Talk:X-Men (film series)/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

RfC about change in title for X-Men (film series)

Latest comment: 7 years ago178 comments17 people in discussion

Closed as No consensus to do anything. Regardless of the massive wall of text about canvassing and other issues, including some of the most pointless arguments I've seen for a while, this RfC is so malformed it is never going to achieve anything. You've got 12 (TWELVE!!!) possible titles to move it to - how did you ever think there was going to be consensus on that? Worse, many of the eight Supporters of the move have said "Move it to X. Or Y." or "Move it to anything with Z in." and so on. Meanwhile, there are enough Opposes to make it a No Consensus close even if the supporters could agree on what they actually wanted to move it to in the first place. You can't do it like this; you need to have a discussion to narrow it down to one or two possible titles, and then have the discussion. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the title "X-Men (film series)" be changed to include confirmed tie in material specific to this X-Men universe? If supporting the move, please add the title you think it should be changed to. Some suggestions are:

X-Men (cinematic franchise)
X-Men (cinematic universe)
X-Men (film franchise)
X-Men (film universe)
X-Men (Fox franchise)
X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise)
X-Men (franchise)
X-Men (in live-action)
X-Men (shared film continuity)
X-Men (X-Universe)
X-Men Universe
X-Universe

Brocicle (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Support

When I said Fox franchise, I meant because Legion and Gifted will air on Fox networks, but not 20th Century Fox, as someone suggested above. X-Men (Fox franchise) is the most practical and reasonable name there is for this page. TotalTruthTeller24 (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC) (Support by the way)
Support for X-Men (Fox franchise), to be able to add material with the same continuity as the movies per the correct title. -- Alex^TW 23:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Support for X-Men (Fox franchise) Mike210381 (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Support for anything with franchise or continuity, since both are reasonable, though I'd like to thank @Hotwiki: and the gang against moving the page for keeping everything in check. You're right in stating that almost anything using the term "universe" is fan-site-ish and not encyclopedic. That said, this is not a cut-and-dry film series anymore. There are "real" X-Men movies and there are spin-offs, prequels, sequels, and whatever Deadpool is. We're not talking about a simple film trilogy; we're talking about 10+ films made by 6+ directors across 17+ years. This "film series" is a group of other film series, and it doesn't follow the traditional rules of a series or a cinematic universe. It needs to be treated uniquely, as it is unique. I can understand where you're coming from when you say "direct, to the point" @Tenebrae:, but this title is NOT direct and to the point. I've asked this question a few times now: what makes a film an "X-Men" film? Is it a film titled X-Men: [subtitle] or is it any film in this continuity? Either answer will paint you into a corner, as one would result in half the films in this article being removed due to an apparent irrelevance and the other would require you to acknowledge that there are some "non-X-Men-titled" films that belong on this page because they're part of a larger (franchise/continuity/universe/you-name-it). -RM (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Fully support a move to something with the word "franchise". This loose definition word allows for a definitive, yet 'unofficial' title that encompasses all of the installments within the 20th Century Fox continuity. Because of the fact that RM brought up - this being that the films have varying titles, especially given the upcoming films that are currently in production - in addition to the TV series that have been added to the 'franchise', I push for a retitling via the sources I provided above. I would however argue that if we're going to use the studio as part of the title, we should include the entire title: X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise). Reliable references I listed here on this page as to why the page should be retitled.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

(20th Century Fox franchise) doesn't really make sense, as Legion airs on FX and Gifted will air on FOX; all three supsidiaries are owned by 21st Century Fox.--TotalTruthTeller24 (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about their parent company, good point. In this case either X-Men (Fox franchise) or X-Men (21st Century Fox franchise) makes sense to me as well.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Support for X-Men (film universe) or X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise)--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Support for X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise) or X-Men (Fox franchise). With critical and commercial hits like Deadpool and Logan it's obvious the franchise will continue to expand and outgrow the original X-Men films, characters and property. Let alone Gifted and Legion which could be considered somewhat connected, and in case consist of efforts by Fox to expand the franchise. (BTW, all the other title suggestions range from not good to terrible. If I had to choose between "film series" and "cinematic universe", I would choose to keep the "film series" title any day of the week!) Freemanukem (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Support for X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise) or X-Men (Fox franchise)or X-Men (franchise)RodgerTheDodger (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Very oppose my reasonings are listed above this section. And FYI, FX and Fox are owned by 21st Century Fox.SuperHotWiki (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. "(film series)" is direct, to the point, used elsewhere in Wikipedia, and instantly comprehensible to non-comics-fans. The rest of those parenthetical dabs are fancruft that make this seem like a fan page for continuity buffs. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. I truly think it's fine the way it is and for tie-in material to be added under a new section that links to its own Wiki page for further information. Brocicle (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose move to any namespace containing the terms "cinematic" or "universe" (unless of course they become the WP:COMMONNAME). These are trendy buzzwords that fail WP:PRECISE as they do not "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". I would also support a move to X-Men in film to bypass the continuity issue. As Erik suggested, a separate X-Men in television could also be created. Lastly, I would like to point out that the term "franchise" is acceptable per WP:NCF in case there was any confusion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. "Film series" is the established term within Wikipedia and was the term used in Hollywood until PR people around the turn of this century first began to use "franchise" and later also "universe" as synonyms to it. "Franchise" should only be used where it describes a true franchise or a media franchise, where a copyright owning company licenses all or part of its activities to other companies. Marvel Worldwide Inc. runs a very large franchise operation, licensing the use of its comic book characters to companies making films, TV series, collectible cards, prose novels, video games and attractions at theme parks - and they have been doing that since the 1940s. "X-Men (film series)" covers only the X-Men films within that franchise operation, but the films don't constitute the whole X-Men franchise, as Marvel also has licensed the use of the X-Men characters for TV-series, video games, prose novels and collectible cards since 1966. And calling the film series "20th Century Fox franchise" or "Fox franchise" would mean tying the film series to the current license holder. In business nothing is eternal. 20th Century Fox has held the license for the feature films until now, but that doesn't mean the license can't be transferred to another studio in the future - or that the company won't change its name (the parent company changed its name to 21 Century Fox a few years ago, and I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't thinking of "updating" the name of their film studio to reflect that we're now in the 21st century). If the license moves or the company changes name, should we then change everything again? As regards "universe", this is a term that should be reserved for things encompassing the Universe.Thomas Blomberg (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

X-Men universe sounds so fansite to me, so as the other suggestions like X-Universe. C'mon this is Wikipedia! Personally speaking, the current title works best! SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you acknowledged that FX is owned by 20th Century Fox sounds like you'd support a title change that acknowledges that. Because this is Wikipedia, and encyclopedias should be precise and accurate - the current title is not accurate. "X-Men (film series)" sounds to exclusive as it ignores spin-offs and upcoming "universe" expansions. Until the studio creates an official name, we are simply trying to improve the page in order to make it more accurate.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

No. SuperHotWiki (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:SIZESPLIT guidelines, articles over 50K are unwieldy and should be split into separate articles. Including films and TV shows for the sake of fannish continuity would be well over that. Newish, redlink editors may or may not care about guidelines developed over years, but I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is both an encyclopedia and a community, and we're expected to follow guidelines except in exceptional, no-other-way-around-it cases, which this is not.

