| Revision as of 21:54, 14 February 2022 editAbsolutelyFiring (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,723 edits →Viewership Figures← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:37, 28 September 2024 edit undoPrefall (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,801 edits Reverted 2 edits by 212.164.64.35 (talk): WP:NOTAFORUMTags: Twinkle Undo |
| (59 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell |1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |listas=Suicide Squad (film), The |1= |
|
{{WikiProject Film |class=C |American=yes |Comics=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Film |American=yes |Comics=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Comics |class=C |importance=low |DC=yes |film=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Comics |importance=low |DC=yes |film=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States |class=C |importance=Low |USfilm=y |USfilm-importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low |USfilm=y |USfilm-importance=Low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Annual report|]|10,864,812}} |
|
{{Annual report|]|10,864,812}} |
| Line 17: |
Line 17: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Will Smith, Joel Kinnaman and Jai Courtney Deadshot, Rick Flag and Captain Boomerang's article == |
|
== Viewership Figures == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think ] and ] should have their own article as Captain Boomerang and Rick Flag, because they appeared in two films! In my opinion they are important characters... ] (]) 16:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
Wouldn't a chart or table read better than "in its first week/in it's third week/in the seventh week it plummeted to..."-style prose? ] (]) 08:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think the fact that most of those weeks don't have anything all that noteworthy happening in them suggests that we just don't need to list data for each week like that. I have gone ahead and removed the weeks where nothing significant happened and have re-written the sections to present the information in less of a 'this week/then this week/then this week' kind of way. - ] (]) 08:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{u|Adamstom.97}} Seems to me you've taken it upon yourself to decide what's notable and non-notable. How a movie is performing in the US is absolutely notable. We don't get exact numbers so in that case rankings act as substitute. ] (]) 02:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::A week-by-week breakdown of viewership rankings is not encyclopaedic or useful to readers and definitely not a common inclusion at film articles. Just like with the box office, where I also removed some minor week-by-week info, we need to stick to the key, noteworthy milestones and format it in an accessible way so the article doesn't become a list of facts that are only significant to someone who follows the box office or streaming numbers each week. PVOD data also does not belong in the streaming viewership section as that is specifically talking about the film's initial HBO Max viewership as an equivalent to box office numbers. - ] (]) 05:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::So where does it belong? ] (]) 06:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Unless there is something noteworthy or out-of-the-ordinary about it, not on Misplaced Pages. - ] (]) 07:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::So the performance of a film isn't notable? ] (]) 08:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::It's not notable unless reliable secondary sources ]. ] (]) 12:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Overall performance is certainly notable. Breaking it down to a granular level, such as daily or even weekly in some cases, can be considered extreme and insignificant in the grand scheme of things. So in addition to having at least one ] reporting it, we would need to analyze just how many are actually picking up on it. If it's only 1 or 2 sources out of hundreds, then it's probably an insignificant detail. ]. Do you have sources you'd like to share to backup the claim it's significant? Also it would be helpful if someone would post a sample of the content that is being excluded here so others can weigh in. --] (]) 17:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Please see for my edit where I removed lists of week-by-week viewership rankings from the home media and streaming viewership sections. I tried to just keep the key facts and refocus the sections on prose and commentary. I think this is a good example of applying ]. - ] (]) 19:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Yet again it seems you're deciding by yourself what matters or don't. Rankings aren't anything confusing. And not seeking any consensus at all. Anyway can you please at least stop removing my clarification that the home media sales mentioned are just for the United States? Because a reader who doesn't know Misplaced Pages's policies wouldn't know which country's sales are being mentioned. ] (]) 06:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Stop trying to make it out like I am making unilateral decisions and going against consensus. I made my intentions clear here at the talk page and am participating in the ongoing discussion. You are the one trying to restore your edits while the discussion is still taking place. And Misplaced Pages policies have nothing to do with this, I was just pointing out that it is unnecessary to put "the United States" as clarification when we are already only talking about the United States. Now, you are still yet to justify why including all of this granular data doesn't violate ]. - ] (]) 06:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::{{ec}} Just want to point out that the overall point being made is that encyclopedic articles ''summarize'' the most relevant aspects of their subjects. They are not meant to be an exhaustive listing of numbers, statistics, and other granular details. That's what databases are for. So it's a valid concern that on Misplaced Pages, we want to balance the crucial with the trivial, allowing just enough in but not too much. One way we can show that something leans more crucial than it does trivial, is by looking at the sources. When multiple, high-quality sources are talking about something, then we probably should be too. ] helps explain this in more detail. From the diff link adamstom97 posted, it does appear that the Home media and Streaming viewership sections were consuming too much space and were therefore running into concerns of ].