Talk:Deadpool

Movie: Breaking the fourth wall

I've removed the statement that, in the post-credits scene from X-Men Origins: Wolverine. While his mouth makes a hissing sound at the end, there's no good source given for that breaking the fourth wall. There was no gesture to indicate he was "shushing" in the first place. If this is going to be in an article, there needs to be a very good source. A blog claiming he was breaking the fourth wall wouldn't work. It would have to be Ryan Reynolds confirming it or something like that. Friginator (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added Movie to the title of the section in order to avoid confusion with the section on the page titled Breaking the fourth wall. Under the description made on the page Fourth Wall Deadpool's actions do so. When he opens his eyes, he is looking directly to the audience through the camera shushes them verbally. In this case, a gesture such as raising a finger to his lips is irrelevant, as such an action as shushing does not actually require it. The sound he makes is clearly a shh and not a hiss as can be seen here. --TriPredRavage (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm tired of you edit warring about this. Please stop adding unsourced, arbitrary, open-to-interpretation information to the article. That's not what Also understand that the article fourth wall is not policy of any kind. WP:OR is. Hear the noise however you want, but realize that this is entirely speculation, which, as stated before, is against wikipedia policy. I've gone over this with you before on your talk page, making it perfectly clear that this is not appropriate to add to an article, but you have instead decided to add unsourced content to the article, which could very easily be considered edit warring. I'm sorry to seem rude, but please stop this. If you or another editor can find an appropriate source that proves this was intended to be seen as the character "shushing" the audience then their may be a case for adding the info again. When a character looks into the camera, this does not, by most regular guidelines, constitute breaking the fourth wall, as it does not entail a character becoming aware of their fictional existence. I'm tired of fighting about this. I would like to ask you again to please stop acting like this. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

i dont know if its breaking the fourth wall, nor do i care. but in the film it clearly is a "shhh". but it keeps being removed because its on the basis of speculation. but when it sounds excatly like a "shhh" and not a hsss, why is it speculation? i'm not speculating the reason behind it, im just saying what happened considering ive had to hear that noise on a daily basis form having to clean up theaters as an usher. but if there must be decention about the noise, why cant it at the very least be put in the page that a noise is made?Largoss (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Because it's unsourced, for one thing. It's a hissing sound, but saying it's a "shhh" would mean something else. Regardless of how many times someone has seen it, that doesn't change what it is. "Shhh" is an interpretation of that paricular sound. That violates WP:OR. Unless there's a good source it'll need stay off the article. Wikipedia is for proven facts only. Friginator (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

By that rationale then you can argue much plots or articles on wikipedia then can be a violation of wiki's term. When commenting about the plot of a movie you can use the movie as a source, which is being used as a source for the sound because its what the sound sounds like. So how is it unsorced. It seems more not that you think its unsourced, so much as you dont agree with the sound. Well if you cant agree that the sound is a sh (and once again I'm not putting in about the fourth wall break because I have no proof for that) why not at least allow someone to put on the page that he opens his eyes and makes a noise, because as is, it doesnt tell the whole story of the scene.Largoss (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's fine to state things that are clearly there, like the noise itself, but calling it a "shh" or "shush" is unsourced because it gives the sound meaning that isn't backed up with citations or references. Even if it's meant by the editor as onomatopoeia it can still be taken as meaning something completely different through reader interpretation. Even calling it dialogue (he says), as you did before is going too far. Obviously bringing the fourth wall into this is out of the question too. I'm fine with it the way it is now, though. Friginator (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

thank you. hopefully this will be a good enough compromise for everyone. i mean those like myself think because of the history of the character and the sound that its a "sh" get something, but those who, for an also equally valid reason like yourself, think that because it wasn't stated to be said noise also get something because we arent stating what the argument is. thank youLargoss (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but he does break the fourth wall. It is OBVIOUSLY a shush or "shhh". Why would he look at the camera and hiss? He broke the fourth wall, it's obvious. You don't need the producers or directors to come out and say it, use your own brains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.35.2 (talk)