This article as it currently stands is 230K, meaning we already should be considering ways to reduce it or split it — not add to it. I'd like to ask the supporters their feelings about following article-size guidelines. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a good guideline. However, please note that the guideline refers to the kB regarding "the readable prose". Using User:Dr_pda/prosesize the article's "Prose size (text only)" (which according to the script's manual is the desired "readable prose size" metric) is merely 20 kB, which means we can effectively double (if not more) the article's current size with no issue. To conclude, it's safe to say this shouldn't be a concern regarding the rename. Freemanukem (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It is in no way 20kB, and I'd love to see any documentation for that. Save the live-site text, with no HTML, without even including the charts and the footnotes, into a Word.doc file. Without charts and footnotes it is 172 kB. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that you don't do that. You should use the tools the guideline suggests you use, otherwise you might get different results and reach the wrong conclusion. Freemanukem (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Freemanukem: Fine. Would you mind telling us the steps you took to reach this figure, since User:Dr pda/prosesize#How to get it working talks about installing it in personal common.js files and not article files, and I'm not seeing the code there in X-Men (film series). Given the wide discrepancy, please document how you reached the conclusion that this very long article is only 20kB. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

All the instructions are on the page you just linked. First install it the way you just read about. Then you'll notice that, I quote, "This script adds a Page size link to the toolbox, i.e. the box in the left hand column (by default) which also contains What links here (among other things)." Once the link appears, go ahead and click it. Freemanukem (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I see how it works now. And I also see where the discrepancy arose — file size vs. size of readable prose. For all the other editors' benefit, here are the stats. Thank you for teaching me a handy new tool!--Tenebrae (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

X-Men (film series)
File size: 334 kB
Prose size (including all HTML code): 40 kB
References (including all HTML code): 5199 B
Wiki text: 85 kB
Prose size (text only): 20 kB (3369 words) "readable prose size"
References (text only): 622 B

Surely, Batman in film and Superman in film are longer than this page? A couple of things I'd suggest is reduce the TV stuff and removing the game stuff. Maybe remove tie-in material as a whole. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I support removing the Tiein materials.SuperHotWiki (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You continue to state as such though you have not referenced one comment that states such....except for the article where the author was speculating. The series is a part of the continuity, while the video game is a marketing toy capitalizing on sales. Tie-ins can stay in all seriousness.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This is hilarious, given the fact of how long the Marvel Cinematic Universe article is. So long as it follows the "prose" which Freemanukem stated, it should be fine. Also "Tie-in materials" could be deleted. However TV series is part of the continuity/franchise so that stays.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

X-Men the Official Game is part of the continuity as it was marketed as the bridge between X2 and X3. Even had the actors from the film to do a voice acting. So that should stay too if that's the case. While Legion isn't part of the same continuity as the films.SuperHotWiki (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Why not keep all tie-in material? The discussion I had started at the beginning of this was in regards to making a title change and including the TV series in the continuity of it all.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Also users Freemanukem and 50.232.205.246 have a good point in stating that there are plenty of pages with more characters in them than this one. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The tie-in material was detailing every book and video game for the first three at least. That seemed to really be dragging it down. Whatever individual piece of merchandise that is given to each film, belongs to that respective film's page. If indeed this unnamed X-Men TV series is going to be a part of the film series, then it could have a section all to itself. Only after/if/when that series gets made/aired, should the discussion of a possible rename be taken into consideration. But it's still a lot different than Marvel Cinematic Universe. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Good point with the tie-in material. Every single tie-in piece needn't be detailed at nauseum, but acknowledging that there are tie-in comics/novels/gaves etc isn't a huge deal. A simple paragraph stating this is enough I would think. As far as whether or not that Gifted TV series is being made -- it's already in production.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

So why is User:AlexTheWhovian still making the TV show be detailed at nauseum?TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are you posting in the middle of a discussion? Interesting method. This is why this discussion page is an absolute mess. State your guideline or policy dictating that it cannot be added. -- Alex^TW 23:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually Gifted was the only one detailed at nauseum. There were two sentences for the short film, while 1 or two sentences for each videogame. The sections for novels and books weren't even long. it was just Gifted that took a lot of space and how ironic, as its the one who have yet to air. Anyway, if we resurrect the tie in material, the only information about Gifted that should be mentioned is how the show is connected to the film series.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Your arguments seem to go back and forth so I'm having a difficult time following your point-of-view. You originally said that the tie-in material is a part of the franchise's continuity. Now it sounds as though you believe otherwise. Also you now acknowledge that Gifted is connected to the film series within the franchise. If the page were renamed to acknowledge the franchise aspect of this, then the two TV series should and could have greater summaries, just as each of the other installments in the franchise (i.e. the films) do. It's that simple. Let's keep it concise and not make it overly complicated.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The tie in materials were here before because they were connected to the film series. If I didn't think Gifted wasn't connected, it would have been removed like Legion for the same reason. Are they that necessary to keep it here when the article is Already bloated, not really. Like someone said, the tie in materials are probably mentioned and linked in the other articles such as X-Men in other media and the templates. But if we are gonna keep other tie in materials or expansion such as short films, videogames that feature the costumes and TV show that referenced the films - then the novels, videogames such as X-Men The Official Game and the tie in comics should stay and get the same importance as the TV shows. Anyway, they were removed so the article would solely focus in the films. While there are other Wikipedia articles where you can read about the tie in materials.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Even the MCU has a separate article for the films. There's ten X-Men films released right now and there will be more in the future. If Someone moves this to a X-Men franchise or X-Men Universe Extended Cinematic Verse, eventually we would split the films again from the other medium because the films have enough content to warrant its own list/article. It's why this isn't merged with X-Men in other media in the first place.SuperHotWiki (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films is very identical to this article. The only major differences are the titles of the films section and that this article has a crew section and impact section which were already covered in mcu's main article. The X-Men films are large enough and have enough convent to warrant its own article. While X-Men in other media is available for anyone to edit who wants to mention the TV shows, video games, books and the films in the same article.SuperHotWiki (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You're now comparing this page to the MCU, I thought you didn't think this franchise was a shared universe? The MCU has various pages because there is so much content. Where it is a shared universe situation I can understand why this is the case. Whereas, this franchise needs to be a page about shared continuity until the studio gives it an official name - we are simply trying to correct the page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Stop twisting my words, I was using an example in case this article is moved, that we would eventually need to split the films from the other media platforms, creating a separate article just for the films - which the MCU article did. I didn't say anything about continuity or shared universe. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be justifiable should the studio release an official title for the franchise/universe/etc. Since this is not the case we should not further speculate past the point of current-time. This being the case let's stay on-topic with changing this page's title. You needn't further the advancements of expansion when you oppose the move in the first place.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I am surely against "unofficial titles" that's why I am not planning to support a X-Men cinematic universe move or whatever title suggestion that sounds so fansite. And I am free to comment whether I oppose the article move or not.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that this discussion needs some outside opinions. I do not know the correct way to do this, but it needs to be done with links to the references stating that the TV shows are in the film continuity, and any references that Hotwiki says state the opposite. That way the unbiased editors can read for themselves and decide. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

So we've now just removed the tie-in section completely? I'd like to cite the following examples of pages that display information about tie-in material: Star Wars, The Fast and the Furious, Jurassic Park, Ice Age (franchise), Shrek (franchise), Despicable Me (franchise), Madagascar (franchise). The main difference being that the X-Men franchise as discussed here is an adaptation of an existing comicbook franchise. However that doesn't really validate the argument to just use X-Men in other media instead. If we look at the Star Wars film page for example it also includes things like video games, which is basically the same information also found in Star Wars expanded universe because this information is relevant to both pages. The tie-ins for 20th Century Fox films are also relevant for this particular article. 2A02:A210:9480:1680:DD57:698B:533D:AA01 (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed! this is becoming way too petty and nit-picky. The discussion is expanding the page, not imploding it. Those edits should be reversed if they have been done, and should not have been done in the first place as there has been no consensus to do so. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has nothing to do with the RfC with the question at hand. The question is whether or not to change the title of the page. Stay on topic and keep this RfC clean. We dont need another mess of informatiom when trying to solve one issue. Brocicle (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the editors made a comment because a change had been made to the page we are discussing, without first coming to a consensus as to why they made the change. Still on-topic, though changing the page's title is priority number one.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It is clear from reading this entire conversation that the removal of the "Tie-in Materials" section was not agreed to, so it has been reinstated. If a consensus is reached where the removal of this section is deemed appropriate then at that point I will support the change, but deleting a section while it is still being discussed is not acceptable. RodgerTheDodger (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It feels really pointless adding to this, and that's why I've tried to abandon it while you all try to sort it out among yourselves. So, I guess I'll try again, and say that the tie-in section was going overboard with detailing every single game that had been made. If there needs to be a mentioned of franchise merchandise, then I think it should be grouped together and just a quick mention of the fact that there are comics and novel adaptations, and video games. In particular, the video game section is too over blown. X-Men: The Official Game may be important to detail because it connects two films together, therefore adding to the franchise page. But just because a film uses one film's particular style isn't important. Games like X2: Wolverine's Revenge may be important, because it's the franchise that's influencing the X-Men property outside of the films, like X-Men: Evolution was influenced somewhat. So with that said, maybe there should be a section of how the films have influenced others in their approach outside of the films, but are still related to X-Men. There is an "Impact" section on how it affected the view of superhero films, but not how it changed X-Men outside of the films. Mutant Academy, X-Men Origins, and Destiny seem superficial to mention, as they don't add anything to the film franchise as a whole. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I like your suggestion Anythingspossibleforapossible. The section is a bit overdone as the sectional paragraphs are rather short and rather gratuatous. I would suggest summarizing the tie-in material and then have another main article for further detail and reading purposes. I do however acknowledge that as the page sits currently, the TV shows (which are actually installments in the franchise's continuity) do need greater detail than some of the others. I get what you are saying, and can side with your opinion on this matter for the most part.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Note

