Talk:Deadpool/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

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)
How can it possibly be anything other than a shh? A hiss and a shh is a night and day difference.

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)

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)

I saw the comment in question, and based on that, this seems much less like a series of good faith edits and more like a personal vendetta. And seeing that award near the bottom of your user page would seem to indicate that this isn't the first time you've one out of the way and over other editors' heads to get what you want. Now unless you're going to stop acting like a baby and help us clean up the bio, powers, and alt versions sections (which, I might add, every character is entitled to under WP:COMICS) instead of just going on a deletion spree for everything you don't like, I'll be forced to call in a dispute resolution moderator to remove you. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Some fairly bizzare statements, it's hard to know where to start:

1) instead of just going on a deletion spree for everything you don't like, I'll be forced to call in a dispute resolution moderator to remove you.

Since we don't have dispute resolution moderators, best of luck in look finding one. We have a dispute resolution process but since everyone of my edits has been in line with common practice and policy, while you are welcome to enter the process, it's not something that worries me. But while we are handing out threats, if you continue to make statements like "Stop acting like a baby", I will have you blocked for personal attacks - just so we are clear on that.

2)(which, I might add, every character is entitled to under WP:COMICS)

Since WP:COMIC says nothing of the sort I have no idea why you think that. What it *does* say is that Summarization should never be on a per-issue basis and should only outline the plot rather than describe minor details. Additionally, plot descriptions must include cited reference to critical analysis published in secondary sources. Editors should approach the discussion of fictional concepts within a "real world context"; this means editors should describe fictional elements in terms of how they relate to the real world, as fictional characters or topics. which is what I have been doing. One of the few articles in the comic area about a superhero that has been graded as FA (our highest level of quality) is that of Captain Marvel that does not even have a fictional bio, so it's a bizarre idea to suggest that one must be included. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

And yet according to the exemplars at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/exemplars for character pages, Bio, Powers, and Alt Version sections are clearly listed. I agree that the section needs to be an outline and not a series of issue-by-issue occurences, but that's just it: you didn't outline anything; you guys just deleted the whole section outright (again, without consulting other editors first). Also, Deadpool's relevance has been established throughout previous citations in the article (not to mention the fact that he has has multiple books and currently two, soon three, ongoing series), whereas a plot summary is meant to be based around primary sources. If you look at the biographies on the Spider-Man or Batman pages, you'll see that they are entirely based around primary sources and not analyses. I honestly don't mean to sound like I'm attacking you, and I will not argue that the comments of users like Deadpoolfan and Tubesgirl were out of line, but it honestly feels like you're taking this thing WAY too far by constantly deleting material instead of working together with the rest of us to create an article that is as informative as possible and yet still following Wikipedia guidelines. Since I've read every issue of every series Deadpool has ever starred in, the character has a special place in my heart, and I just want to make sure that the page achieves its maximum potential. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If you can write a bio from secondary sources that provide critical analysis and are not simple a recap of the plot, you go for it. Where you get this idea that a plot summary should be based around primary sources is beyond me - without secondary sources to indicate importance, how do you decide on relevance without getting into original research? read again plot descriptions must include cited reference to critical analysis published in secondary sources.. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I get the idea because every other character's biography I've read uses nothing BUT primary sources. Just look at Fictional history of Superman. I mean, if really necessary, I'll track down sources, but shouldn't Deadpool be held to the same standards as other comic book character articles or vice versa? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically we have a lot of crap articles that needs re-writing - part of the problem is that when people see the in-universe content, they thinks that's the right way to proceed. Clean-up of all of those types of articles is going to take years. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cameron, please...not evry1 so happy you call their edits 'crap'...so...;) Coolio! gl here, man! ur a grate guy! hope evry1 likes u! :) :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubesgirl (talk • contribs) 17:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