Well I feel the same way but I also agree as to why it should not be added. Unless you have something new to point out its just our opinions. Thefro552 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have read this discussion and do not feel it is finished. Deadpool clearly says "Shh", which according to the Random House Dictionary is an interjection used to urge silence. I have added a source but user Friginator insists on removing it due to some personal bias against the way the character is portrayed in the film, or perhaps the result of an inability to understand the english language. Please continue to discuss. The way the article is written now ("...and makes a noise.") is ridiculous. If someone reads this article it will leave them asking the question "What noise does Deadpool make?" This is not informative at all. Faethon Ghost (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for personal insults. Please keep this civil. There isn't an official source (that I've found, at least) saying that it's intended to be a "Shh" noise. Wikipedia is a place for encyclopedic facts, and anything open to interpretation shouldn't be commented on in the article. If you feel that the way it's currently stated is unclear ("makes a noise"), I don't see why removing that would be a problem. I agree that it's not phrased very well. It definitely could have been intended as a "Shh," but until there is a definitive source that confirms this, it shouldn't be added to an encyclopedia article. Friginator (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I meant no offense Friginator, only that it seems that you do not understand what shh means. It also seems that you did not know, or perhaps forgotten, that Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge. It is common knowledge that Deadpool says Shh. Faethon Ghost (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's common interpretation that may or may not be correct. It's definitely shared by a lot of people. It's actually because of what "shh" means that it shouldn't be in the article. It means that he was, as you say, interjecting and urging silence, and therefore breaking the fourth wall. Saying that he makes a hissing sound is fine because that's a fact which isn't really open to interpretation, so I don't have any problem with that being added. And don't get me wrong, if there's an appropriate source then there's no reason for it to be excluded. But the source that was given when you added the info was not any proof one way or another. If you or any other editor would cite, for example, an interview with the fimmakers that confirms the assumption, it would be fine. But so far it's only a large number of bloggers, editors, etc. who saw the film and made their own assumption. Friginator (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If it wasn't written in books or websites or sourced in any way should we not add that the sun is hot to Wikipedia? It's not our personal knowledge that it's hot, just our interpretation. Face it Friginator, you're on your own here.--60.240.126.92 (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Reynolds: Deadpool and Green Lantern

I don't want to get into a fight about this. But just because Reynolds has been confirmed to be playing the Green Lantern in the up and coming film in no way discredits him as the actor portraying Deadpool in the future Deadpool feature. There are several sources that have interviewed with him and he is involved with the project. That doesn't mean that he won't be in the DP movie. Afterall, James Marsden still appeared in X3 despite being in Superman Returns. Sure, his role was reduced, but being in one did not remove him from the other. Until there is a source saying he isn't playing Deadpool, we shouldn't jump the gun.--TriPredRavage (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Recent source: http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/07/21/ryan-reynolds-says-theres-no-rule-against-playing-deadpool-and-green-lantern/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by TriPredRavage (talk • contribs) 01:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to fight about it either, but the argument you're using, (Until there is a source saying he isn't) is the opposite of how citations ought to work. Wikipedia's content is based on reliable sources. You say we shouldn't jump the gun, yet that's exactly what you're doing. If someone were to write, "Reynolds' casting in an upcoming Green Lantern film will delay his role in a Deadpool soo movie," THAT would be jumping the gun. If we don't know about something, we don't put it in the article. We don't assume when there is reason not to. Per WP:V, burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. So unless you can find a source in which Reynolds confirms that the Green Lantern casting won't mess with the Deadpool film, the older info shouldn't be kept in the article. Friginator (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As evident by my accidently unsigned post, there is a source. I have added it to the page now as well.--TriPredRavage (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Deadpool's History

Part of Deadpool's history, including his role in Secret Invasion as well as Dark Reign with his ongoing series, has been deleted. For what reason, I do not know. It could be a mistake but I added it back to be sure. I need someone to fix the links inside it because I am rather inexperienced at it. Thanks. Atin25 (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume it was deleted because it's so long, but I'm fine with it like that. Shortening it a bit wouldn't hurt, though. Friginator (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It was merged and edited into the publication section as part of an on-going effort to remove the lavish in-universe overdetail that exists in the fictional history. We treat characters as an object of the narrative not as if they are real. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

yo, peepls, some1 stop dis guy...hes gonna delete evrytinh, like he did with taht doc dude's...plz, guys, dont let him do dis...HE'S ONLY DOIN IT CUZ I SAID I LIKED DEADPOOOL ON DR. STRANGE TALK, YO! SEE FR URSELVES! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadpoolfan77 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's it - I'm cleaning up the article to comply with our minimum standards because you said you liked the character... --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Look Cameron Scott your just a bully with a computer if you don't get along with some one you delete stuff from that page, just go look for more spam and leave the comic section alone, oh your so great deleting information for no reason for your own gain, i mean does this really help some one who just got in to deadpool and wanted to look him up, instead of taking the easy way out and deleting stuff you don't like why don't you actually read the comic and contribute to it (no wonder people don't like you) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadex92 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

mr, scott, really...plz...i mean, this is just ridiculus...deadpool is really awsome; why u no do dis before, then, and second AFTER i mentioned? ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadpoolfan77 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't believe anyone here has a main job of trying to attack you and you alone. The editors focus on trying to clean up articles to get them to the best possible format that they can. You might have mentioned something that was going to be deleted anyway, no one is trying to offend you. If you're a deadpool fan, go write on him on the X-Men Wikia website. Aparna^{[talk•BlackPearl14]} 22:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC

First, Deadpoolfan 77 - You do realize that the talk pages are for things concerning the article such as edits new info etc. Not for you personal opinion, especially if it is on a different talk page. I have to say that your opinions are rather....well you could have handled it better. But Cameron is also in question. What exactly was so crappy with the Deadpool page besides the need for some small edits here and there? It does seem from the Doctor Strange Talk Page, you seem a bit angry. While I am a Deadpool fan, I do not want to take a stance on who is right. Please, Deadpoolfan77, do not proceed to just post random stuff on talk pages, and Cameron, please control yourself because you seem a bit aggressive. As for the current set up for his history, while it does not have the detail of the old one, it better fits Wikipedia because I have to admit that a detailed history of Deadpool better fits Marvel Wikia or similar sites. However, there is something that I have a problem with. Why did you decide to basically cut down an entire history of a comic book character but leave others intact? But whatever, just improve on both of your conducts and that will be the end of that. Atin25 (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Still, did everything have to be erased. The only thing remaining of Deadpool's biography is a short snippet of his origins from where he was born to how he became the character. If anything, its earlier version was more informative about his involvement through many of the major arcs in the Marvel Universe. Unless this is going to be remade like the Ms. Marvel article (or this really is just some stupid rivalry going south and placing a fictional, yet favorable character as a victim in the middle a war of cyberbullying), then please return the article to its previous, more descriptive status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.178.127 (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

While I do miss the full history, and I do have to agree that getting rid of all of it is a mistake, I'm wishing that we can soon get a article which will honor The Merc With A Mouth's rightful place as a comic book character. As much as I want to dicuss this to further lengths, it is getting rather late and I can't work when I'm tired. However, I want to stress that while wiping out so much is a bad idea, the current set up will work for now. Good night. Atin25 (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I agree. And as for the comment below, by Mr. Deadpoolfan77, seriously, you speak of SPAM, and yet your messages look to me like SPAM. I'd much prefer proper English, if that is in any way possible. ;) Aparna^{[talk•BlackPearl14]} 21:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

...Cute...like, she watns proper english...on TALK pg... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubesgirl (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

guys, PLZ. i mean, scotts way obssessed with deletin EVRYTING HERE. mr. scott, serius, go cleen up SPAM. KK? ty much, yo. were cool, rite, mr,. scott? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadpoolfan77 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I return from a week long holiday & someone removes all of the fictional info on the greatest comic book character of all time, & replaces itwith a small bit about his origin, that's not fictional character Bio, that's, fictional Origin, Yes he's not real, but every other comic character has a large page long article on their biography, Scott, why? You think it's too long, (Wolverine has it's own page for his biography) you wanted to mess with everyone as a joke, you're a bully, what reason do you have? I'm going to try to find the information & repost it, but don't delete it, I may be new as an accont but I have worked as an IP user for some time & I know that they deserve more information than that on an article.--The One & Only (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You understand the Wikipedia rating quality system for articles? (I’ll presume you do) Well, Captain Marvel which is a featured article and that does not even *have* a fictional character bio, similarly Batman who has a 60 year plus history (deadpool has a 20 year history?) has a fictional bio that is shorter than what existed here before the clean-up. The point about writing Wikipedia articles, is that as even as a fan of a character or series you have to check that in at the door and write according to our policies and MOS. The weakness with most comic articles (and with this one) is that a) they treat the fictional character as real and b) they rely on primary sources. For a Wikipedia fiction article to progress to Good and then Featured, it has to treat the character as an object of the narrative and concentrate on their cultural impact, their reception in third party sources not simply be a lavish plot summary etc – this article does this only in a marginal way at the moment).

That may be true, but don't articles like Batman and even Wolverine usually have a separate page which has the most of character biography and is linked to it's main page? So in a way, you could have simply cut and pasted Deadpool's information which was on here to a separate page and then set a link that says something like "Fictional Biography of Deadpool" or "More information here." True I can understand that some of these pages can overexert the reality of some things which do or do not exist, but that doesn't mean that entire history should be deleted and replaced with something that wouldn't even pass for a 4th grade book report (not that I know of a grade school student who would write one about a fictional character mind you, but you know what I'm getting at).