Admins viewing this RfC, please take note of concerns raised at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Invalidating the RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to those reading to take into consideration that there are multiple "franchises" that have connecting material that do not have franchise or the distributing company in the title. For example, Harry Potter. Numerous tie in materials that are connected to both the movies and the books but it's not referred to as Harry Potter Franchise here. Also with more and more films being in development for Xmen than there are television series it makes sense to keep this as is and link the separate articles in the tie in material section. Please just keep that in mind regardless of whether you are support, neutral, or opposed. Brocicle (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Invalidating the RfC

DisneyMetalhead notified exactly three editors of this RfC, all three of whom support his position. This is WP:CHERRYPICKING WP:CANVASSING, invaliding this RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow User:DisneyMetalHead. Those three supporters shouldn't count anymore in this decision!SuperHotWiki (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about the others, or who they are, but considering I'm clearly following this discussion as can be seen by my involvement above, my opinion will certainly count as I wasn't summoned here because of the notice by DisneyMetalhead; I would participate anyway. Freemanukem (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record; it is very clear from the above that I have been following this conversation, the only reason for my slow response has been that I have been busy at my job, which last time I checked; was not a crime. I was not "summoned here" and I do not know a single person in this conversation. I first came into this conversation because I wanted to add a "Continuity" section to the Wiki page, then I learnt that really it was part of a larger conversation, so I took the time to read everything on this Talk page and voice my own opinion accordingly. If sending someone a note on their Talk page -because they haven't responded to a post, despite being an active participant- is enough to invalidate their opinion then what is stopping any of us from sending messages to everyone's talk page, those who support AND those who oppose... by the rational being stated in this conversation you would then be "summoned" here because of your viewpoint and that would therefor make your own opinions invalid... which judging by the defensiveness and elitist attitude that has surfaced regularly throughout this talk page; I am guessing that would be something that you do not want to happen. So let us please keep this civil, put petty arguments aside and just focus on the facts. No one owns this page. Thank you RodgerTheDodger (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I would argue that DisneyMetalhead was following the appropriate notification guidelines under those rules. Each of the users notified had made edits to the talk page before as stated in example 5 of the bullet-points. If there are any users who are being biased throughout this discussion its the two who have called out this user by name.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh please, that behaviour of yours isn't very nice. I feel attacked.SuperHotWiki (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep the discussion civil and on topic. If you have an issue with an editor, Hotwiki, take it to their talk page. -- Alex^TW 23:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes.SuperHotWiki (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

However, I would note that the IP is correct. The editor only contacted editors who have contributed to the discussion already, and did so under appropriate guidelines. The RfC is far from validated. -- Alex^TW 23:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with Alex^TW. Besides that there was a user doing similar actions previously on this page under this section, and I would say if anyone was attacked it'd be DisneyMetalhead. They followed the guidelines specified in my previous comment.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for having my back fellow editors. I indeed followed protocol. Luckily enough I read the guidelines prior to talking to other editors.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you absolutely did not. Read the guideline: "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." You cannot only contact editors who support your position, and since you did not contact me or SuperHotWiki , that is exactly what you did. You're supposed to notify editors based on a neutral criteria, which you have not stated. You can either withdraw this RfC and resubmit it again after an appropriate interval, or — using the fact you did not notify editors against your position and only editors who agreed — this RfC will be put on hold while a report is filed with admins about canvassing. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You don't get to dictate how or when a discussion is run, you do not own it. (Which is what seems to be the case, because you specifically mentioned how the editor didn't contact you personally.) File your report and whatnot, do whatever you want, but the RfC continues while you do this; it is not automatically nullified by the opinion of a single editor (you). -- Alex^TW 21:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Alex^TW and myself are the ones who agreed this discussion required the RfC, not DisneyMetalhead Brocicle (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not dictating anything — no one gets to canvass their like mind-minded buddies to stack the deck, and I'm appalled that you think it's OK to do that. And, no, I'm not owning anything — I gave myself and SuperHotWiki solely as examples to prove that editors opposed to this deliberately were not contacted. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was trying to stack the deck in his favor. DisneyMetalhead asked someone who had previously commented (but had not recently) to return to the conversation. I'm struggling to see how anyone can classify that as unjustified. This is incredibly off-topic, though. This began as a discussion over the article title and now people are criticizing each other over the simplest of things. Tenebrae, you and SuperHotWiki have been so rigidly and vehemently against the page move that I'm not sure it would have made a difference either way, as decisions should be based on strength of argument, not number of supporters. Can we get back to the topic at hand? I can't be the only one to find this entire conversation to just be absolutely draining at this point. -RM (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow ... so someone who agrees with the canvasser believes there wasn't any canvassing. Wow. That is amazing.

And you also give no reason other than your biased opinion that "I don't think anyone was trying to stack the deck in his favor." Please explain why not when DisneyMetalhead solely asked three like-minded buddies whom he knew would agree with him. Explain that. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You totally missed my point Tenebrae. I could care less what gets invalidated, who is or isn't canvassing, or who disagrees with whom... I thought the focus here was to deliver the best content to readers (or is it to argue with one another? I'll be honest, it's a little confusing at this point.). I'm just commenting on what I'm reading, and it sounds like there were some who were in favor of a move who participated and then left the conversation. Is it really a crime to ask them to return? Once again, I'll point out that decisions are made based on strength of argument, so if you've got a good argument, it shouldn't matter how many people disagree with you. And once again, I'll point out that this is doing nothing to further the discussion in regards to the page move. You've made your accusations, be done with it and move on. I'm tired of hearing about it, and it's making this entire conversation move at the speed of, well, bureaucracy. -RM (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

