Jump to content

Talk:Deadpool & Wolverine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Critical reception

[edit]

Why can’t we add the critical reception to the lead? It’s been about a week now since the film released which is plenty of time for critics to form their analysis. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nobody can tell a definitive consensus of the film. is it polarizing? is it mostly positive? it sure seems to be commercially successful, but there is really no set answer to what was thought about it.
"while the film received both positive and negative reviews from critics, it was a commercial success, grossing..."
no conclusion to draw to. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bumping again since no one seems to have given a response to this. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyxaros: Please explain why adding an accurate representation of the critical response section is apparently NPOV or SYNTH. It is what is written there in the section. We need to suggest something to be added there as the film has been out for about three weeks now which is plenty of time to craft a general consensus of these reviews. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 12:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is your suggestion? - adamstom97 (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really a conclusion to draw here. Some think it's divisive as all hell, others say it's been well-recieved. The only conclusion to draw here is that at least critically, there isn't really a general consensus. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean we can say MoM was also the same thing. And shouldn’t we be putting more weight towards the critics from the trades? Some of the ones in the ref bundle claiming it was divisive are lesser-known, with the exception of NYT. Maybe we can just say “mixed to positive reviews” to cover the whole spectrum. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Were there any complaints from viewers with regards to the amount of swearing, foul language and violence in the film?"195.244.197.30 (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)"[reply]