Another question. Why is it that all of the information (albeit theoretical or dry) of the discussion page has been deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.178.127 (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion material has been archived, you can see the link at the top - it's done every so often to stop the pages from getting too long. As for the "fictional history of..." articles, we used to have quite a few of those but over time, as wikipedia policy has been come codified, those have been deleted or merged - I think for comics we now have less than five and I doubt those will last much longer. The clash you seen on this types of pages is one of culture, pages with lavish plot summaries represent wikipedia as it was, not how it is now and as people notice articles and try and bring them in line with how policy *now* says an article should be written, you can expect to see more of those discussions. For example, while it's not policy yet, more and people connected with writing the comic articles are coming around to the idea that they should not a fictional bio of more than three or four paragraphs - in a couple of years, that could be the norm and the articles could be further edited to reflect that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and junked the fictional characer bio. It was based solely on primary sources and constiuted original research. Anything added to the page must be backed by reliable secondary sources, not the comics themselves. As the comics are primary sources, they cannot assert importance, and imparting importance upon them without a citation by a secondary source constitutes original research, and any such information added to the article can be challenged and removed per Wikipedia guidelines. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've yet to see a fictional character bio/plot summary section that was sourced to anything but the primary sources. The bio is not the assertation of importance, but a thumbnail of the character's history. While I agree we need to take out the chainsaws and carve out a *lot* of fat in the bio, dumping it entirely, just because it's sourced to primary sources, isn't necessary.

Since this seems to have become an issue as a result of a flubbed attempt at restoring an inappropriately-removed section of the bio, I'm going to go ahead and revert to the version that the section was removed from. There's no deadline, so let's discuss how to trim the fat out of the bio here instead of just hashing it out on the article itself, all right? (The "D" in WP:BRD.) rdfox 76 (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think "fictional character biographies" are even approprite per general Wiki guidelines? It violates a number of policies, espcially concerning the use of primary sources, copyrighed material, and original research. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, we should probably also check the WP:COMICS standards, too, for guidance on these issues. Just thought of that now... rdfox 76 (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's the fact that WP policy states that policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive, and the little issue that WP:IAR says that we should ignore any guideline or policy that gets in the way of writing an article that properly covers its subject matter. Accepted practice Wiki-wide appears to be to include a primary-source-sourced biography section in articles about fictional characters. If you want to change that, you should see about either doing an RfC or investigate policy on the Village Pump. I've re-reverted the article to status quo; can we please follow the D ("Discuss") part of the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle to work out what material needs to be cut to trim down the article while still meeting WP:COMICS standards, as that's the appropriate WikiProject for the article? rdfox 76 (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in the Comics guidelines that rationalizes unsourced original research and overrelianece on in-universe descrption. In fact, the page has been tagged for cleanup to addess these problems. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Original research and Wikipedia:Primary sources to understand why most of the article needs to be removed. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(sighs...) well, this sure is gonna make cameron real popular with marvel users here...but not my business, so...:)

From what I've gathered is that the three main points of removing the information is 1) It's too long, & 2) Fictional character Biographies break several policies, & 3) He's a fictional character, not real, well answers: 1) take out the fat or give it it's own page, 2) It's not just comics that get their fictional biographies, Cartoon, TV, Book, Game & many other fictional characters, every single fictional character in history gets his/her own biography, from Sonic the Hedgehog to Jesus Christ, all fictional characters who are in Wikipedia have a bio, so in your logic we have to go through every fictional character in history & delete everything in their bio section? & 3) yes, he is, but, I have this theory that every form of fiction is really an alternate reality, eg, in some reality Osborn is taken over the world, in another everyone is yellow, & another Chandler & Monica did adopt twins, while this is just a theory & means nothing, is there any evidence saying that it isn't true, but let me ask you this, if someone goes to wiki for information about a characters past, or to catch up with what's happened lately, & they find nothing, won that ruin wiki's reputation with people?--The One & Only (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