"I could care less what gets invalidated, who is or isn't canvassing" is an absolutely remarkable comment. Wikipedia has guidelines against canvassing for good reason, and for you to say, "It's fine to cheat because all those guidelines are just, well, bureaucracy" is beyond the pale. "Is it really a crime to ask them to return?" Yes, if the only people you're asking to return are those you already know agree with you! How is that not understandable? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's keep this respectful and on topic please. To repeat my previous post; I did not leave the conversation, I have just been busy. It really feels like this is just a desperate attempt to invalidate the title change, but like what has just been said; this name change has nothing to do with how many supporters there are, it is about the facts. We have already established, via extensive conversation and a lot of supporting evidence, that the tv show Legion should be included, that conversation is done, complete (although I do not understand why it has not been added yet), so the focus has been to the title, as there is also enough evidence to show that the current title is factually inaccurate as the franchise has grown. I understand that not everyone is going to be happy with this, but that is part of life. There are some people who argue that the environment is fine the way it is, while the rest of the world can state extensive evidence that climate change is happening... The purpose of this page is not to cater to individuals opinions, but to represent the facts. Certain editors are desperately keeping a choke hold on this page and are behaving in a manner that is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Upon review of these Editors profiles it is clear that they are very active on Wikipedia, which is great, thank you for all the time and effort that you put into this great website. But that does not mean that you own any part of it. At this point, as the improvement of this Wikipedia page is being held up by a small group of editors, without good reason, I feel that admins should be notified. RodgerTheDodger (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Here are a couple of pages that people should read before this conversation continues: "Wikipedia is not about winning" and "Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot". I'm not trying to start a fight. This seems like a relatively simple thing and should not be this difficult to resolve RodgerTheDodger (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's another one: WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Your bludgeoning wall of text is completely off-topic and conveniently ignores guidelines as if they don't apply to you. We cannot notify only editors who agree with us. Please stop making incendiary claims like "Certain editors are desperately keeping a choke hold on this page" and just address one simple issue: How is it not improper canvassing to only notify editors who agree with you? That is textbook WP:CHERRYPICKING. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

And I find it the height of hypocrisy to cite the pages you cited when you yourself say things like "desperate attempt to invalidate the title change," "Certain editors are desperately keeping a choke hold on this page" and "being held up by a small group of editors, without good reason".

I've already notified admins, incidentally — about the cherrypicking and canvassing, though your hypocritical statement "Wikipedia is not about winning" directly contradicts your own statements falsely saying "that conversation is done," and "We have already established...." The only thing desperate here is a bunch of newish editors trying to turn an encyclopedia article into a fan page about in-universe "continuity" with WP:SYNTH arguments trying to tie together disparate media in a way the creators themselves clearly aren't pursuing.

But that's a discussion for above, not for here. This section is solely about the impropriety of only notifying editors who agree with you. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

ok Tenebrae, what do you propose? That I be excluded from the conversation because another user notified me that I hadn't commented on the conversation in a few days? That you want me excluded from the conversation because I may not agree with you? Please, let me know how you would like this situation handled. RodgerTheDodger (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Admin wise, thank you for also notifying them. I feel that someone outside this conversation is needed at this point. It looks like the admins will be busy reviewing this page and the editors using it. RodgerTheDodger (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You're taking something personally when I'm talking about the larger integrity of Wikipedia, as highfalutin' as that sounds. I've already proposed what I believe is proper: Ending this RfC and reinstating it after an appropriate interval — because if we start saying it's OK in an RfC to only notify other editors who agree with you, that it's OK to deliberately stack the deck in your favor, then how is any RfC valid after that? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I first want to clarify that by saying "I don't care what happens with canvassing, invalidations, etc." I didn't mean that I don't think that those guidelines are important or useful. I'm sure they are. I'm saying this conversation has gone nowhere since this tangent began and it's getting really frustrating. Sorry, I didn't mean to insinuate that the guidelines shouldn't be followed. I'm just saying I think that the content of the article is more important than arguing over who was doing what. Shouldn't we all be prioritizing that? Besides, it appeared that most or all of the editors opposing the move were still actively participating in the discussion. Who else would you have had DisneyMetalhead contact to even the scales?

More importantly, though, I 100% reject the claim that I implied that "It's fine to cheat because all those guidelines are just, well, bureaucracy." I said that the conversation was going nowhere (and indeed it's still at a standstill) and that the conversation is moving at the speed of bureaucracy. It's not fine to cheat and I never implied that. What I am saying is that no matter what happened with cheating, the article isn't getting any better if everyone is focusing all of their energy over something like this. Please don't twist my words. I'm just a guy who genuinely wants to help edit this page, who happens to disagree with you (though not even strongly disagree, I see where you're coming from and I see the possibly flawed logic of your opposition), and who you're making feel really unwelcome. If I'm just making things difficult for you at this point, tell me, and I'll refrain from editing this page. But don't try to make me sound like I'm saying something I'm not. -RM (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your collegiality, and if I've misinterpreted something you said, I apologize.I have to say, I'm not sure how to interpret "I don't care what happens with canvassing, invalidations, etc." any other way than as I did. Also, please be assured I would certainly never ask another editor not to edit a page (except for all editors regarding topics on which an RfC is ongoing, of course).

Yet the fact remains, DisneyMetalhead did cheat, even if he didn't intend to. As I wish you'd acknowledge, we cannot contact solely those people who we know are going to support us.

I recently did an RfC at New York Daily News where I knew I was notifying editors who disagreed with my position — yet I contacted them anyway, because A) it was the fair thing to do, and B) because I used an objective criterion for contacting people: I contacted every registered editor who worked on the article or commented on the talk page over the past 12 months,. That is one way of doing it fairly. If DisneyMetalhead cares about doing a clean RfC, them he'll withdraw this one, wait a week, and start another ... and notify editors neutrally and objectively — and not just those who are going to agree with him --Tenebrae (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll acknowledge that it was an unfair selection, because you're right about that. I'm struggling to see any poor intentions on the part of DisneyMetalhead, but I suppose that objectively speaking it was wrong. The world isn't black-and-white, though. Breaking the rules or "cheating" out of ignorance of the rules is one thing, but doing so with some sort of malevolence or blatant disregard for the rules is another. I think this was a case of the former; I don't think anyone meant any harm. It doesn't change what happened, but that's how I was looking at this issue and why I shared my comment as I did. No hard feelings; we disagree about the issue at hand, but we don't have to be at each other's throats over it. I'm glad we had this little aside.

In response to all of this, and the below comments, might it be prudent to put these issues in the past and simply move on, on topic, with the discussion? If everyone makes an effort to follow the rules and attempts to be reasonable with one another, we may actually get something done. At very least, we can retain editors. No one should, as User:AlexTheWhovian phrases it, "regret becoming involved with this article..." -RM (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, DisneyMetalHead did not ask for this RfC. I did after another editor and I agreed it needed it. DisneyMetalHead did not know when notifying those editors what their position would be. This is getting absolutely ridiculous to the point where I and I'm sure other editors do not want to be apart of this decision because 1. Everyone is just fighting with each other and 2. No one can stay on the ACTUAL topic at hand. It's gotten out of hand, and messy to the point where the arguments can barely be followed anymore. I'm borderline ready to leave this page altogether and withdraw my vote because of how everyone is acting towards each other. Poor form to you all acting like this. Brocicle (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed! Couldn't have put it better myself. Regret becoming involved with this article and its editors. -- Alex^TW 03:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This is getting beyond ridiculous. DisneyMetalhead was obviously not trying to sway things one way over another, but contacting other editors who had previously been a part of the discussion. The discussion has gotten way off topic. Gets to the point of being an annoying thing to respond to all the differing conversations on here.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely no malicious intent behind any of my actions. I again brought up this discussion initially because of the updated info, and need for such on this Wikipedia page as well. To me it was/is completely obvious that a title-change is needed. Didn't know it would go from bad, to worse, to ugly. The discussion has gotten way off topic. I hope that some conclussion can be made on this subject.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but anyone excusing cheating because they happen to agree with the cheater is not behaving ethically. I haven't seen DisneyMetalhead lift a single finger to rectify his deck-stacking cherry-picking by, for example, notifying a wider range of editors using some objection criterion.

