# Talk:Deadpool & Wolverine

Following the recent work to tidy up the article, I think it is in a good place to nominate for GA. I know there has been some recent vandalism issues but the page has now been protected so I don't think those should be an issue. Does anyone have any concerns about me nominating the article? Anything I've missed that needs to be addressed first? - adamstom97 (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I concur that this article really seems ready for a GA nomination. I grew tired of the vandalism so I'm glad the protection went through for a whole year, I figured that would make things easier on us. I honestly don't know of what else could be added to the article off the top of my head. There were only some minor general adjustments I noticed. I just want to commend you for all of the dedicated work you have put into this article lately. I'm happy to assist with a GA nom should others agree with one, though I do plan on submitting some other superhero film articles for GA soon, so I may commit more to those. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
I suppose the final things we may wish to consider weighing on including is the Baldoni "Nicepool" allegations, which had its lawsuit recently amended and if we want to link it to the It Ends with Us controversy article so it does not distract too much from this scope. Other than that, I did find some sources stating some filming did occur in Vancouver in the #UNDUE focus on background and uncredited actors section, if we think they adequately verify that or not. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
I don't know if I'll get to this, but one thought I had when the info about the legacy characters came out, a lot of them mentioned about when Reynolds reached out to them ahead of filming to join, and it felt to me that it may make the article flow better if those points were moved up to the Pre production section than the post. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
I think we could make it work either way. Technically we could move most of the actor details from Filming and Post-production into the Pre-production section, but we do generally like to note things where they were revealed in the production history. I think the flow works fine with the first reveals in the Filming section and the confirmation in Post-production. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
I like Erik's suggestion above about including the Nicepool allegations in a note with a link to the controversy's article. As for the Vancouver stuff, I think we would only be guessing what was done with those sources. It seems possible that some plates were shot for the skyline / background extensions, but I don't think we can specify that yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
I too like the note idea. I think the most-recent Variety article I linked ought to suffice for citing the details. I think it could read something along the lines of "Justin Baldoni, the director and co-star of the film It Ends with Us (2024), alleged in a lawsuit that Ryan Reynolds based the character Nicepool off of him during a dispute over that film's production with Baldoni's co-star and Reynolds's wife, Blake Lively." That also makes sense on the Vancouver stuff. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
I've added the note on Baldoni. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
I tried editing a link to a source reporting about the shot of Vancouver in the trailer. Can someone please explain why linking to an article pointing this out is not considered worthy of inclusion as it provides context. It should be uncontroversial and acceptable that this shot does in fact appear near the end of the finished movie. Count3D (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
I don't think we know definitively whether that was just some old footage they had available or if that was actually a new second unit scene shot for this film. I think we would need a source concretely affirming it was second unit for this, but the current ones (which I linked to above) only speculative on it. Besides, simply noting a location is seen in a very brief scene in the film and a trailer is not noteworthy and constitutes a trivial mention. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough. Since I saw the various mentions of Vancouver already existing on the page, and given Reynolds well-documented professional history supporting his hometown, it didn't make sense to me why further sources should be excluded, but if the assumption is that it's trivial, and that's consensus, that's fine. Count3D (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

This article contains 152 mentions of "the film", most of which add zero clarity or information. for example:

The film's soundtrack features an original score by Rob Simonsen
Baccarin noted that she has a smaller role in the film compared to the previous Deadpool films
The film's release date was pushed back to November 8, 2024,
See WP:THEFILM for more examples of this phenomenon.
I removed some of these redundant mentions, but was reverted wholesale. If I messed up, sorry, or if you don't agree with every single one of these removals, OK fine, but the article would still benefit losing probably more than 100 of these mentions at minimum. (So that's timewasting 200 words you can prune right there.) This article is supposed to be GA, let's be rigorous about basic copyediting. Popcornfud (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I just want to note that is your own personal essay and not binding for the rest of the encyclopedia to follow. Not every instance was an improvement and left some sentences more vague with "It". Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
My essay says "this is an essay" right at the top of that essay. Popcornfud (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
I know. Essays are not policies or guidelines that can be enforced, they are merely suggestions of ones' opinion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
That's why I wrote the essay and linked it here and in my edit summary, yep. Popcornfud (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
If there are some instances where this wording is unnecessary then I am fine with an improvement being made, but I looked through your edit and all of the examples I looked at did not make sense without "the film" or an alternative. It definitely looked like you had done a find and replace without actually thinking about the wording of each sentence. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
That's 100% not the case, and the fact that I did check each one is why I only got like 10% of the way through all the uses of "the film". Looking at my edit again, I don't see any that I wouldn't stand by, but opinions may differ. Popcornfud (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Going through the changes:
The three changes in the lead I don't believe should have been done, as the first two instances are helpful for clarity, and using it in the third instance helps prevent repetitive sentences starting with "it" (which in turn could mean a reworking there to help that).
I think both uses in Reynolds' character section are necessary.
Baccarin's could probably be omitted
Most of the "Development" uses probably should stay in my opinion, but some could be adjusted
I think the pre-production ones should stay
- Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
We can argue about each mention, but there's 152 of them. (I only touched, what, 20? 30? I don't remember and I'm not gonna count.)
All I'm saying is: there's an easy opportunity to trim prose here, so if the editors on this article don't like the ones I've made, I suggest you go for it yourselves.
This is an easy way to improve the article! Popcornfud (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
I have gone through the full article and addressed a bunch of these, we are down to just 100 instances of "the film", though saying the number like that isn't really helpful. This is a long article and there are many places where we do need to say "the film". It is often used instead of repeating the name or "it", or to clarify what exactly is being discussed. There were definitely some instances that are covered by your essay where we could say "the score" instead of "the film's score", for example, so I addressed those. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
The prose looks way better, nice job. Popcornfud (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

only part of it is and the rest the hardest to read list of cast I have ever seen. 74.89.122.17 (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The bulleted list is for the main cast, additional cast members are listed below. This is standard, not something unique about this article. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
We could perhaps try to make it readable? Like give directions on who comes from which property or which are original to DW? KBHWKFANATIC (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
The article already does this. I fail to see how this is not readable, and I think any issues would have been brought up in the GA review. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 01:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The redirect DP+W has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 14 § DP+W until a consensus is reached.   Jay 💬 04:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)