We are in 2024, not 1954. Foul language doesn't surprise anymore213.230.92.215 (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: None of your additions were "accurate". You implied that positive reviews were predominant but that several sources "claimed" that it divided critics. This is not what is written in the reception section. On the contrary, there are more sources reporting that the film was divisive. ภץאคгöร 15:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC) Moved message down to correct reply sequence. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that’s the case, then, as I suggested above, we should just say “mixed to positive reviews” which I think covers this whole range including the divisive ones. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not edit the related content without a consensus + there's no such thing as "mixed-to-positive", which is, again, a synthesis. ภץאคгöร 23:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So then please suggest what we should put there as we are just going in circles. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's only been two weeks. Tertiary sources work at sloth speeds. See WP:NORUSH. DonQuixote (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I agree with this removal by Nyxaros. It is clear there is no consensus for that wording, and historically, WP:FILM has not supported that kind of language in film articles (e.g., "mixed-to-negative", "mixed-to-positive", etc.). If you search the talk archives of the film project, you'll find discussions dating back more than a decade.
    At film articles, critic summary discussions seem to crop up every few weeks or months. It usually comes down to whether or not the sources generally agree, and two of the most prominent in the beginning are Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. When they disagree, it's usually a sign that we should be avoiding a critical reception summary statement in the lead. For smaller films, you might find enough to support one direction over the other, but for larger blockbusters like this film, it's doubtful. There will be more published, and eventually the spectrum will reflect the disparity and disagreement we're seeing between RT and MC. Best to leave it out at this point. My 2¢. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So then take a similar approach to what Joker did, i.e. “the film polarized critics..” as that is literally what the section supports. Then follow with what is broadly praised and whatnot. This hasn’t been an issue with MCU film articles but for whatever reason this one is being intensely looked at. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 03:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Polarizing" is one thing. when you have a bunch of sources saying that exact thing, well that would have been appropriate. But, there are other sources calling it "mostly positive". Consensus is "polarized" between 'polarizing' and 'positive'. It's meta, yes, but it shows nobody can decide whether it was thought of positively or both ways. we cannot decide either. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we can just say “The film split critics, with some giving it divisive reviews, while others said it gave positive reviews.” I think that’s the best we can do without avoiding SYNTH. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just another way of expanding on divisive. Keep in mind that it is the sources that are split. As soon as you say that the critics are split, you are opposing some of those sources.
    If you were going to write this, it would have to be something like, "Some publications such as USA Today reported that the film received positive reception from critics, while others like the New York Times stated it was more divisive." But again, that is a mouthful for the lead and is better dealt with in the body. Then there's the concern of WP:WEASEL. We don't really know what the split entails, because we should not be aggregating the sources to determine if this is a true split down the middle. It could be 70-30, 80-20, etc., in favor of one over the other. The use of "some" is arguably questionable. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) There are a significant number of sources that say the overall reception was positive, not divisive. Not only that, but there are prominent sources making that assessment including Rotten Tomatoes (an aggregator) and USA Today (cited in the article). If this is summarized as "polarized", which also means divisive, then you are essentially picking a winner by choosing the sources that cite divisiveness. The only proper conclusion that can be drawn is what is written in the opening sentence of the "Critical response" section, and I see no reason to repeat that in the lead, since it doesn't really provide any value, but that's essentially what you'd have to do if you wanted something. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Word. Thank you GoneIn60. Couldn't've said it better myself. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like that’s the best option to put in the lead, even if it’s a bit wordy. But you said it’s what’s best to add without running into any issues, so I’ve added that if that’s what should be there. Should critics opinions on the film change in the coming weeks we can definitely change it. But please let me know if it should be tidied up any further. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 02:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MarioProtIV, I'm not sure why you're having a hard time understanding that we are still having a discussion and haven't reached an agreement. This is the 2nd or 3rd time now that you've impatiently plucked a suggestion from the discussion and inserted it into the article, guessing that other editors might be okay with it. When I said, "I see no reason to repeat that in the lead", another editor agreed. It would be better to wait until others have weighed in and some form of consensus has been reached. Right now we don't have that. If you need help understanding this concept, ask for help on your talk page or at WP:TEA. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I’m just annoyed that this kind of discussion about the critical reception is even taking this long because in the past, it really has not been this much of a hassle even for MCU film articles, even for films that split critics. I haven’t seen any suggestions on how to improve this, and if I’m not mistaken, RT is not a great indicator to include for critic reviews in the lead, and Metacritic was more or less used/more weight put on In that case, the “mixed to average reviews” by critics there seem to corroborate the divide in divisive vs positive reviews. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 06:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is WP:NOHURRY, wait until there is consensus for new wording. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I came up with a few options we could use to put in the lead without sounding redundant or SYNTH.
Option 1 - "Sources differ on the reception the film received: some said it recieved divisive reviews, while others claimed it received positive reviews upon opening. Nevertheless, it was a box office success, grossing $1 billion… […]" – This rewords what the section says while making things a little more clearer. The transition to the box office success is worded in a way to sepeeate that from the reviews.
Option 2 - "Reviews of the film differ by source: some say it was divisive amongst critics, while others said it received positive reviews." - Short and straight to the point while not being SYNTHy.
Option 3 - "The film received both positive and divisive reviews according to critics, […]" - I feel this might be the least bloated of them and still summarizes the split in the sources (not the reviews).
Hopefully, maybe we can work towards something from here. If anyone has any better ideas please feel free to leave them here. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, option 3 seems the best, but replace the word "both" with something along the lines of "either". but not that word specifically.
We have decided what the reception is. It is being "either positive or divisive". We need to figure out how to convey that. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
being both positive or divisive. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
YodaYogaYogurt154, just a heads up that I copied this down into a 'Survey' section below with more of the options discussed earlier. Letting you know so you can weigh in again, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Let's get the options together properly, and let's also realize there are actually two questions that need to be asked.

1) Should a critical summary statement be added to the lead section?
2) Among the following options for that statement, if it is added, which one is worded best?

A. Some reported that the film was well received by critics, while others found overall reception to be more divisive.
B. Some publications such as USA Today reported that the film was positively received by critics, while others like the New York Times determined it to be more divisive.
C. Reviews of the film differ by source: some say it was divisive amongst critics, while others said it received positive reviews.
D. The film received positive and divisive reviews according to critics.

Please note: If the consensus supports Question #1, then the statement with the most support from Question #2 will be selected.