Here's the thing: There's no reason in the world not top stop this, wait a week and do it again properly. The only one who don't want to do that are those for whom the cheating stacked the deck in their favor. And why? Because you're worried that if this RfC is done properly, without vote-stacking, you might not "win." You're afraid that if you do it honesty that disinterested editors won't agree with you. Because if you weren't worried about that, you'd have no objection to an honest RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

All I see is you trying to dictate the direction of the RfC, and a multitude of personal attacks. Most definitely uncollaborative editing. Has requesting the views of other editors done anything to the RfC? No. There's no reason in the world to stop this. -- Alex^TW 23:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I'm "dictating the direction of the RfC" by pointing out that the RfC initiator clearly cherry-picked by only notifying editors who supported his position? How is DisneyMetalhead's deck-stacking acceptable to you? And what other editors have been requested to come to this RfC? DisneyMetalhead certainly hasn't notified others editors objectively. When even supporters such as RM concede that DisneyMetalhead canvassed inappropriately, you still want to continue a tainted RfC. I find that shameful. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You probably didn't get my edit-summaries, it seems. Go for it, add your comments. But attempting to put them at the top of the thread to force your own agenda, instead of adding your comments to the end of the thread like every other editor (or most, since this has become a mess, right?), not collaborative in the slightest. And Brocicle is the RfC initiator, not DisneyMetalhead - what are you on about? Shameful. Shame! -- Alex^TW 23:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian:Fine. I'm not going to edit-war. Someone pointed out that policy to me at an RfC I had initiated, and I need to track down where that guideline came from.

I notice you didn't answer a single one one of my questions. But I do see you're correct: Brocicle is the initiator. In that case, the RfC is invalid since the initiator is supposed to publicize it — not other, biased editors canvassing only editors who agree with him. This adds a new wrinkle, and a whole new level of inappropriateness. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be publicized; the official RfC template does that enough. Did he post only on talk pages of those who agreed with him when he begun it? This is just you trying to force your agenda and get it closed because you disagree with it. If you have an issue with an editor's behaviour, you take it to their talk page or to a relative noticeboard. Not an article's talk page. Oh, look, this discussion must then be invalid. -- Alex^TW 23:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Right — it doesn't need to be publicized ... but if someone is going to publicize it, they need to play by the rules and not cheat and stack the deck. Please stop being sarcastic and explain to me how it's OK for DisneyMetalhead to go around inappropriately canvassing only those editors he knew would agree with him? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

No need to ping me, I'm already watching this talk page.

I don't own you anything, given your uncivil tone and accusations, but all of the editors requested had already participating in the discussion. No rule breaking, no stacking the deck. This just seems to be getting personal with you. If you have an issue with an editor's behaviour, you take it to their talk page or to a relative noticeboard. -- Alex^TW 23:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow. You really don't see that, clearly, DisneyMetalhead had concerns that these editors who agreed with him wouldn't know about or would be too busy or wouldn't be interested in commenting — because otherwise he wouldn't have contacted them.

We can't just contact editors for an RfC because they agree with us. That's what he did. It is cheating, it is deck-stacking. And I find it very unbecoming that you're excusing the WP:CHERRYPICKING because you happen to agree with DisneyMetalhead's cheating. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You of all editors can't accuse others for forcing any type of agenda, when you've done exactly the same (not the method, but the agenda). Your personal opinions been noted, including accusations and attacks, the most recent being I'm only defending the editor because I agree with them. This article and its editors are the most drama-filled I've seen on this site. But, yet again: If you have an issue with an editor's behaviour, you take it to their talk page or to a relative noticeboard. -- Alex^TW 00:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

When that editor's behavior affects the integrity of an RfC, then the RfC's page is the proper venue. I link DisneyMetalhead in my comments, so he's being notified. And I'm not talking about anything so grandiose as "forcing an agenda." I'm pointing out the simple, objective fact that a supporter of this RfC did inappropriate canvassing in order to stack the deck. There's a larger issue at stake here than the title of a superhero article. I've been a Wikipedia editor for nearly 12 years, and I've learned how important it is to preserve the integrity of an RfC if this altruistic free encyclopedia is going to proceed responsibly. Maybe when you've been here longer you'll appreciate this grand experiment more, and to keep your eye on the bigger picture. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You've linked them a dozen times; pretty sure that they know. Yep, we get it, you're a length-of-time elitist; in my view, this makes your contributions to this discussion even more personal and not worth the time responding to. Just because you've been here for so long, and even been addicted to it, doesn't make your view here stronger than anyone else's. Now. Back on topic? -- Alex^TW 00:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Is a solution/compromise really THAT hard to find? @Tenebrae: just contact a couple editors who agree with you to even out the scales. @DisneyMetalhead: lay low for the rest of this conversation, contribute your own thoughts and don't request that any other editors comment. He was wrong, he didn't mean to do anything wrong ("Absolutely no malicious intent behind any of my actions.") but he did. Stop dragging his name through the mud. Can you really not think of any larger/more pressing issues than this? I'm not saying that the minimal severity of the issue excuses it, but come on man, you've made this into a WAYYYYYYY bigger issue than it needs to be. I get that you're all about following the rules, but there's nothing wrong with a little leniency for someone who legitimately didn't realize he was doing anything wrong. -RM (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Completely agreed. A mountain out of an anthill; there are multiple threads concerning this article that need a consensus gained and closed, but this is what we have to discuss. But if we're basing this off of being a stickler for the rules, Tenebrae has nothing to stand on, having not notified DisneyMetalhead about the post concerning them at WP:AN - a clear notification for this is present when editing or adding a section at that particular noticeboard. This was also an action completely unrequired. -- Alex^TW 03:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: I just wanted to add that I am not in the supporting corner for this name change so your comment saying that those against invalidating the RfC are in DisneyMetalHead's corner is wrong. And your excuse that I didn't publicise the RfC correctly according to you is also a false excuse. I've requested for comment on articles before and have read the guidelines many times. It says I MAY notify other editors, not that I have to. I'm really over going round and round in a circle over this because of your vendetta. The RfC is valid. Get over it. Brocicle (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, the larger issue here is what it is that gets editors so bent on swaying opinions purely based off of their own. Dragging an editor's name through the mud over and over and over is getting you nowhere. Make like an Elsa and 'Let it go', man. The user obviously publically apologized and hasn't been super involved in much of this conversation since. As Alex^TW has pointed it out, YOU too have gone about your argument the wrong way. The guidelines you are talking about regarding 'stacking cards' does not even apply given the fact that users notified were already a part of the discussion. DisneyMetalhead didn't notify you because you were already neck-deep in this discussion. Move on.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

First, if an anon IP can't be bothered to registered, then he doesn't seem here to sincerely build an encyclopedia, so you'll excuse me if I take your comments with a grain of salt. Second, while I appreciate RM reasonably attempting to offer a compromise, I don't really think it's a good idea for me or anyone else to cheat as well in order to "balance the scales." Third, I didn't say Brocicle didn't publicize it correctly; in fact, I said exactly what he says just above, that we may notify other editors but don't have to.

And finally, no, it is only the supporters' opinion that the RfC is valid. According to WP:CHERRYPICKING, it is not a valid RfC, because of inappropriate canvassing. I find it very disappointing that anyone is willing to ignore guidelines when it doesn't suit them. And the fact the supporters either don't appreciate or don't understand the larger significance of keeping RfCs strictly ethical ... well, I don't know what to say. Wikipedia should mean more to you than that. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"First, if an anon IP can't be bothered to registered, then he doesn't seem here to sincerely build an encyclopedia, so you'll excuse me if I take your comments with a grain of salt." I can put up with a lot, Tenebrae, but that is pure arrogance speaking, and it's beyond rude. No one's opinion is invalidated or taken "with a grain of salt" simply because they're unregistered. Excuse all of us common-folk for not having your superlative 12 years of experience, how dare we? Look, I suggested a simple, EASY compromise to get things back on track and apparently even THAT is not good enough for you and your elitist attitude. We say "move on," you say, "not good enough." We say, "even the scales," you say, "not good enough." So I'm done playing this guessing game. So just tell us what you want us to do. Tell us how to appease you. Tell DisneyMetalhead or me or someone specifically what we need to do to move past this. Anything to end this ongoing, seemingly endless discussion about a guy who was just trying to help. Or, alternatively, if you intend to keep this conversation going nowhere, let me know, and I'll excuse myself from the discussion; I'm sure my absence won't make much of a difference to you anyway (at least until I have a decade of experience under my belt, right?) -RM (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

