DisneyMetalhead (talk | contribs) |
DisneyMetalhead (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
==Anon IP edits== |
==Anon IP edits== |
||
Anon IP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/206.81.136.61 206.81.136.61] has been making name changes to the cast list, when Deadpool 2 is not even available and the only names we can go by are from the first Deadpool movie. Second, he's relying on first names appearing on sweaters in a jokey parody poster for the movie, and yet he also added last names the first movie did not give. Finally, advertising and marketing materials are not the manifest content of the movie. For characters recurring from the first movie, we can only give the name from the first movie unless an official cast list or official synopsis for Deadpool 2 says different. We can't give names for any new characters in Deadpool 2 until the movie comes out or they're stated in an official cast list or official synopsis. Jokey marketing materials are neither the movie nor an official cast list or official synopsis. --[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 20:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC) |
Anon IP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/206.81.136.61 206.81.136.61] has been making name changes to the cast list, when Deadpool 2 is not even available and the only names we can go by are from the first Deadpool movie. Second, he's relying on first names appearing on sweaters in a jokey parody poster for the movie, and yet he also added last names the first movie did not give. Finally, advertising and marketing materials are not the manifest content of the movie. For characters recurring from the first movie, we can only give the name from the first movie unless an official cast list or official synopsis for Deadpool 2 says different. We can't give names for any new characters in Deadpool 2 until the movie comes out or they're stated in an official cast list or official synopsis. Jokey marketing materials are neither the movie nor an official cast list or official synopsis. --[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 20:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC) |
||
::[[User:Tenebrae]] you choose to ignore official marketing -even though it is indeed '''official''' and directly from the studio. The joke is poking fun at ''Mickey Mouse Club''. It's not making fun of the characters. Their first names are all included, which only goes to show that they are being true to the source material. Here's one for ya - in recent MCU movies the characters have only been referenced onscreen by their birth names instead of their superhero aliases, but we all know that Iron Man is Tony Stark / Iron Man. I don't see the need to single out an editor in your comment here^ when they were obviously providing a reliable source; it comes from the movie's official marketing page poster [http://www.deadpoolcore.com/| here]. It isn't destructive editing (as you have stated in the comments of your reverts several times), and is clearly directly from those involved with creating the movie - who all definitely ave more reliability than your personal opinions - a.k.a. the production team. You, along with any nay-sayers who continually deny that the film's current official title is the meta-title, ''The Untitled Deadpool Sequel'' (which is hilarious if you know the character), need to ease up on your inflammatory rhetoric...how much more official can film updatees be, than from the studio creating them? Exactly. I don't think an official cast list exclusively identifies characters, and is definitely not the only way to name characters in a movie. Good find and constructive edit, [[Special:Contributions/206.81.136.31|User:206.81.136.61 206]]. I for one appreciated them and believe they were helpful for the page.--[[User:DisneyMetalhead|DisneyMetalhead]] ([[User talk:DisneyMetalhead|talk]]) 05:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:37, 8 February 2018
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cable?
Can we note that Cable has been confirmed for this film? Npamusic (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Characters' real names
CAJH, even though Domino and Cable are confirmed to be in this film, their real names are not mentioned in the sources. Should we still keep them? Or do the names border on WP:SYNTH? --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- You should ask from other users. They are more strict about these rules than I am. CAJH (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, they definitely are, and overly so.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Draft:Deadpool (film series)
It has spawned its own film series separate from the X-Men film series, like how The Scorpion King relates to The Mummy. Need a little help in expanding this draft before even considering proposing a split. Be prepared! Lyra-Nymph (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- The page itself should be a part of the X-Men (film series) page--- BUT that page needs a retitled, as there are multiple series now spawned therefrom. A move has been pushed for several times, with the consensus currently being that it would stay the same, until the studio releases an official title for the franchise.--206.81.136.61 (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- We need a Mummy-Scorpion King film franchise article, as the 1990s/2000s iteration of the Universal Monsters franchise, it was successful (unlike the Dark Universe iteration). Care to do the honors LyraNymph? The Mummy-The Scorpion King film franchise -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Poster Image
The page's poster is terrible resolution/quality with darkness added to it. This needs to be changed to the actual official poster. Also the film's title has changed....--206.81.136.61 (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Done. You have may have to clear your cache to view it though. The previous version came from here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 16 November 2017
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. There's no consensus for page to be moved. The common name appears to be more popular.(non-admin closure) Mahveotm (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Deadpool 2 → The Untitled Deadpool Sequel – Listed as such on official website 196.47.225.15 (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Think this one needs a full WP:RM. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- @196.47.225.15 and Lugnuts: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose: As of now the WP:COMMONNAME still appears to be Deadpool 2.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose: We'd never capitalize a non-title that way, and see also WP:THE. If this were moved to something like that, it would be "untitled Deadpool sequel", except that's ambiguous, since there's more than one thing (even more than one thing in this franchise) named Deadpool, so it would have to be something more like "untitled Deadpool film sequel". Anyway, Deadpool 2 does appear to be the common name; it's normal film journalism practice to refer to sequels this way in absence of a more specific title being announced. When the production advances far enough that a real title is known, the article would have to move away from something descriptive ("untitled" whatever) anyway, so its present name really doesn't matter, and Deadpool 2 is actually statistically the most likely final title, anyway. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 21:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose leading "The", neutral on other suggestions. Obviously, the name "The Untitled Deadpool Sequel", definite article included, is unsuitable as an article title. ONR (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support: In the same way that Spider-Man: Homecoming's sequel will not be titled Spider-Man: Homecoming 2, but the filmmakers still refer to it as such colloquially. Hence, the draft article is titled Untitled Spider-Man: Homecoming sequel --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment you couldn't very well call it Spiderman 2/Spider-Man 2/Spider Man 2/Spider-man 2, there being two other films already being called that, so that's not an analogous case. Untitled Deadpool sequel or untitled Deadpool Sequel is unnecessary when there's already a common name for this. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose: As Triiiple said, the COMMONNAME is still Deadpool 2. And in response to those saying we cannot have an article titled Untitled Deadpool Sequel, note that this could still be an option if it becomes more common because it is the title being used by Fox (meaning, the film is not actually untitled, as some are assuming here) which is sourced in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose: I'm too lazy to write out my reasoning so just read everything above this comment. Don't @ me. --Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose since Deadpool 2 is the common name. I'm fine with stating in the opening sentence that it is not officially titled, but definitely don't open with "Untitled Deadpool Sequel" or have it in general use. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Erik, the source we have in the article (straight from Fox) says that the title Untitled Deadpool Sequel is what they are currently using, so it is not actually untitled at the moment. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- The source reports the studio saying, "This film is not yet titled so we are temporarily referring to it as Untitled Deadpool Sequel." There is no such thing as Untitled Deadpool Sequel. Technically, Wikipedia's adaptation of that would be to apply italics to the title and to write in sentence case, meaning "Untitled Deadpool sequel", which is an acceptable but longer-winded variation of Deadpool 2, which we can note is colloquial. All the sources call it that because it's easier to call it that until an official title is set up permanently. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose WP:UCN use the common name, commonly found in use. WP:OFFICIALNAME do not use the official name just because it is in official usage, use the common name. WP:CONCISE use the shorter name. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
- NOTE Aidan0007 (talk · contribs) just tried to move this by cut-and-paste move [1][2] to the proposed title that just failed -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Title
In the given source Fox says “This film is not yet titled so we are temporarily referring to it as Untitled Deadpool Sequel”. We only italics and capitalize titles, not placeholders. ScreenRant / Fox may have their own manual of style but we are not required to follow it. We are only beholden to our own.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- But isn't this a placeholder title? I don't think it is the same as us having no title to use and so referring to the article as "untitled Deadpool sequel". - adamstom97 (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- There’s no title, they say as much in the quote.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- But they then go on to say what they have been referring to it as. What is that, other than a (temporary) title? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- There’s no title, they say as much in the quote.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- How about putting it in quotes? 'The Untitled Deadpool Sequel' or "untitled Deadpool sequel" ? -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- That's what I did.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's currently italicized, and not enclosed within quotes (unless you mean wikimarkup, which isn't displayed text, it is code) If this refers to some other revision, I haven't seen it so far. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Triiiple was talking about a previous revision. That formatting would be accurate if there was no title, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. Fox stated that they are referring to the film as Untitled Deadpool Sequel. That sounds like a title to me, even if it is not intended to be an official title. The appropriate formatting either way is to italicise. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's currently italicized, and not enclosed within quotes (unless you mean wikimarkup, which isn't displayed text, it is code) If this refers to some other revision, I haven't seen it so far. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- That's what I did.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no commonly-used title of Untitled Deadpool Sequel, and to present it as such is misleading. We don't put internal references front and center in the opening sentence of a Wikipedia article when they are not widely used. We stick to purely descriptive and acknowledge the colloquial use of Deadpool 2 in the meantime. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone has said that "Untitled Deadpool Sequel" is the common title, it is "Deadpool 2" that is the common title. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Why have all references to the title in the article been changed to an unconfirmed title? I can’t find any official sources claiming The Second Coming is the title of the movie, just speculation based on the caption of one piece of promotional material.2600:1:92DC:795E:45B2:36:7590:FE80 (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Revisiting
There has been recent news coverage about this film because its release date has changed, and none of the coverage refers to the film as other than Deadpool 2. So to use anything else is to apply undue weight. Editors need to stop playing it up when there is no basis to do that in the sources themselves. We follow the sources. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. All coverage calls it Deadpool 2. So should we. oknazevad (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Variety calls it Deadpool 2. It'd be nice to have access to some other databases, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Erik: can you explain to me how I am violating WP:NPOV, because it seems to me that you are doing that yourself. NPOV states:
Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias.