Also, this isn't a formal RfC. Keeping it local, assuming there will be enough participation at this talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Pinging Adamstom.97, MarioProtIV, Nyxaros, DonQuixote, and YodaYogaYogurt154. Would be nice to finally get some closure here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify for #1, do you support or oppose (or are you neutral)? --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think #1 is not the way we should go. Critical reception is relevant to the point it is unclear. that's something that extra-deserves to be in the lead. so, no to 1, yes to 2A (with Trailblazer101's provisions) YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very odd to leave a brief sentence about the critical reception out of the lead. As I noted in my response, it’s basically a silent consensus to have it in the lead, especially for MCU articles. I’m not sure why you think this film needs to be the exception whereas it’s a pretty standard thing to include, and with the right wording is no harm at all. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 12:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can look at it two ways, 1 being that we're reflecting two differing viewpoints or 2, that we are trying to come to a conclusion on what was the general consensus. I support what I've said above for the first case, but not so much for the second. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if we are reflecting that there are two distinct viewpoints, Yes on 1; otherwise it's a no for me if we are trying to come to a definitive conclusion on what was the one consensus. There appear to be two of those and I think we need to reflect that there are two distinct metrics here. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i just know Mario has been trying to come to a conclusion but there is no one conclusion here. there are two generally cited appraisals. should we reflect the two appraisals in the lead? Yeps, I think so myself 👍 YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s pretty much what I wanted to know so thank you for clarifying. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also want to ping @Favre1fan93, @Trailblazer101 and @BarntToust for their input. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1, 2A - As one of the proposers I’ve had some time to look it over, and I find that 2A works best. Regarding point 1, at least for the MCU taskforce from my observation, it is basically a “silent consensus” if you will to always have the brief summary of the critical reception in the lead. Addiotnslly, a casual viewer will more likely check the critical reception section itself to view the content after reading it in the lead, and also easier for their process of seeing whether or not the film is good. A little bit trivial, but this is basically my line of thought which I think is pretty much known amongst editors, even in the broader film prospect (non-MCU/non-Marvel/superhero films). Basically, it would be off-putting to not include it in the lead. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 02:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not exactly sure why this has to be a one-or-the other approach, although I believe we should stick to what all the sources state rather than trying to come to our own conclusion based on them (which would veer into WP:SYNTH territory). From my understanding, both the positive and divisive responses seem accurate and correct here. I think 2A covers this appropriately, is WP:CONCISE, and is currently reflected by the sourcing in the article. I am indifferent on what a lead summary should state, although I will point out that many of the recently-released MCU film articles (ie Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and Black Panther: Wakanda Forever to name a couple) do not have overall receptions beyond a generalized statement because it may take a while for an overall critical summary to come into fruition other than just a general brief summary. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's actually an excellent point, Trailblazer101. We should probably strike "overall" from 2A and perhaps replace it with "the". -- GoneIn60 (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Trailblazer101, would it be accurate to say your !vote is "Neutral 1, Support 2A" (with Adam's revision)? --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is correct. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1; Choose 2A as it makes the most sense per above. #1 wouldn't be the end of the world, but #2A is the most accurate to what is in the prose. BarntToust (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Might I add that we are beyond coming to a definitive conclusion about the critical consensus at this point with what is in the prose. We just need to determine how to reflect that "some said it was a pretty good movie" while others were like: "It was divisive". That is what we know. Or maybe not reflect that at all if that is not what we determine. I'd like to reflect what that is however. BarntToust (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ping for the input of two experienced editors: @KingArti and @Richiekim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarntToust (talk • contribs) 22:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1, Support 2A – Marcello Domenis (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1, Support 2B w/ sources. 2A only makes sense if you have read this dissertion, and most readers will have not read this. Porpose changing "Some publications such as USA Today reported that the film was positively received by critics, while others like the New York Times determined it to be more divisive." to simply "USA Today reported that the film was film was positively received by critics, while the New York Times described it to be more divisive." Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not need to mention these publications as that is not what is important here and would be placing WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on them. What is important and relevant to this reception is what the reception summary is, not where it was determined. A general statement suffices. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear that, but saying "some sources" when we have one each giving conflicting overall reception. I think naming them as we have one each would help let readers make up their mind on it and be more accurate than saying "sources". Can't say my heart is set on it as it's not that different really, but that's just my two cents.Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Adam's suggestion below would handle this wording adequately. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1, Support 2A with slight adjustment for clarity: Some publications reported that the film was well received by critics, while others found the initial reception to be more divisive. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1, Support 2A with Adam's provisions - according to his specific wording approach. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Adam’s provisions: I think his version would work best. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Concern – Hate to be the odd man out, but "initial" can be a bit ambiguous. Is this the initial reception before the film's release, during the film's release, right after the film's release, etc.? Obviously we know, but it's not self-explanatory the way it's written. Personally, I think it reads fine if we drop "initial" and just say "the reception". --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This sentence only covers the first reviews that came out, per the sources in the article. I think you are being a bit nitpicky, but we could use the same wording as the article already has: Some publications reported that the film was well received by critics, while others found the reception upon opening to be more divisive. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, true. Perhaps I am! Fine with whatever the consensus decides! Just trying to keep the reader in mind. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, we can workshop the grammar around to whatever works the smoothest. Prose flow can always work around and with "what information do we want to reflect in the lede?" YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with adamstom97's provisions. Those would work best. BarntToust (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1, but were it to succeed, then 2A as clear and consise. The other options lack either clarity, concision, or both. But really, reception information belongs in the section for that, and is a moving target anyway (albeit a slowly moving one). If a film garnered overwhelmingly negative or overwhelmingly positive reviews, and there is no doubt about it, that might be lead-worthy encyclopedic information in some cases, especially if this is an assessment after many years have passed. But temporary uncertainty about the accuracy of short-term review aggregation (i.e., observation of the fact that the aggregators contradict each other) is no way key encyclopedic information that belongs in the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. Generally how I've felt about summary statements for years. There's always this rush to include one in the lead without giving much thought as to whether it's the right move. The knee-jerk, shining of a bright light on this one aspect occasionally places too much emphasis and weight on run-of-the-mill review aggregation from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, especially when the two are at odds, or the consensus is just middle of the road (implying a "mixed" range that Rotten Tomatoes just doesn't have a good gauge for). As we see here, it even happens when we have conflicting sources outside of RT and MC. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
MarioProtIV, just to clarify a point about silent consensus, also known as "presumed consensus" or WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Although many film articles (and not just MCU-related films) contain a silently-accepted critical reception summary in the lead, the exceptions out there are usually the ones that held discussions on their talk page. What works at one article may or may not work at another. Silent consensus is localized to the article it forms in, meaning it has no bearing or weight in another article (see WP:OTHERCONTENT). It is also the weakest form of consensus that only exists until it is "disputed or reverted".
Thought maybe that would help, since you brought it up more than once as if it should have some bearing here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WesleyTRV, please do not change the wording in the article when it explicitly says not to in the note, as well as during a discussion on forming a consensus on the matter here on the talk page. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • BarntToust, an RfC makes sense at this point, but would you consider withdrawing the question (below) and briefly discussing ways to rephrase it? I think doing so will give us a better outcome. From the above discussion, it sounds like the question should simply ask if 2A (with adamstom97's revision) should be inserted into the lead section. Narrowing down the choice simplifies the !votes for both participants and the closer. We should also briefly summarize the argument for and against inclusion (1-2 sentences for each). Optionally, we can refrain from weighing in until others start to; let's see what a few uninvolved editors think before we begin repeating arguments and !votes. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So far as I'm concerned, we have to ask whether or not we want to describe the critical reception, and if so, how. I'm not going to have another local discussion on what I'm gonna rephrase this as, because look at how far local discussions have gotten us. I'm giving @GoneIn60 full power in how they'd like to reword this. No need to discuss how you're going to do it, but just sum up things so they make sense. Thanks! BarntToust (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be traveling most of the day, unfortunately. If someone beats me to the punch, feel free. Otherwise, I'll have time later tonight. Thanks! -- GoneIn60 (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BarntToust, given SMcCandlish's response already to the RfC, you may want to go ahead and close that one out. We can open a new one after we've given the above survey a bit more time as suggested. A neutral discussion notice like {{Please see}} can be dropped at WT:FILM to invite more participation in the interim. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