And frankly, addressing Brocicle, I don't understand why it wouldn't be easier and less acrimonious to cancel the RfC, wait a week, then post the same question again. You start clean, there's no acrimony, and no question about the RfC's propriety. That's not an unusual occurrence. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

the RfC is invalid since the initiator is supposed to publicize it. Your exact words. I'm not withdrawing the RfC. If you have a major problem with it take it to an admin. I'm done repeating myself to you. Brocicle (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow! Now you're taking my words out of context? You deliberately truncated the rest of the sentence. In context it reads "the RfC is invalid since the initiator is supposed to publicize it — not other, biased editors canvassing only editors who agree with him." Anyone, yourself included, can see very well the point is that editors other than the initiator are not supposed to publicize the RfC through inappropriate canvassing. I'm sorry, but deliberately presenting only half a sentence in order to attribute a false statement to me is highly unethical. But that's what I see in your and your cherrypicked supporters' actions: an egregious lack of ethics. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

And I took the cherrypicking issue to the Admin Noticeboard days ago. There's a backlog. I'm looking forward to admin intervention. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't support the notion so I would advise it would be ethical of you to read through peoples votes properly so you don't bunch everyone under your "cherry picking" idea. I didnt take anything out of context, it's exactly what YOU said. Brocicle (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You deliberately took half a sentence and purposefully left out the modifying second half created a complete thought. That's the definition of taking something out of context. Are you denying you only used half the sentence?

And incidentally, we don't "vote" — an admin (generally) decides RfCs on the basis of facts as applied to policy and guidelines. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I used exactly what you said regardless of whether your sentence was finished or not because you contradicted yourself. You're missing my point. You're only seeing what you want to see which is why you deliberately assumed I support this. I'm done with this conversation with you. If you want to continue going off topic feel free to take it to my talk page. At the end of the day I will not cancel the RfC. Brocicle (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, wow! You can't take half of a sentence — a sentence being one complete thought, for anyone who didn't take English grammar — and claim that someone said something that someone did not. I know what I said; I know how to write a complete sentence, even if you don't know how to read one. But taking an incomplete sentence and lying about what someone else said is completely dishonorable. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This has become pure insanity. We all cannot wait for an admin to intervene here Tenebrae. Given the fact that they decide an RfC based purely on presented sources and facts, surely it will be retitled. Besides that, your elitist attitude regarding other editors' opinions, input, and validity is outrageous. Previous editors pointed out that you did not follow the 'guidelines' regarding how to respond to an issue with an editor - and you have no response to that. For someone so precise regarding my mistake, you too have made them. I followed the rules, as I understand them. Didn't look to sway any of the conversation as we all can see that is no possibility anyway. You have turned this discussion into all about you and your vendetta. Bring in the admins you are giddy to bring in, let's get passed this mess, and back on-topic.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

RE: "surely it will be retitled." I'm not sure you understand how these things work. It's not a vote. It's about a) the quality of the arguments pro and con, with particular emphasis on policies, guidelines and MOS, and b) when things are roughly split, as they are here, then there's no consensus to change the status quo.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have requested for closure on the RfC. Just by looking at this everyone's opinions have already been said and now it's just turned into a personal vendetta by one user and others defending themselves and fellow editors. Brocicle (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Smooth how you avoided your own misuse of policy, doing what you weren't meant to (or rather, not doing what you were meant to), Tenebrae. A classic case of trying to avoid WP:BOOMERANG. If someone messes up accidentally: Educate, don't incarcerate. Tenebrae is obviously WP:NOTHERE, and would rather continue the discussion to belittle the editor rather than contribute to the discussion, attempt to close a discussion simply because he disagrees with it, and flaunt how long he has been editing to appear more superior to other editors. That's as simply as it gets. And belittling an IP editor because they don't have an account. How utterly vile and disgusting an editor you must be. I guess that all editors simply ignore Tenebrae's pathetic claims and requests, and continue with the RfC as the regular, contributing and collaborative editors that we all (mostly) are. -- Alex^TW 06:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't have been put more precise and to the point, Alex^TW. This on-going case which is becoming quite out of hand needs to be ended so that this talk page can get back to the subject at hand and that is the X-Men film franchise.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

And it looks like User:AlexTheWhovian doesn't understand WP:CIVIL, given comments like "utterly vile and disgusting an editor" and "pathetic." I don't have to prove myself to people like you; my work history speaks for itself. And for the record, don't lie about me: I've made it very clear that this discussion needed to be closed not because I disagree — the proof being I've taken part in many RfCs where I've disagreed, and have never ask for cancelation for that reason — but rather because of inappropriate cherry-picking canvassing. You're OK with vote-stacking, fine. You don't want to abide by the rules, fine. But I find it disappointing that you attack others for trying to abide by them. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

And to 50.232.205.246, I would agree that, yes, this is about the X-Men film franchise, i.e. X-Men (film series). It's not about trying to create a WP:SYNTH "continuity" of the films, TV shows, videogames and whatever else.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, you continue to use demeaning language towards anyone that corrects/disagrees with you. What is the need/justification therein? WP:CIVIL that you used 'against' Alex^TW would suggest the vernacular of "people like you" falls under that exact same classification. Kind of ironic that you use a rule, and contradict it in the very next sentence. Since you are so bent on following rules, others are simply making you aware that you are breaking them yourself - in the process. Enough of the elitist attitude towards the editors on this page. Whether you've been here for a month, or 12 years, or whatever it makes no difference. If you want your work history to speak for itself then be civil. Be constructive. Be collaborative. Still waiting to hear from those admins on this discussion though..... --50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, you can't honestly think of using WP:CIVIL against me in your own circumstances, when you diss the solid and more thought-out opinion of an IP editor, account or not, who has contributed in a far better manner than you have at all. -- Alex^TW 21:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please. I've never used words like "vile" and "disgusting" and "pathetic," as you have. As for well-thought-out opinions, I'm finding more of them on the Oppose side, as opposed to the fannish rationales to synth disparate media into a "continuity" that no non-comics-fan wants or needs. Finally, any registered editor who has been here long enough knows that it is not uncommon for an anon IP in an RfC to be a sock of another participant ... so, as I said, any experienced person knows to take anon-IP RfC comments with a grain of salt. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Live up to your actions, and collaborate by not making constant accusations and attacks. You aren't making this go anywhere, and it seems that you are the only editor that agrees with your position. Not even the admins have become involved after days. -- Alex^TW 22:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone who calls me "vile" and "disgusting" and "pathetic" has no right to lecture me. I offered the proper solution, one I've seen done multiple times. The initiator chose not to do it, making this RfC tainted with vote-stacking. Pointing out the objective fact that someone inappropriately canvassed is not an "accusation" or "attack." It's a simple statement of fact that even DisneyMetalhead doesn't dispute — he just says he didn't do maliciously. But malicious or not, the damage was done. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Get consensus for your views to close the RfC, then go from there. Again: You're the only editor who holds this position. -- Alex^TW 22:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Both I and the RfC initiator have asked admins to end this RfC. So I'm not sure what more there is to discuss while we wait.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