From what I see, the only real problem is two rules that Contradict each other, The Policy for Comic characters states that they should have a bio, but the primary source thing contradicts the way to get it, but to be honestly clear, almost everything, fictional or real world, comes from a primary source, but I have this: [1] The Merc's OFFICIAL Bio from Marvel's OFFICIAL website, which coincidently uses Wiki software, anyway, this is Marvel using it's primary source, creating this (Making it a secondary source) so it should be useful.--The One & Only (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
It's an open wiki which can be edited by anyone and therefore is worthless as a source and cannot be used in the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Well yes, it proberly is useless as a source but it can't just be edited by anyone, you need to login, but anyway, that realy isn't important, but what I was saying is that even though the information is too big, it is still needed for it to have bio & alt. versions, which this one doesn't, so someone should repost them, I mean you can't just remove every in-verse info from every page on a fictional character or story plotline, & it would be pointless to try, --The One & Only (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

KK, guys...just delete the freakin article, then, if its got SO many freakin probs...wilson's like, KK, but...this skeleton pg is just sad 2 look at...look, im srry, but mr. scott callin the pg crap is...nuff said, guyz... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubesgirl (talk • contribs) 18:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Because we don't delete a page because its messed up, we only delete a page if the thing its based on isn't deserving of a page, it gets merged, or if some vandel thinks its funny to delete it, also, seriously, use real English! Yes it is a talk page, but this isn't a message board, you still need to use Caps on names & use words instead of numbers that sound like the word, & yes, The Merc with a Mouth, Deadpool is 'KK' which is why we're not deleting his page, instead, we're doing a democratic debate on weather or not he should get is Bio & Alt's back, which he should, the only reason not to makes no sense, & yeah Scott, stop calling it Crap, this is wiki, be civilized.--The One & Only (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there someone from WP:COMICS we can ask about this so we have exact clarification regarding source citation for fictional bios? There's way too much conflicting information regarding both sides, and it'd be great if we could just get a straight answer. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be a bit confused about what WP:Comics is - anyone who edits it is "from" WP:COMICS. 1) treat the subject as object of the narrative. 2) using critical analysis from secondary sources to discuss plot points 3) avoid blow by blow issue by issue plot summaries. You stick to those and you can't go wrong. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Pardon my lack of familiarity; I don't usually go much in depth with editing aside from fixing links and removing vandalism. I suppose a more accurate path of action would be to ask for mediation, since it doesn't feel like we're getting anywhere even after making changes to the article, since all those changes keep getting reverted (mostly by Dodds, who seems to have a separate view on what constitutes relevant information). It's clear that every here wants the best for the page, but while some of us are more focused on the article being as descriptive and all inclusive as possible, some of us alternatively more focused on making the page more of an sourced analysis of the character than a profile, and it's hard to achieve that middle ground between the two. I'd feel a lot better about all this if we could get the opinion of a neutral party who hasn't been a part of this whole debate, and it'd probably make things a lot easier for everyone involved since we'd have a more clear idea of what the finished product should look like. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You could ask for mediation but they are not going to tell you any different. The problems with in-universe entries and lengthy bios is discussed at WP:IN-U which is a good read for anyone new to the concept. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

At the same time, though, a lot of the details regarding development, reception, etc. have been deleted or moved to the publication history section, and I'd rater not have to repeat information... -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
All I see from all this is that we need to restore Wade's ifno & cut out some non important stuff, & then write every so often that he's a comic book character, or reference it, e.g. following the events of the past few issues, Deadpool is left very poor, to the point of doing very quick and easy hits, after assasinating a pizza boy Deadpool discovers that Osborn has diclared him a traitor to all humans after te events of the secret invasion storyline, as he's about to leave, however, Osborn has a Hawkeye-dressed Bullseye attack him, after several fights, Deadpool beats Bullseye until he eventually gets taken to a local hospital or something among those lines. --The One & Only (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is simply a summary of the plot based on the primary sources... You have to understand this, why we mention something is not because it happened in the comics but because independent reliable sources wrote about it. Batman Year one is a notable story because of the impact it had on the development of the character, this can be sourced to secondary sources etc. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If you read the policy for Primary sources closely then you can will read that they're usable but must be taken care of, & not misused, so we CAN use primary sources, especially since any secondary source would just be a review or summary of the primary sources. --The One & Only (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
But we can't use them simply to provide lavish summaries of the plot. If all you can find about something in secondary sources is a review, then that's what you cite. People do actually write about notable works - Maus, Dark Knight Returns, Tin Tin in the Congo, Watchmen, Marvels, Miracleman, Sandman, Preacher, Lost Girls, the league of extraordinary Gentlemen - the list is endless. If someone hasn't written about why Wade had an ham sandwich in page 34, why would we want to ? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Well this site: [2] has reviews & summaries about almost every issue of X-Men & related comics, I can't find a real character bio on Wade with this site, but it has the summary for most/all of his comic apearances. --The One & Only (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't even have a character history anymore. Seriously, what the hell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.140.179 (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


