dramas, they were produced/made in different countries but still they are drama shows. Deal with it.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=617809815 your edit] to The Lord of the Rings (film series) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * com/franchises/chart/?id=lordoftherings.htm|title=The Lord of the Rings Moviesat the Box Office |publisher=Box Office Mojo|accessdate=21 July 2014}}
 * http://forum.barrowdowns.com/archive/index.php?t-14502.html |title=5th Anniversary of TTT release Archive&amp;#93; - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum |publisher=Forum.barrowdowns.com |date=2007-12-

Disambiguation link notification for July 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fantastic Four in film, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Don Payne and Ralph Winter. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Template:X-Men media. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.142.75 (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Disambiguation link notification for August 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fantastic Four in film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Evans. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:XMenFilmSeriesDVD.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:XMenFilmSeriesDVD.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

It appears that you have gone way past 3RR, I suggest that you step away from X-Men (film series) for the time being, and go to the talk page to discuss your edits. You may also want to weigh in at the 3RR noticeboard. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a risk you may be blocked as a result of the edit warring complaint. Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at X-Men (film series)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The full report is at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GirlsAloudJingleBellRockSample.ogg
 Thanks for uploading File:GirlsAloudJingleBellRockSample.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Desire-ukcd1.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Desire-ukcd1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kylie Minogue - On a Night like This.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Kylie Minogue - On a Night like This.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kylie Minogue - Please Stay.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Kylie Minogue - Please Stay.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:This Time (Melanie C).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:This Time (Melanie C).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Global account
Hi Hotwiki! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PumpItSample.ogg
 Thanks for uploading File:PumpItSample.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MusicSample.ogg
 Thanks for uploading File:MusicSample.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Letlovethewaycover.jpeg
 Thanks for uploading File:Letlovethewaycover.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

DoFP poster
Is the current poster of X-Men: Days of Future Past acceptable? Because it is American, it is virtually the same poster, and it includes a billing block as well as the release date. So what say thee? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't you have anything to say? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well there's no need to change it, so I don't even get why you brought it up in the first place.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited X-Men: Apocalypse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sophie Turner. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Kylie Minogue singles
At the navbox Template:Kylie Minogue singles, please do not alter Kylie Minogue singles to Kylie Minogue songs. It is not displayed, and so it is immaterial whether the navbox is for singles only, or for songs as well as singles: that is what the title parameter is better suited to.

In a navbox template, the name parameter is used to construct the little v-t-e links that appear at the upper left of the navbox. It has no other purpose. When the navbox is transcluded in an article, such as "I Should Be So Lucky", these links give access to (i) the navbox's template page; (ii) the navbox's talk page; (iii) direct access to editing the navbox itself. If these links do not point to the navbox that is displayed in the article, and the user follows them and ends up somewhere else - say, at Template:Kylie Minogue songs - and find that this is not the same as the one which they saw on the article, they will not be pleased. Therefore, the name parameter must match the actual name of the navbox, omitting the "Template:" part of that. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh, you are obviously unaware that some of the articles listed in that template aren't singles like Speakerphone (song), Aphrodite (song), Sexercise and Too Far (Kylie Minogue song). But you keep making as if the template is for singles because the title said so. Most singles templates have been moved to songs template and this template would have been moved to Template:Kylie Minogue songs a long time ago if that template didn't already exist, so now we have two identical templates, just with different Template name.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you misunderstand me. It doesn't matter what the links within the navbox are - singles, songs, albums, tours or anything else. What matters is that the name parameter must match the name of the navbox. If the navbox were called simply Template:Kylie songs, we would set Kylie songs. But why is it necessary to have two navboxes which both contain songs and singles? Can they not be merged into one? -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course it matters what links are within the navbox are and I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore if you don't get this simple logic.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the communication problem is here (obviously there is one), but it should be noted that the only reason Template:Kylie Minogue songs is taken is that it was created as a copy-and-paste of Template:Kylie Minogue singles. It should have just been moved there instead, if there's consensus for that. I've tagged "songs" for speedy deletion, so hopefully this mess can be cleaned up somehow. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My suggestion to this is to redirect or merge the singles template to the songs template. The singles template would limit the template to singles only and not include album tracks that didn't have a single release. Artists like Britney Spears, Madonna, Mariah Carey don't have a singles template anymore, theirs were moved to a songs template.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * When I wrote "it doesn't matter what the links within the navbox are" what I hoped to convey was that the content of the navbox - that is, the links that it contains - has no bearing on the matter in hand. The matter in hand is that the name parameter in the navbox is determined solely by the page name, which in this case is Template:Kylie Minogue singles. They must match exactly. If they don't, links are broken. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