There are two sides here, the common name and the official name. By removing mention of the official name you are not explaining both sides and are exhibiting editorial bias. You may not like it, but it is the official name and we need to state that in the same way that we would state any official name. I am not advocating for the sole use of the official name, I have already pointed out that we in fact use the common name all throughout the article. But we still need to say what it is actually called in the lead, even if we are going to call it something else later on. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)- It's not the official name. If it was the official name, reliable sources would be using it. It is simply an internal name. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 05:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- That doesn't make sense. The people making the movie know what it is actually called. The official name of a movie is not decided from the consensus of interested journalists or internet commentators. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- It is a description, not a title. Whatever their website says, I really doubt Marvel plans to release a movie titled The Untitled Deadpool Sequel. In absence of other official titles, I'd say WP:COMMONNAME applies, wherever that may lead us. (Although, if there was a film in the making that the producers actually want to release as "The Untitled X Sequel", Deadpool would be the best bet...) Daß Wölf 01:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- No one is saying that they are going to release it as such (though they might), just that it is officially referred to as this at the moment, similar to Untitled Avengers film. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well, IMO an official title would count for something, but an official description, and such a formulaic one as that, counts for much less. It seems a bit pointless to write something like, "The film's production company refers to it as Untitled Deadpool Sequel." If it were something like an episode's production code, that would make sense, but really, "The film's production company has not yet released an official title", or some such, does a better job here. Daß Wölf 02:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- No one is saying that they are going to release it as such (though they might), just that it is officially referred to as this at the moment, similar to Untitled Avengers film. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- It is a description, not a title. Whatever their website says, I really doubt Marvel plans to release a movie titled The Untitled Deadpool Sequel. In absence of other official titles, I'd say WP:COMMONNAME applies, wherever that may lead us. (Although, if there was a film in the making that the producers actually want to release as "The Untitled X Sequel", Deadpool would be the best bet...) Daß Wölf 01:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- That doesn't make sense. The people making the movie know what it is actually called. The official name of a movie is not decided from the consensus of interested journalists or internet commentators. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's not the official name. If it was the official name, reliable sources would be using it. It is simply an internal name. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 05:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Erik: can you explain to me how I am violating WP:NPOV, because it seems to me that you are doing that yourself. NPOV states:
- Variety calls it Deadpool 2. It'd be nice to have access to some other databases, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
How is this topic even debatable? The film's official page is with the title The Untitled Deadpool Sequel, and is shown as such on the studio's page as well. At this point that is the official title. Should it be changed in post-production that would be similar to how the Cloverfield films change titles, or how a film takes an official title after a working-title/codename-title has been used. Regardless, given the studio's naming of the film as such...shouldn't an encyclopedia follow? Unofficial names (i.e.: Deadpool 2) are misleading and inaccurate. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The Creation of Adam
How would we integrate info about derivatives of The Creation of Adam into that article? (like teaser poster #2; or the Pastafarian painting) It seems like that article is missing mass cultural impact -- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- This would be superfluous and unnecessary. If there was an image depicting this, it could briefly be summarized that the poster is a spoof on that painting.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Second Coming?
Where is the official source for this title?98.193.92.74 (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Look at the second teaser poster. -- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Definitely not the title...--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Anon IP edits
Anon IP 206.81.136.61 has been making name changes to the cast list, when Deadpool 2 is not even available and the only names we can go by are from the first Deadpool movie. Second, he's relying on first names appearing on sweaters in a jokey parody poster for the movie, and yet he also added last names the first movie did not give. Finally, advertising and marketing materials are not the manifest content of the movie. For characters recurring from the first movie, we can only give the name from the first movie unless an official cast list or official synopsis for Deadpool 2 says different. We can't give names for any new characters in Deadpool 2 until the movie comes out or they're stated in an official cast list or official synopsis. Jokey marketing materials are neither the movie nor an official cast list or official synopsis. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- User:Tenebrae you choose to ignore official marketing -even though it is indeed official and directly from the studio. The joke is poking fun at Mickey Mouse Club. It's not making fun of the characters. Their first names are all included, which only goes to show that they are being true to the source material. Here's one for ya - in recent MCU movies the characters have only been referenced onscreen by their birth names instead of their superhero aliases, but we all know that Iron Man is Tony Stark / Iron Man. I don't see the need to single out an editor in your comment here^ when they were obviously providing a reliable source; it comes from the movie's official marketing page poster here. It isn't destructive editing (as you have stated in the comments of your reverts several times), and is clearly directly from those involved with creating the movie - who all definitely ave more reliability than your personal opinions - a.k.a. the production team. You, along with any nay-sayers who continually deny that the film's current official title is the meta-title, The Untitled Deadpool Sequel (which is hilarious if you know the character), need to ease up on your inflammatory rhetoric...how much more official can film updatees be, than from the studio creating them? Exactly. I don't think an official cast list exclusively identifies characters, and is definitely not the only way to name characters in a movie. Good find and constructive edit, User:206.81.136.61 206. I for one appreciated them and believe they were helpful for the page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)