[edit]

A request for the input on the talk page of Deadpool & Wolverine on the section Talk:Deadpool & Wolverine#Critical reception: subsection Talk:Deadpool & Wolverine#Survey. We have tried to form a consensus on how to deal with the unclear critical reception and whether/how it should be reflected in the header of the article.

  1. Should a critical summary statement be added to the lead section?
  2. Among the following options for that statement, if it is added, which one is worded best?
    1. Some reported that the film was well received by critics, while others found overall reception to be more divisive.
    2. Some publications such as USA Today reported that the film was positively received by critics, while others like the New York Times determined it to be more divisive.
    3. Reviews of the film differ by source: some say it was divisive amongst critics, while others said it received positive reviews.
    4. The film received positive and divisive reviews according to critics.

Please note: If the consensus supports Question #1, then the statement with the most support from Question #2 will be selected. BarntToust (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Improper RfC. See WP:RFC. And RfC should ask a specific clear question, not be an open-ended "we don't have consensus so keep jabbering" invitation. RfCs take time away from editors other tasks and need to be focused on attempting to achieve consensus to do or not do a particular thing. PS: The ongoing discussion above this is not even concluded. If the intent was to make THAT an RfC, then the RfC tag goes at the top of that thread (it's fine to add one after a discussion has been ongoing a while). What is not helpful is opening a confusing "counter-RfC" below an active/ongoing discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to edit the thing to be clearer. I figure the above should be closed per NOCONSENSUS. It was 10 days, and it likely wasn't set to go anywhere from there. BarntToust (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with closing the earlier survey and starting over, especially when it is still getting feedback. SMcCandlish just weighed in, and as suggested, a discussion notice can be left at the WikiProject to try to get more participants (or simply make the existing discussion an RfC). --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. A critical summary statement may be beneficial here to allow for a neutral explanation of the critic reviews.
2. I like B as the option because you have an ability to use sources and it gives credibility. 🦄✨bedazzledunicorn✨🦄 21:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update?

[edit]

With the film being on Disney+ now and about 2 months passed since the last reply here, I’m not sure where we ended up here. I would’ve added something right now based on the amount of time passed but as we did not seem to agree on what to add, I want to know what we should do at this point. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the survey above, there does not appear to be support for adding a critical response summary. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it it seems there was a decent amount of support for your provision though (2A) versus the others, so not sure if that means much here. Alternatively, perhaps the simplest way to do this would be just saying "Critical reception to the film differs by source" and then just add a hatnote next to it explaining it. Less wordy for readers and easier to read for others. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was support for 2A if we do add wording to the lead, but there is roughly even number of votes supporting and opposing 1 (no wording in lead). - adamstom97 (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would suggest restarting the consensus and see if more are willing to chime in. The process kind of stopped when someone attempted to RfC and it was shot down for being improper. Then the discussion just kind of died without clear consensus as to where we’re going with this. Worth a shot, IMO. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
my stupidity in botching the rfc, sorry. someone needs to manually archive this dead thread, and then maybe a proper rfc gets started. BarntToust 14:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mario, sourcing supports two ideas: 1. you either hated it or liked it; 2. you pretty much liked it. Confusing, right? This movie is divisive in its critical divisiveness. We sure can't come to a conclusion of phrasing with what we've got in the article. BarntToust 12:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restarting discussion

[edit]

I think it’s best if we restart discussion on how to include the critical reception in the lead since there’s been attempts to add it and the movie has been out for a good 5 months now, more then enough time for critics to come to a better understanding of it, as well as that the rest of the MCU films have not had as much problems inserting reception in the lead. That being said, should we mention the initial reception to the movie was seen as divisive amongst critics, and then mention how it’s evolved amongst critics since? The only other film that’s had critical reception in this kind of way was Joker in 2019, so I am wondering if we should look at that as a reference to build off of. This has gone unresolved long enough and we should decide how to word this exactly. Or more simply we just say the reviews were mixed which covers both sides easily. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does Hulk need to be mentioned in the Cast section?