yeah...but no1 cares now bout marvel WIKIPEDIA pgs...so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubesgirl (talk • contribs) 16:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to ask, Cameron and Dodds, what the hell were you thinking? Why on earth would you do such a thorough removal of content, especially without consulting with anyone else first? Unless you're going to do the same for EVERY OTHER COMIC BOOK CHARACTER, why would you even consider removing so much information, especially the fictional biography? I agree that it was a bit too lengthy and could use some revisions to condense it, but as it stands now, anyone who actually wants to learn about the character himself and not the influences has been left totally in the dark. Not to mention that a lot of relevant information's been deleted, including some in-other-media appearances and anything having to do with the character's alternate universe versions (two things which, again, almost every other major comic book character article has). Not to mention that according to the character pages section of WP:WikiProject_Comics/exemplars, character pages should include sections for a fictional biography, powers and abilities, and other versions, all of which were things you deleted without consulting the larger community of editors first. So unless you want to singlehandedly rewrite Wikipedia's guidelines for comics-related articles and alter the pages for Batman, Robin, Spider-Man, and all the other characters with biographies, I'd STRONGLY recommend restoring the deleted information, then trimming out the excess events that don't play a critical role to Deadpool's backstory (particularly in regards to the needlessly long section on the newest series). And if you don't, I will. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

At first, I was okay with the edits, not happy but okay. But now they have deleted so much, including his alt. versions. I will back you up if you decide to bring back the missing parts. Those two have ruined the page of a great anti-hero. Atin25 (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to see someone's willing to lend a hand. I just re-did the In Other Media section, and I've already started re-writing the biography based on the previous one; I started with the new series since I figured it'd take the least time to do, and I managed to compress all 13 issues down to about a paragraph or two, so that gives us some room to work with. I'll try to knock out the Agent X run tonight, then work on Cable & Deadpool. If you could get a start on the Powers and Abilities section, that'd be great. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I find the recent occurrences that have befallen this page to be quite disturbing. It wasn't enough that this little spat has caused the character's biography to be trashed. But now there is no information of the character to speak of, nor of its alternate versions. I say that whoever is doing this has gone too far. Your so called "editing" is nothing more than the eradication of crucial data most of us users appreciate. True to earlier statements that this article was lengthy and did include some insignificant material, this is far from "chewing the fat." If anything, it seems you are skinning it bare. Not only that, but you apparently decided to follow such actions without any actual consent. Your motives may have been just at the beginning, but now, it seems that this has gotten way out of hand. If anything, it seems as though this is nothing more than vandalism with an excuse. If you really wish to maintain this article, why not return the information from a couple weeks past and then take away the bits and pieces from that article instead of allowing these corrupted protocols to continue.

Not only this, but there has been a question which I've asked myself ever since this whole issue first began. Why did you choose the Deadpool article as the primary target of your so called editing? As stated before, there are so many other characters which had similar "invalid" items on their pages. Yet the article which has displayed the most effect of these changes was this one. Is it because you wished to dismember information on a character who, compared to more famous fictional icons, have a smaller to moderate following and their more recent inception to the public eye, which would mean fewer people would take notice compared to more popular characters such as Spiderman or even Aquaman? Or perhaps you are truly making an this subject in the crossfire due to some cyber quarrel with another user. Either way, these extreme alterations must cease and everything should be normalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.178.127 (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Why did you choose the Deadpool article as the primary target of your so called editing?" because someone on another article said "why did you start with this article why not another article like deadpool?" We have thousands of articles and you can't edit them all at the same time... --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

gap

There is a gap in the article in that no versions in the history has anyone written about the vol 1 period between issue 30 and the end of the series. Anyone want to add something to the publication history about this period? --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, not really...no1 likes the pg now, so...:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubesgirl (talk • contribs) 18:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Earth-5700

For those who might not remember, Deadpool appeared in the alternate reality Earth of 5700. He was a member of the X-Men which was lead by Wolverine. Even here, he still retained most of his witty, psychotic character (though not his fourth wall breaking style) and even says that the only reason he was invited to join was so the team would have "a token human." Anyway, the character was part of a strike force to defeat the Director (and/or Sublime), but was killed when that world's Agent Zero was taken over by the foe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.178.127 (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Btw, "where is the ALternate version of Deadpool" section? The one with the altenate reality version of him.It seems someone deleted that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.232.184 (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

um, no duh...ppls whos scared of wade erased EVERYTHING. but its ok with dem... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubesgirl (talk • contribs) 17:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Deadpool's powers

Well I'm not comic book expert, but I'm fairly certain Deadpool has the power to teleport. I mean wasn't that how he god rid of Al and escaped Tiamat (among other things). Just putting it out there, I'm not adding it because I don't feel like it and I have no source, but it is something that is missing. Adroa (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)