X-Men Apocalyse
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:X-Men: Apocalypse a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into X-Men: Apocalypse. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. Fandraltastic (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks, I didn't know I could move draft pages. Though I only copied and pasted the content of the draft since, the X-Men: Apocalypse article already existed (which contained a redirect to the X-Men film series) so I don't know if that would have worked if I moved the draft.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If there's a redirect in the way you can use Requested moves/Technical requests. They're usually pretty quick about responding to requests there. Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:IStillBelieveSample.ogg
 Thanks for uploading File:IStillBelieveSample.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

X-Men Films Cast Members
Hello,

I would like to discuss my (anonymous) edits to the List of X-Men Films Cast Members that you had undone. As I said in my following edits (which were undone by someone else), I rearranged the order because I feel it is better organization to have the list arranged by order of appearance (going from left to right) and by number of appearances (going top to bottom). For instance, Jean Grey is listed with more appearances than Storm, so I moved Jean Grey to be above Storm.

Anyway, that is why I changed the list. What exactly did not like about my edits, may I ask? I mean, I didn't change the content of the list at all.

Have a nice day.

Garthe29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garthe29 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Different Person Than Above. Every Other Movie Franchise Cast Page I Have Seen Counts Deleted Scenes And Photographs. The actors still had their likeness used. Also, Colossus was in the first X-Men movie, he just didn't turn metallic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.192.234 (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

X-Men: Apocalypse
Please don't make personal attacks against your fellow editors, as you did in two edit summaries here. You don't own the article. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Calling you a newbie isn't an insult, you are new to this site which makes you a newbie. Adn as someone who is not a newbie to this site, I highly recommend that you use reliable resources when you add information in articles.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not a newb, I've been here for three months, I know all about reliable sources. Oh, and yes "newbie" is an insult, because you were clearly using it to denigrate me, when the fact is I know all about reliable sources, and if you had taken the time to read them before removing all those character descriptions, you'd know that I was right. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources? And yet you used a fan-site (which is a big no no) to argue your case about keeping a certain information? Okay.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong. You act like that was the only source I used, when I clearly used Entertainment Weekly and Cinema Blend, both reliable sources. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I read your Entertainment Weekly source which contained information from the previous film, not the upcoming film. Second, the Cinema Blend article didn't feature all the power descriptions you wrote in the article. Not only you weren't using reliable sites, you can't cite things very well. Thats how problematic your edits are--SuperHotWiki (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Cinema Blend did have confirmation of Apocalypse's four horsemen. And yes, I do know how to cite things very well, the only problematic edits here are yours. The EW source did contain information on the upcoming film too, it specifically talked about how Magneto has met a woman in Poland and fallen in love with her since the Days of Future Past film, so your claim that it only contained information from the previous film is blatantly false, like most of your comments have been. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You are not gonna say that your editing skills aren't perfect, so lets leave it at that. Anyway, its not never too late to improve editing skills.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The only person whose editing skills need improvement are yours; you have serious WP:COMPETENCE issues. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit summary was completely inappropriate
Please get off your high horse and read WP:BURDEN. If I remove speculation by you or whoever else wrote that sentence based on an out-of-date source that the sequel will be produced, I am not abusing Wikipedia in order to include my own speculations. You are the one doing that. So please give the accusations and ad hominem attacks a break. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't a site for speculation and assumptions. The sequel is not yet canceled as of now. Its not my problem if you cannot wait to remove that specific information.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPECULATION
Why are you actively ignoring the actual wording of WP:SPECULATION? It clearly says, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Your claim, "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content," is completely false. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 10:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly, you didn't read WP:Crystal.


 * Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF). In particular:


 * Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2016 U.S. presidential election and 2020 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example, Ultimate fate of the universe is an acceptable topic.
 * Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Arlene (2017)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that at least one tropical storm will occur in the North Atlantic in 2017 and therefore the first will be assigned that name, and that it will turn counterclockwise. Similarly, articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system (such as "septenquinquagintillion") are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use. Certain scientific extrapolations are considered to be encyclopedic, such as chemical elements documented by IUPAC before isolation in the laboratory, provided that scientists have made significant non-trivial predictions of their properties.
 * Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.
 * Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections.
 * Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.


 * by calling the bolded part false? Don't make your own rules here. A website calling the possibility of being made or not, "interesting" is trivial and not worthy as an encyclopedic content. You might as well include things people from blog sites on what they want to see in the sequel or in another reboot if thats the case. As for the Hitfix article, 20th Century Fox has yet to make a single comment about canceling the sequel so there's no need to question if its gonna be made or not. Wikipedia is not the place where people read the possibility of a film being made, this isn't a movie news site after-all. So please save us from your speculation and rumors. Its not needed. You put this article for review and I'm telling you, reviewers would question for the section's speculative information.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , I see the confusion here. The last paragraph talks about Wikipedia not being a collection of product announcements and rumors. It says that it is inappropriate to have an article based on these. It explains that if there are product announcements, information about that should be merged to a larger article. It then explains that speculation and rumor have no merit on their own and should not warrant articles or merging. WP:SPECULATION starts with, "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." The key passage from the main paragraph still counts, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." I do see how that sentence from paragraph #5 would seem to contradict the main paragraph, but it does not. It has to be read in the sense that it talks about product announcements and then about rumors. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

May I ask that you revert yourself here? I posted a neutral notification at WT:FILM per WP:CANVASS without disclosing my own stance so other editors can enter the discussion without any preconceived notions. You can put your comment on the film article's talk page for further discussion. I understand where you're coming from now, but that sentence is being taken out of context. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not reverting my post. You clearly called WP:Crystal false twice. Which questions your understanding on what content should be posted in Wikipedia.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am asking you to revert because it is supposed to be a neutral notice per WP:CANVASS. On its own, it does not indicate to an editor what I support. Editors have to go to the discussion and learn what the stances are. To breach the neutrality of the notice is to poison the well, so to speak. Let the editors go to the discussion themselves and find out what's going on. As for WP:SPECULATION, do you not see how that reading of the sentence from paragraph #5 contradicts the sentence in the main paragraph? How can the main paragraph stand like that if we read the end of #5 like you do? Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on X-Men: Apocalypse. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Actually, you've broken 3RR already and I'm writing a report on this. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at X-Men: Apocalypse. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on X-men (Film Series). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JQTriple7 (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * What edit war are you talking about? Its been discussed before, more than once actually, that TV series should not be under "films" simply because TV shows aren't films. Plus the article is for the film series - so other related materials to the film series like TV shows, books, videoagems should be under the "Tie-in material" section. If you don't get the simple basis of that then no wonder that you are insinuating or believing this to be an "edit war".--SuperHotWiki (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on The Hunger Games (film series). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * You need to learn to paraphrase instead copying and pasting warning messages to my talk page.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

X-Men film series
Hello. I'm okay with your rationale about the Gambit movie release on the X-Men film series article, but please don't added the name of Doug Liman on the crew involved, that's an information not official announced yet by Fox and its irresponsible adding. Greetings.-OscarFercho (talk)
 * I didn't even add Doug Liman's name in the article, so I don't know what you are talking about.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Television series
I have placed the new TV series on the X-Men (film series) page a couple of times, filed under the Television sub-section. This is not a news site you are right, but the source provided states everything which I have added to the page. The same page has upcoming film projects and having a television project as well that is currently in development is a positive, constructive thing to have on the page. Read the article which is referenced. Burningblue52 (talk)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:DowntownSample.ogg
Thank you for uploading File:DowntownSample.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:XMenTheCerebroCollection.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:XMenTheCerebroCollection.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Kylie
Hey Hotwiki, you are invited to participate in the move discussion at Talk:Kylie. Thanks. TheKaphox (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FlowerSingleCover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:FlowerSingleCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WhistleSingleCover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:WhistleSingleCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please remember that 3RR is a bright line. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