Cameron Scott, if you're gonna do this to Deadpool and Dpc Strange's page you need to do it to every other comic character as well. I know for a fact that Wolverine, Spiderman, and Batman have "Fictional Character Biographies", and that's just off the top of my head. I'm not saying what you are doing is wrong, just that if you do it to 1 comic book character you have to do it fo rthe rest of them as well. Red08 (talk)red08 —Preceding undated comment added 10:39, 21 November 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)

Oh, he does (thanks to different incarnations of his teleportation belt over the years), but certain parties refuse to acknowledge it... -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the only version of Deadpool to have teleportation as a power is the film version from X-Men Origins: Wolverine. The comics' versions have had several teleportation devices that allow him to teleport to various locations. He did temporarily have the ability to Body Slide, which is essentially teleporting, but it had to do with being linked to Cable due to events in the first storyarc of Cable & Deadpool. However, Deadpool has not shown the ability to do so since he and Cable had their "divorce" (as the comics call it), and he certainly hasn't done it since Cable went to the future. So, with the exception of the film, Deadpool does not have the power to teleport.--TriPredRavage (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where to add this, but doesn't Deadpool think in french at the end of Cable and Deadpool, issue #50 "my bon mots" after getting self-speared in the head? Shouldn't that be added to the languages he speaks?98.122.133.114 (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No. After all, a lot of people say things like "adios" and "gracias" when they can't speak spanish. Knowing a phrase or two doesn't necessarily constitute being fluent in the language.--TriPredRavage (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography

So, I've been keeping pretty up to date on DP's bib (particularly in the collected editions section), but I have a question: is Deadpool's collected editions more up to Wiki standards, or is the Cable & Deadpool's collected editions? I ask, becuase they are vastly different. I'd be willing to update either to meet Wiki standards, I'm just not positive on which is more correct. Help?--TriPredRavage (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


Cable and deadpool needs a rewrite. --Cameron Scott (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

hmmm...maybe delte whole sec. to improve WIKIPEDEA? (just suggestion, man...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubesgirl (talk • contribs) 18:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need for a bibliography in the article as long as you mention the titles that Deadpool starred in in the prose. Definitely don't need to list every single comic he ever appeared in. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

On the bibliography I took out some of the TPBs in the appearances list; I realise the having every single Deadpool appearance included is important, but the reader may be confused into buying the Wolverine: Origins Our War TPB, where if memory serves me right 'Pool appeared in one page only, similarly very limited appearances in Ms Marvel and Weapon X: First Class; I reserve judgement on White Tiger since I've not read that. User:Ermol 21 August 2009 (P.S. btw how do you do that template thingie that automatically signs your name and date in talk pages?) —Preceding undated comment added 11:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC).

ditto! tell us, sine! HOW? (plz...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubesgirl (talk • contribs) 15:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

For ~s (~~~~). Three of them will do just your signature, and five will do just a timestamp. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

girl, yo, just tell me were the buton IS!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubesgirl (talk • contribs) 18:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Directly below toe "Esc" button. DurinsBane87 (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a girl. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers buddy Ermol (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Fix this damn article! (JoeLoeb (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

Alrighty, I've updated both Deadpool and Cable & Deadpool's collected editions. I removed White Tiger and X-Force from Deadpool's because in White Tiger, I think he's in all of two pages, and the X-Force book actually takes place in the middle of Cable & Deadpool vol.3, so I added it there instead.--TriPredRavage (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

this 'damn article'...? lol... Tubesgirl (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that the same person that deleted Cable's history had a hand in doing this as well. I just don't see why we can't discuss this before ONE persone decides for everyone else what should be in the article. I understand Wiki's policies, but the fact of the matter is, there is barely any information on these characters now, and Cable has been like that for at least a year, with minimal updates made by some other people. It just seems a little selfish to go ahead and change a whole article but not put anything back in there so people who are interested can learn about that particular character. Drunknesmonsta (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well write a bio then - but make sure it a) does not treats the character as an object of the narrative and b) is not written in an in-universe fashion. if you do it that way, it's impossible to delete. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Your inflexibility and your unwillingness to admit fault are truly awe-inspiring Pope Cameron