{{pb}}As for the "United States" clarification, I'll defer to the others, but on the surface it seems fine to keep, even if it is a bit redundant. --] (]) 07:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Adam, you haven't once tried to get any consensus on anything. Regardless since GoneIn60 agrees with you and it's a useless arguement, I'll let it go. But can you tell me how exactly a person will know only US sales are being talked about when there is no clarification at all that we are talking about the US only? ] (]) 07:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::You are the one who is continuously adding dubious facts to the article, the burden is on you to justify why they are noteworthy. Multiple editors have made it clear here that just because we have the data does not mean it necessarily is noteworthy. As I explained at my talk page regarding the latest addition, "The fact that it is in top 5 or top 10 lists for HBO Max streaming (or streaming in general) is noteworthy, the fact that it was in the top 5 for DVD sales on some random months is not." We do include home media sales data that is noteworthy, and if there was more data on, say, home media sales for 2021 or for the first year of the film's release, then perhaps that would be noteworthy too. But just adding random DVD sales data because you found it is taking another step backwards towards cluttering the article with trivial list of non-noteworthy data. - ] (]) 20:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od|::::::::::::}} {{u|AbsolutelyFiring}} you have added the same non-noteworthy data to the article three times without any new justification or responding to the multiple talk page messages I have left. You are the one who is "imposing what you want". Please stop edit warring and discuss! - ] (]) 21:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:Non-noteworthy to you, which you never mentioned before. I already left a message on your talk page to engage. You only chose to after getting reverted twice. Edit-warring is done by twi parties. So you should stop yourself. Only you have a problem here, it's "imposing". ] (]) 21:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:You can create a draft, see ] for a list of drafts that currently exist |
|
== Cast listing in the infobox == |
|
|
|
:] is for the Marvel Cinematic Universe but seems relevant, they would need two more appearances or one solo film ] (]) 16:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:Also, article like that shouldn't be created based on who's important, should be when there's enough content to split from the existing articles otherwise there's unnecessary undeveloped stub and repeated content ] (]) 16:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::] Ok but mostly Rick Flag because, Peacemaker in the series talks about the sadness of killing him and the two films he apeared, he had a big role in those two films, and is/was a member of Suicide Squad himself, those were not is own movies but it's like he was because is membership in Suicide Squad team! ] (]) 16:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
* {{u|Bluerules}}, {{u|Adamstom.97|adamstom97}}, {{u|JDDJS}}, {{u|Facu-el Millo|El Millo}} |
|
|
Would one of you kindly advise how to handle by {{u|LRP19PT}}? Perhaps one of you could use your knowledge of what was discussed previously and apply it here with an explanation as to why this should or should not be changed. I didn't read through the entire discussion, and as far as I can tell, it only applied to the lead. Thanks in advance! --] (]) 17:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
: It should not be changed, per ], which states the starring parameter of the infobox has "the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release". The billing block takes priority over the credits and this film's billing block has Courtney and Capaldi, but not Dastmalchian and Melchior. ] (]) 18:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::OK, that's what I thought, and I alluded to this in . Just wanted to be sure some other consensus wasn't decided for this article. Thanks! --] (]) 20:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Additionally, there was a full discussion about the cast order at ] which led to consensus for the current ordering in the infobox, lead, and cast section. - ] (]) 20:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::I don't know how to create a draft but please can you create it for ]'s Deadshot, Rick Flag and Captain Boomerang, and a Gotham City Sirens (upcoming film) ---> (it was confirmed, with ] also returning for her role as Harley Quinn) ] (]) 16:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
== Current synopsis == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Standalone? == |
|
Does anyone have any issues with of the synopsis, other than the capitalization or lack thereof of "Squad" (covered below)? ] is performing blanket undos of basically all changes made in the past few days, despite only one change actually having any dissent. ] (]) 01:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:The majority of this edit was clearly edit warring over the whole "Squad" thing, and that can be dealt with in the section below. The other stuff was the second change to those sections of the plot summary in the last few days and they go against the extensive discussion that can be found at ]. In that discussion there was strong opposition to mentioning Harley in the first paragraph of the summary. I also don't think "Team 1" and "Team 2" is correct. I am not super opposed to saying "knock her out", but that has definitely been in before and been changed by various editors. And the change to the underground lab bit is part of the recent changes this week that have now gone back-and-forward. With all this in mind, I believe the "squad" issue should be resolved and then if there are further plot summary changes you want to make with good reasoning given then I am sure we will be able to work through those normally. - ] (]) 05:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::Reading that discussion, it seems like the majority of the "strong opposition" came from...you, and only you. I understand not mentioning Weasel's survival in the opening paragraph (which seemed to be the initial kick-off to the discussion), since that's a gag. But having the second paragraph open with "Harley, who by the way we're just now bringing up but she was part of that earlier team and she survived" is just sloppy, sloppy writing. As for the underground lab bit, in its current state it's redundant. Sentence 1 reading "Characters A and B go into the lab" and the sentence 2 reading "Characters A and B find this out" is overly repetitive. ] (]) 20:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Harley doesn't become relevant to the overall summary until she finds out about the Corto Maltese government's plans to use Starro. It's not "sloppy" to introduce Harley at the first point in the story she's actually important; the current way it's handled is fine. As for the underground lab bit, I think it's important to establish that Flag, Ratcatcher, and Thinker are separated from the rest of the team. ]]] 20:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Even if she's not relevant, she's introduced earlier. It'd be like introducing Bloodsport's team as just that and then later on when Ratcatcher 2 is relevant