And yet, nothing has happened, both here and at AN. The initiator does not own the RfC. Nothing to stand on. -- Alex^TW 22:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. The initiator has every right to ask admins for closure. The admins, generally, either choose to do so or let the RfC continue for 30 days. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, on one hand you make the argument that it is vote stacking, while on the other hand you say that this is not decided on by votes... if it is not decided by votes then there is no risk of "vote stacking". Also, I would point out that from previous discussions and the previous request for a title change; there is agreement that the title needs to change, we are already settled on that. There was lots of valid and good cite's to justify it. That conversation is done, just the same as the conversation to include Legion. The only question we have left is: WHAT should the new title should be? By looking at the conversation we are currently down to: X-Men (franchise) and X-Men (Fox Franchise). Personally I think X-Men (franchise) is the most appropriate as this is used for other similar franchises elsewhere on Wikipedia. If others are happy with this then can we process this and move on with our lives? RodgerTheDodger (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, you continue to drag my name through the mud though you do not know me, nor do you have any real position in doing so. You have contradicted yourself several times now regarding "rules" and regulations. As 50.232.205.246 pointed out you contradict yourself within the same two consecutive sentences. You do not own this page nor any of the other pages you have worked on in your estudious 12-year career as a....Wikipedian(?). Seriously editing seems to be an obsession with some editors, and it seems unhealthy. When you repeatedly demean other editors, and numerously claim that unregistered IP editors are A) socking and B) less reliable than you are, EVEN when they give reliable sources you're stepping over the supposed rules you hold so dear to your heart. What you need to understand is that you are just as qualified to edit this page as anyone is. Whether they've been here for a day, or ten, or 12-long-hard-years they are all equal. That's what makes this an online encyclopedia compiled of knowledge brought together by it's users. Here's what it is not as you need a reminder. On the other hand you claim that more editors oppose move while also stating that it is "not decided by a vote". You contradict yourself thereby, and by obvious count there are more editors support[ing] the move. You also state this ignorantly, as there is no cited references for your angle, though editors (including myself, here take a look) have added a number of reliable sources validating the move. RodgerTheDodger is right, the conversation regarding the page's title should be done, but he needn't ask you for permission to move on. You need to just "Get Over It" and move on. Not everyone here agrees with you, just as they don't outside the realms of cyber space. It's okay. Stop draggin my name through your mud, and stay on topic. All you do is contradict yourself.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand all your frustrations but can we please stick to the topic of the RfC without any personal attacks or demeaning commemnts. This has gone far enough. Brocicle (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Brocicle, isn't that what DisneyMetalhead just said? They essentially stated that the topic has gotten way off-base and that it's now about him. I would 'rant' a little like they just did too if I was the central topic of this tangent-conversation. Completely agree with what's being said. The Eagles (as referenced above^) state it as simple as possible. Get over all this muck, and let's finish this movement now. It's gone on more than long enough.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess when one speaks with the kind of people use non-words like "estudious" when they sarcastically mean "esteemed" or something else, then one has to explain things very, very carefully and not use metaphoric shorthand. "Vote-stacking" clearly wasn't meant literally — I said flat-out that RfCs aren't decided by votes. I can't tell if the redlink editors who are illiterately pouncing on the term are truly so, let's say, unsophisticated or uneducated that one can't use metaphoric shorthand, but fine: I hereby withdraw the pithy "vote-stacking" and substitute "biasing the argument artificially in favor of their position through notification solely of editors who agree with them." Happy? Take some responsibility: There was cheating. Own up to it. Be a grownup. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Discriminating both IP editors and "redlink editors", and calling them "unsophisticated or uneducated", and you have the nerve to call me uncivil? Tell another joke while you're at it. -- Alex^TW 21:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

They didn't understand that "vote-stacking" wasn't meant literally, even after I plainly stated that RfCs aren't votes. What would you call people like that? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I would educate them on it, no matter how many times I have to say it, not put them down. -- Alex^TW 21:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I've tried educating them and you on why inappropriate canvassing is cheating, but that hasn't seemed to work. Some people just refuse to learn.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, by putting others down and disqualifying their validity in your own mind, you have put yourself up on a pedestal. If you're going to correct spelling then I guess when you said "when one speaks with the kind of people use non-words ..." you probably meant "when one speaks with the kind of people who use non-words...". You need to lay off of the self-aggrandizing lingo you keep using and check yourself. Noone is here to be enemies or even go on in a discussion this long. But since you continue to edit-war, and cut others down --- well, here we are. You clearly fall under the WP:NOTHERE as previous editors have already stated. If you're going to continue to insult myself by claiming that I am "unsophisticated" or "uneducated", and try to dismount my credibility by doing so -- you are again not following Wikipedia rules.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A typo and the inability to comprehend the obvious shorthand of "vote-stacking" are two different things. Secondly, I don't think you understand what edit-warring is, since I haven't done any series of reverts on the article. Finally, you clearly haven't gone to my user page and are simply parroting someone else's ignorant comment — and I mean "ignorant" in the literal sense of unawareness, whether willful or not, and not "stupidity," just so we're clear — that I am "not here to build an encyclopedia." I've created about 150 articles and regularly take on such mundane tasks as fixing grammar and dead links. If you want to repeat a lie, go ahead. But it certainly doesn't speak well of you or anyone else who repeats a lie. Just because Donald Trump does it doesn't mean we're not better than that. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, you are in violation of several things at this point. You know what they are, since you have been an editor for twelve years. Check yourself, before you wreck yourself. We all appreciate your constructive additions to Wikipedia. This topic is long-since overdone and now falls into the WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Editors have since had the consensus to move past the issue to deal with the conversation. Be advised to do the same. Also your political opinions have no weight in this discussion. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Damn, he still going? User:50.232.205.246 my comment was to everyone. I think now it's gotten to the point where we're going to have to ignore User:Tenebrae because they do not know how to stay on topic nor do they know when enough is enough and think their opinion matters more because they've created so many articles, and registered as a user, and doesn't have a redlink page, and has been here for 12 years. Unless he posts on my talk page I will no longer be responding to anything he has to say UNLESS it is actually on topic, which I highly doubt. I suggest you all consider doing the same otherwise we will never get anywhere with this RfC or consensus. Brocicle (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Alex^TW 07:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is to just let hypocritical hearsay spit into the wind, then. Couldn't agree more. Now, what are we deciding as far as the title of this page?

--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, considering that four of you aren't able to leave this alone and continue attacking me, I'm not sure your "is-he-still-here" criticism carries much weight. In fact, DisneyMetalhead has even taken his contentiousness over to my talk page, which I haven't done with any of you, so who is spreading vitriol, you or me? I'm not in violation of any policies or guidelines, except by your extremely loose interpretations — indeed, if anyone is WP:NOTGETTINGIT it's editors who do inappropriate, cherry-picking WP:CANVASSING in order to stack the deck, and then refuse to own up to this clear and blatant cheating. Multiple editors Oppose this RfC's attempt at turning the article into a fannish depository of in-universe "continuity" WP:SYNTH, not just me. But you're not getting that, either. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That is how you correctly handle issues with other editors.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

DisneyMetalHead So far there's 8 supporting and 5 opposing the name change. I'm not sure how substantial the difference should be to warrant a consensus decision but from the looks of it it seems to be leaning towards the support end. Brocicle (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Brocicle, it does indeed seem as such. Given all the sources cited in favor of the move, it seems as though that is the direction the page will go. What do we need to do to finish this conversation? Or, in other words - how long do we want it to stay on as a RfC?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

If majority agrees to end the RfC we can conclude it. Consensus is supporting the move and most have suggest Fox franchise. I'm all for concluding it as soon as possible but if people think it's a good idea to leave it for a few more days I have no quarrels with that either. Brocicle (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The consensus is definitely becoming clear, as stated by multiple editors. I agree; leave it for several more days, see if there's any further solid argument put forward (not just "I disagree"), and then we go from there. -- Alex^TW 21:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness' sakes. I have to admit, the rule-skirting by some of the editors here is nothing less an astonishing. The initiator of the RfC cannot be the one to say. "Consensus is this" or "Consensus is that." The out-and-out cheating that has been going on is remarkable. I don't see any consensus whatsoever for any name. The number of editors pro and con are roughly equal, and the ones who Oppose have made more policy/guideline-based arguments than those who support.