Tell me, Cameron, since you and Dodds are the ones who cleared out most of the info (a necessary move, though I still think it was taken a step too far), what would you say would be relevant story points to include in the bio? (considering that DP's starred in several minis and ongoings over his 20 years, and it's not too hard to find sites that discuss them down to the issue) I mean, if you're paying such close attention to this page, you obviously must have knowledge of the character and his backstory, correct? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, the bio for this character will not be rewritten. It's been months since most of this information was terminated from the site. If there were to have been any progress, it would have been done sooner. And you know what would be good? If the high and mighty wizards Cameron and Dodds posted the information himself! Here he is talking about how they wanted the character's biography to be within wiki's guidelines, yet there have been little (sorry) no steps being made to do so. Not even a separate page has been created. So tell me, no, everyone, what you plan to do? Unless someone else is supposed to sift the all of Deadpool's appearances (both previous adventures and currents stories) to make the page acceptable (in other words, have someone clean your own mess because you don't give a damn)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.142.254 (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Two things: 1. We have lives, and 2. Fictional character biographies are being discouraged these days. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
And yet WP:COMICS still says that characters are entitled to fictional biographies. So if you're going to shred up a page, then do nothing to fix it, then you shouldn't have messed with the damn page in the first place. We have lives too, and we don't want to spend them cleaning up YOUR mistakes. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
(let's go round around) - a fictional bio that is written in publication order, which is not written as if the character is real, which treats the characters as an object of the narrative. The previous bio did none of those things and was based around 25 issues of over 300 appearances! If you can write a fictional bio that confirms to policy, nobody will be able to remove it. The sort of shit we had previously? People will scrub that on sight. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, but then why aren't YOU helping to fix it since you were the one who scrapped it in the first place? Take some damn responsibility. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Take some damn responsibility - does your passive aggressive manner normally get a response? Besides making you look like you lack the control of an adult, it does nothing for me. Drop me a line on my talkpage when you have worked on your selfcontrol and you aren't embarrassing yourself in a such a sorry manner. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
You're resorting to personal attacks instead of actually trying to help? Talk about immature. I've glanced over the history of this page, and far as I can tell, you've never once ADDED anything to the page; only removed existing information. So tell me, how can you consider yourself to be superior in this scenario when you've done absolutely nothing to help fix the problem?
I'll gladly drop you a line when you can show that you're actually willing to help FIX the page instead of just removing what's already there. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we keep this discussion civil, please? It's not worth attacking each other. I definitely think that the info should stay, but it needs some work. Deleting it all doesn't seem helpful, but right now it lacks sources and isn't written in an encyclopedic manner. Friginator (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Anyway, Cameron's agreed to do some rewriting regarding the backstory, and I'm in the middle of searching for an external source with which to reinforce the existing sections. With any luck, we should have this whole thing taken care of relatively soon. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, the Alternate Versions, Powers and Abilities, and Breaking the Fourth Wall sections are now sourced. Now that there's no risk of those being removed, we can concentrate on the Fictional Biography. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
You can't use mirrors of wikipedia content as a source for the article. It's a complete no-no as far as reliable sources go. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Dammit, I didn't even notice that. This is harder than I thought... -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to establish notability of super-powers via reliable secondary sources that deal with the subject in an out-of-universe manner. "Alternate versions" do not warrant a separate section, despite what you might see in other character articles; if they are notable, deal with them in the "Publication history" section. Overall, the stories themselves are not acceptable forms of reference. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The exemplar for WP:Comics disagrees with you on that point. It's clearly listed that Alternate Versions are deserving of their own section. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you have reliable secondary sources to establish their notability? Because it not, it needs to be removed. Even if there are, it's best to deal with them in the publication history section. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Breaking the Fourth Wall Section