20th Century Fox
So, shouldn't the rest of the X-Men film individual articles have 20th Century Fox inserted in the "studio" parameter of the infobox? Typhoon966 (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. I cannot believe how unaware you are and started declaring that 20th Century Fox is just distributing X-Men films. Do a research, not just use your own assumptions.SuperHotWiki (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

X-Men (film series)
Please explain your edit-warring (for which you seem to have a number of warnings previously) of removing the headers for "Films in development" at X-Men (film series). There is no reason as to why the "Films" section should use them, but the "Films in development" section should not. When I originally added them, I added the description of the film to the header (e.g. "film", "sequel", etc). I see no reason as to why these were removed. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 02:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Because they are mostly in development, has no official title and just makes the article super crowded with 5 to 7 subsections when they have yet to enter principal photography. Those films under development doesn't warrant a section for themselves just like there's no separate article for them since they are still in development stage. And only brief information should be posted here since the article is for the entire series and sections shouldnt compose of a dozen of film updates which is just making the article look like an updates list which Wikipedia isn't about. While certain users keep giving those subsections unofficial film title like X-Men: Supernova and X-Men 7. So keep it as it is. Other editors who have been editing the article for years doesn't seem to disagree with that. Just a bunch of persistent of recently joined editors.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What makes it crowded and unreadable is massing the lot of text into a single list with no breaks, and my edit fixes that sufficiently enough. My initial edit added no such unofficial titles, as that would be both unsourced and original research. There is no policy or guideline that states that an upcoming film should not have its own section if it does not have a separate article; any related guideline might be that a film shouldn't have an article if it hasn't started filming yet, but the separate section does not relate to that. And if the sections are added, and editors are including unsourced titles, then you revert them and either 1) warn them for unsourced content or 2) request page protection, exactly as you would on any other article, or just as you would if they introduced these titles into the prose of the list itself. And you can't really voice the opinions of other editors, given that it's just us two discussing this. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If no further response is given, I will take that as silence being your consensus, and reinstate the edits. If they are reverted without a reply, this will constitute edit-warring. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 13:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't reply because I am not going to change my decision. Now the talk page of that film series is available for you to get a consensus.

Deadpool sequence before Logan
I noticed you reverted the addition of Deadpool in the Logan "pre-film" sequence, as a recurring character on the character chart. It has been made clear that the sequence is not a trailer, nor a teaser trailer, but an actual sequence filmed for the Logan release and that it was placed before the film so as to stay consistent with the perilous ending of Logan. It's also very much specific to the Deadpool character. I would argue that Apocalypse appears at the end of Days of Future Past and is given credit there -- shouldn't Reynold's be given credit for his scene he filmed too? --65.130.162.105 (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I noticed you reverted my edit, once more. I also understand that you live in a different country and that the sequence wasn't shown in your country. This does not take away from the fact that is a part of the film. There are many times in which a different country has a different cut of the film. An example of this within the X-Men film series itself is that in X-Men Origins: Wolverine there were varying mid- and end-credits sequences and it was only once the film was released on DVD and Blu-ray that all of them were included. The sequence was filmed as an end-credits scene and was placed in front of the film, for chronological purposes, tonal differences, and to not subtract from the dramatic/moving/goodbye ending of Logan.

--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh did you mean the footage that websites are now labelling as "teaser" to Deadpool 2? Again its not part of the film. Now go to the talk page of X-Men film series and Logan (film) to get consensus whether it's actually part of the film or not. Good luck getting that approval.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)