I'll say again: The films deserve their own article, and this attempt at shoehorning POV/OR "continuity" is pure fancrfut. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how I'm cheating considering I oppose the move and have said so numerous times. Majority is for the move, majority usually means a consensus has been reached. Both sides have put forward good points. But if you have such a problem with the way this is going, mind you you are the ONLY one of the opposing to further comment, then ask for admin intervention or for an admin to review the whole situation. Instead of actively trying to undermine other editors why don't you actively try and help resolve the situation rather than create more issues. Also there's no rule saying the initiator cannot comment on the direction the consensus is leaning towards which is what I was doing. Take my words and spin them as you please for your own personal agenda. Brocicle (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

No, majority doesn't mean consensus. That's voting. It's based on the soundness of the arguments, and the Oppose have more policy/guideline-based arguments, in my opinion. But more troubling is User:AlexTheWhovian's comment "and then we go from there." What does that mean exactly? There's been so much impropriety with this tainted RfC, that it sounds almost as if the involved "support" editors plan on closing the RfC in their favor themselves. The RfC initiator, Brocicle, has already asked for an admin to close this. So where else is there to go? Be aware that Wikipedia allows WP:Move review in case of closing improprieties. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Any move review that is submitted by yourself in question to this discussion, after the page has or has not been moved, will be reported as harassment against the editors of this discussion, given how close you already are to this issue over your inappropriate actions here. Just making sure you're aware.

-- Alex^TW 21:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, making threats as you just did is harassment, and I'm following up on that now. The impropriety and outright cheating has gone on long enough.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Cheers on that. Be careful of WP:BOOMERANG! Any editor here who has been harassed by Tenebrae, which seems to be a lot given the complaints listed, is more than welcome to make their view known at the report that he's apparently filing. -- Alex^TW 21:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

And now you're putting a call out to your buddies. to harass me further? That's tag-teaming, if you want to talk about WP:BOOMERANG. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

"Buddies"? Again you are exercising WP:NOTHERE behavior. On and on and on. Regardless of how many years you have been here, you ignore simplistic rules and regulations for this site. WP:BOOMERANG -- comin' your way.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae -- look at the definition of harassment, and tell me you have not engaged in such behavior. Yes there is a clause that says that accusing of such without reason nor rhyme is harrassment, but all the 'evidence' is right here. People who agree with you on the matter at hand of retitling the page itself have stated that you are out of line. Moving to close this RfC was the right move as it has become Tenebrae's warzone. We can open a new one for the top 2 or 3 titles of what the page should be renamed given the fact that the statements made by those opposing though "in line with Wikipedia guidelines", is by nature incorrect and opinion-based. References to support the move for a retitle have included reliable sources that state otherwise.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I did ask for it to be closed but the editor who responded didn't think that 9 days was enough time for discussion given the amount of comments. You're more than welcome to try again or at least ask for an admin who is neutral to comment. Also, I don't think Alex was putting a call out. Editors are more than welcome to make their voice heard in regards to complaints. Hardly tag-teaming. Brocicle (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Happy to see that though we have had disagreements regarding the move (which is purely normal and part of the process), you can still follow guidelines, and see the fault here with the elitist "group". Thanks for being compatible and willing to work with other editors, Brocicle. Closing this RfC was a good move. Now a move for a consensus regarding the issue can move forward. Definitely no tag-teaming. Anyone who reads this massive mess can see what Tenebrae was doing.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Per the RfC

Here: ( [1] ) is a link to what the X-Men (Fox franchise) page woul--TotalTruthTeller24 (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)d look like. It would need a little bit of work, but it's not a bad start, is it?? Total-TruthTeller-24 (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

only bad thing is the table. With more xmen films in development that table is going to break the page (for lack of a better term). Brocicle (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is TotalTruthTeller creating his own article? You do know that there was NO consensus for a move nor a creation for a separate article. Anyway, good thing it was already being listed for deletion. Again, TotalTruthTeller read the talk page first before you make drastic moves.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah the table in it's current form is already pretty bad, but that's just making it worse. I do support the basic idea, but the page would still need quite a bit of tweaking though. 2001:982:4947:1:1944:8C8D:A95A:4EA7 (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The user is free to work on whatever page they want. Obviously they can't submit it without consensus, but AGAIN - Hotwiki you do not own the page. Total-TruthTeller-24 is free to do as he wishes. The page looks great except for the chart.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Side-note on your draft Total-TruthTeller-24, I don't see the need to divide the page with Deadpool films from the X-Men films. They are all within the same franchise and so the division is excessive.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this looks like a good starting point and demonstrates the concept of how the page could look. Thanks for creating this mock-up. I would love to see this discussion come to an end... RodgerTheDodger (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@50.232.205.246: I thought the implication was that the X-Men films exist as films within the Deadpool film series? In Deadpool: No Good Deed, a poster for Logan can be seen on a wall (@ 2:36 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5ezsReZcxU ), and the writers of Deadpool 2 have stated that they want Hugh Jackman to cameo as Hugh Jackman, and NOT Wolverine,^[1] like he did (in photographic form) in the first Deadpool film. @RodgerTheDodger: You're welcome.

Total-TruthTeller-24 be sure to sign your responses everytime so that editors can follow your comments easily. I would say that is a terrific mockup of what this page could and should look like. However, though Logan posters appear in the Deadpool pre-film sequence of the film -- this is simply due to the nature of the character being able to 'break the fourth wall'. I understand the confusion, but Deadpool is an "X-Men film" as far as the current title of the page is concerned. When the title changes it will be a film in the "X-Men franchise" as an installment in the continuity. For instance: Let's say Deadpool takes place in the year 2002....Logan takes place in 2029 - almost thirty years later. To use the character's own words "these timelines are so confusing". Hence the discussion on the page needing a re-titling, haha. Great work though!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not signing, but I'm almost certain that the X-Men films exist as films within Deadpool films. Ryan Reynolds, Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart and James McAvoy were all confirmed to exist as characters separate to Deadpool, Wolverine and Professor X in the first Deadpool film, and with the announcement of Hugh Jackman potentially appearing as himself in Deadpool 2, I'm currently getting the impression that Deadpool would stumble onto the "set" for some sort of Wolverine/Deadpool X-Men film during the events of Deadpool 2, which is where Deadpool would meet Jackman, Stewart and "Reynolds". Deadpool kept mocking Origins in Deadpool; it makes much more sense to assume Origins is a film within the universe of Deadpool.

Total-TruthTeller-24 (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

What you're describing is textbook OR. You're taking your personal observations and developing a hypothesis, rather than citing a reliable source to make a claim. That's been a core problem of the supporters' "continuity" fixation. It's all WP:SYNTH, and unacceptable. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Total-TruthTeller-24 a nicer response from me^:

I understand the confusion. The reasons for Deadpool's off-the-wall structure of a film is all in accordance with the character and the comics. The movie is made to be a reflection of that, and in all reality it works because he is partially insane. While those things are true to him and in his mind, all the other characters have no clue what he's talking about - just as they don't know that he is talking to "us" when he breaks the fourth wall. The X-Men franchise films and TV shows all exhist within the same universe, and though have varying timelines they are all installments of that franchise. Deadpool is an installment therein.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You're proving my point. Two editors can't agree on whether it's "in continuity" or not because each one has his own personal POV.

First, Wikipedia doesn't allow us to include our own personal WP:SYNTH argument as fact. Second, these attempts at turning an encyclopedia article into a fan page for fanboys and not general readers is wildly inappropriate. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

What I meant was that I don't view Deadpool & its sequels as installments in the X-Men film series set within Fox's X-Men franchise, I view Deadpool as a separate film series spinning off from the X-Men film series, similar to how the The Scorpion King film series spun off from the The Mummy film series. Two film series make a franchise. Also, Tenebrae: I'm the last person who wants "a fan page for fanboys". If I wanted that I would have called for splitting this page into X-Men (film series) & Deadpool (film series).

Total-TruthTeller-24 (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I think a good/justifiable format similar to what you're saying is that there would be a section called "Films" and below that there could be "Original Trilogy", "Prequel Trilogy", "Wolverine Trilogy", "Deadpool films"...etc.; then "Television" with Legion and The Gifted below that. Other than that I think that just having "Films" with the titles below it, and "Television" with the TV shows below that works just fine.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

^ http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/784255/Deadpool-Wolverine-crossover-Hugh-Jackman-Deadpool-2-Ryan-Reynolds

[1] ttp://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/784255/Deadpool-Wolverine-crossover-Hugh-Jackman-Deadpool-2-Ryan-Reynolds

[1]