I've removed the sentence claiming Deadpool's first example of breaking the fourth wall was in Deadpool #4. Just to clear thingfs up, the first example of Deadpool breaking the fourth wall was in Deadpool: The Circle Chase #1, the very first Deadpool solo comic. He recognizes and repeats the "KLIK" sound effect when a gun is pointed at his head. Something similar happens in Joe Kelly's first issue with the sound effect "PWANGG." Friginator (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no way this section can be kept without discussion by reliable third-party sources. As it stands it's original research and must be removed. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless you actually HELP us look for 3rd party sources. Why are you so insistent on deleting anything you don't like instead of helping us actually improve the page WITHOUT sacrificing the article's informative nature? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually Cyberlink, according to WP:BURDEN, it's your job to make sure that the section you restored is sourced properly. I think that it could be useful information worth including, but unless it's sourced soon it needs to be removed. Though not all unsourced material is original research, like WesleyDodds seems to be saying. And no, it doesn't have to be The section in question is all true, but just that doesn't work on Wikipedia. There should be reliable sources to back up the facts. Friginator (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
My problem is that he's lumping everything together as a whole, and deleting the stuff that HAS reliable sources as well. A lot of them HAVE reliable sources, and yet they're still getting removed. I'm in the process of finding more sources to fill in the blanks (though progress will be slow since I'll be busy all weekend)... -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Provide reliable third-party sources for this information. Right now the section is mere speculation and extrapolation of the source materiral, which is original research. It certainly doesn't warrant it's own section. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

C-

I noticed that at the bottom bar of this page there is a hyperlink that says "c-class marvel characters." I personally think Deadpool is above the alphabet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.91.182 (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Third most popular comics article

In addition to being in the Top 50 most popular Wikipedia articles for 2009 as mentioned above, this article is the third most popular WikiProject Comics article. Seems to me like we ought to whip it into shape. Another editor suggested starting a Good Article Review for it. Thoughts/comments? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not ready for GA - nowhere near. It could easily be a GA, but I think it will take a lot of work. I can agree with High importance due to popularity, but not Top. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Didn't it use to have a good article sticker? You know, that gold star on the top right of the page before it became the steamy remains it is now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.142.254 (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternate Deadpools

There are two other Deadpool versions that have not been added. The first is the Millennial Visions imagining which has Deadpool become a hunter of mutants. He was hired by Sebastion Shaw and used his resources to exterminate most of the mutated population. The only ones remaining were about four or five X-Men and they all hid out in Tokyo, Japan.

A second version is the Exiles teammate turned antagonist. He first appeared as part of AOA Sabretooth's Weapon X team before being frozen within the headquarters. After being brought back by Exile's Dr. Strange, he tried to take over the HQ. However, he was stopped by the heroic Exiles team and was killed by an alternate She-Hulk (who I think was her worlds Hulk).

Thirdly, there is the Swordsman of the Heroes Reborn Universe. Though he is rather normal and serious, it turns out that he was that universe's Deadpool who used to be the leader of that world's superhero group known as "The Remnants".

Also, I don't know whether or not you should keep the DC Superman/Batman character as an actual AU Deadpool. Though it is possible that he may be the merc, you have to remember that it's still a DC publication. Even if the same writer was involved, he had the same mannerisms, and kept saying "Dea-", that still doesn't mean the character's a direct alternate of Deadpool. If that were the case, then that would mean the actual Deathstroke could be considered an alternate version of Deadpool himself (which would be an oddity in itself).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.142.254 (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the DC addition! Also, could you give me a few sources that I could actually list in the article? ;) thanks! JesterCountess[talk•contribs] 05:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's the source for Millennial Visions version (http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/deadpoolvisions.htm) and the Exiles version (http://marvel.wikia.com/Wade_Wilson_%28Earth-5021%29) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.30.41 (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

About the Superman/Batman thing, it shouldn't be in AU section, but perhaps the 2000's section? I know someone said this before, but I just want to suggest it again. It is DC, and it's not really Deadpool, but it should at least be mentioned because of how much they are alike. Just my thinking on it, but I'll leave it alone for now. Atin25 (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ehh... I understand where you're coming from, but you know, just having similarities doesn't make it acceptable for an article. WP:NOR, so it doesn't work. DC and Marvel are completely separate. JesterCountess[talk•contribs] 03:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deadpool/Archive_2&oldid=1145683900"