[edit]

Is the setence "while a variant of the Hulk appears fighting a variant of Wolverine" necessary? I found the existence of this sentence very strange, since this is not a character list. Hulk's appearance is silent and CGI-generated, and even though he is portrayed by stand-ins on set, I do not think they are notable enough to make it into the cast list. Since I am not a frequent editor of MCU articles, I am unsure if this relates to WP:MCUFILMCAST or other parts of the explanatory supplements that I may have overlooked, and the sentence has been there for ages, so I think it would be better to pull up a discussion here first. But as I do not see Fenris in Thor: Ragnarok or Dweller-in-Darkness in Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, I doubt it reflects any local consensus. I propose deleting the sentence. Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 18:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. If we had confirmation as to who was portraying the Hulk, then it would make sense to include it in the Cast section. But, since we don't know the cast-member's identity, I don't believe it warrants inclusion. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 15:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2024

[edit]

In the section about about the actors of the deadpool variants, 'scottishpool' is reported as played by an uncredited, unknown actor. The actor who plays him is named Denver White. you can see pictures of him wearing the costume without the mask on his imdb page here: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm13921763/ Cherryblossomgirly (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this article is way too long

[edit]

It's a small inconsequential film. It should be no more than 4-5 small paragraphs. Tallard (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What?! While that may be your opinion, the sheer amount of sources that exist prove contrary to that. If you actually had a suggestion of what content could be split, that could be useful, but this comment just reads as an unconstructive complaint. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This reads as obvious trolling to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trailblaizer came to my talkpage to chastise me regarding my criticism of this article. My criticism of this article is valid. If I had the time and inclination, I would indeed edit it to a proper size. The first half of the article reads like a fan site, and is reference free. Wikipedia users are totally in our ethical right to say an article is too long. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a fanclub for entertainment products. Wikipedia also expects users to assume good intentions on the part of other users. Tallard (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to assume good intentions when what you are saying is so ridiculous. a small inconsequential film? It is one of the biggest and most widely reported-on films of the year. no more than 4-5 small paragraphs? That is absurd, there is clearly more than enough sourced material to cover the film, its production, and its reception as is. If you have genuine criticisms about the article then we would be glad to hear about them, but those are not it. The first half of the article reads like a fan site, and is reference free -- are you talking about the lead and the plot summary, neither of which require explicit references? Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines before claiming that other users don't know what they are doing. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are also completely able to send notices to other editors who may have forgotten about core policies, such as misuse of talk pages. It is difficult to assume good faith when you use words like "chastize" to refer to a civil notice of your own editing. If you actually laid out your concerns specifically about how to improve this article, then we could work together to cut down any potentially irrelevant information, but openly criticizing other editors and the article content without offering up any solution is just not a constructive approach. Considering this film grossed over $1 billion suggests many in the general public do care about it, so your claims it is inconsequential seem biased. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UNDUE focus on background and uncredited actors

[edit]

While I disagree with the tone of the above section, I do think there are some areas of the article that could do with a clean-up. One thing I am wondering about is whether we should have so much focus on the characters that ended up being minor background characters, especially the uncredited ones. Before the film came out it seemed notable to list all the returning characters that we were learning about from set pictures and trailers, but now that seems WP:UNDUE to me. I think we could have a single list of these in the cast section and then consolidate/remove the details from the production section. I am planning to go through the article at some point and clean-up some of the more recent additions, just thought I would raise this issue first in case there were any objections. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deadpool_%26_Wolverine&oldid=1267949931"