saying "Ratcatcher 2, who is a member of Bloodsport's team...". So yes, it is incredibly sloppy, and the revised version is more fine. ] (]) 21:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Umm... if you actually read the discussion that I linked to you would see that I was the one pushing to include Harley in the first paragraph and it was the other editors who were opposed to it. - ] (]) 05:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Sorry, it's a really long text block and it was easy to mix up whether you or Bluerules was talking in any given moment. Either way, the bickering seems to be almost entirely a back-and-forth between the two of you, so I hardly see it as an iron-clad ruling that can't be challenged. ] (]) 07:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some editors really like to highlight if a film is a "standalone sequel" a subjective interpretation of how much a film does or does not directly follow from its predecessor. This interpretation is frequently ] although editors are claiming that it is supported by sources in this case. (Please show those sources specifically.) This film is a sequel, it seems unnecessary, unhelpful, and ] to make claims or emphasize what type of sequel it might be. Also the ] should summarize what is in the article body: The production section does not use the wording "standalone sequel" instead it has comments from Gunn noting that the film does not explicitly address or contradict the other film (at least not intentionally). He wasn't calling it a "standalone sequel" he was merely calling it |
|
== "Squad" capitalization" == |
|
|
|
"its own thing", which you could choose to interpret in several ways or you could just leave it out. I don't think it is helpful when encyclopedia film articles get stuck on points like this about how much of a direct sequel or standalone sequel, or how "canon" a film is, or how loosely it adapts source material. Fans may care deeply about this but I don't think it is good for an encyclopedia to highlight these sorts of subjective descriptions unless the filmmakers do so first-- ] (]) 20:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree.. that doesn't even make sense... it is a sequel in that it is the continuation of characters from the first film... doesn't matter how directly it addresses anything. That phrasing should be removed. ] (]) 21:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::We have sources in the production section supporting this as a ], so there are no ] concerns here. It is essentially a separate film with a different writer/director's vision and no explicit connections to the first film. The only way that it can be identified as a sequel at all is that they brought back some of the actors, and we have sources discussing how they treated this as a separate thing from the first film. This has nothing to do with canon or fan concerns, we are merely describing the film in an accurate way to how it was produced. Calling this a straight sequel would be misleading when we know that the production team did not treat it like that. - ] (]) 00:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Well I guess I have issues with the definition of standalone sequel... as the examples at that page include films that were definitely continuations.. Superman IV, some of the Pirates films.. those are all regular sequels.. just cause the storyline doesn't continue into the next film doesnt make it not a normal sequel....If it follows the other film with continuing characters it is a sequel... a standalone sequel is more like Halloween 3 that has no connection to the previous films. I guess this is a discussion for a different place though. ] (]) 00:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yeah, I just took a look at that list and it includes some that I would also not call a "standalone sequel". This film is much more standalone than many of those. - ] (]) 00:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: {{tq|We have sources}} which ones specifically? I already linked to the reference that I thought was the source of this claim, where Gunn was quoted as saying "its own thing" and the article authors wrote "not necessarily a continuation of Ayer’s film, but not exactly a reboot either" but they did not use the wording standalone sequel either, and it is a subjective interpretation to do so. You also have the producer in a quote box twisting his words to say it is "not a sequel" and not a reboot either. Again people can interpret that in certain ways (]) and maybe some sources did use the specific wording "standalone sequel" but I disagree with that interpretation to begin with, more importantly I disagree that the editorial decision to highlight it in the lead (]). I would say the same thing if it was "straight" sequel, it does not matter how "straight" or "standalone" it was. The fact that anyone is even saying which films are "more standalone" or not is exactly why this vague subjective label should be avoided. My point is that this is is not important at all (which is why I'm so surprised editors insisted on keeping it) it doesn't need to be highlighted in the lead, the production section can let the filmmakers dissemble and equivocate over it in their own words, and explain in the context of the writing or adaptation how very little it matters. -- ] (]) 21:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::If we called it a sequel then we would not be reflecting the sources that we have or the film itself. If we called it a reboot then we would not be reflecting the source that we have or the film itself. We need to call it something that does reflect the sources and the film, and that is ] per the definition at that link. - ] (]) 22:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Sources that call it a "standalone sequel": |
|
I shouldn't have to point this out, but the name of the group in the movie is "The Suicide Squad". It is a title. When using "Squad" in reference to the group, it would be capitalized, in the same way that if the phrase "the League goes to fight Steppenwolf" was used in the article for '']'', it would be capitalized, as that is the title of the group. We can leave it as "Suicide Squad" or "Squad", but if anyone is adamant on leaving things lower case, then it should just say "team" or "group" or something. ] (]) 01:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:* – ''Decider'' |
|
:"The Suicide Squad" is the name of the movie, but it is only an informal nickname in the film itself and is not their equivalent to "Justice League" (which would be "Task Force X"). "squad" in this case is being used as a perfectly acceptable synonym for "team" or "group". It literally means "a small group of people with a particular task". - ] (]) 05:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:* – ''Screen Rant'' |
|
::In the universe of the film, "Suicide Squad", while an informal title, is still a title. "What are we, some kinda Suicide Squad" and whatnot. Again, if you just want to refer to them as a group, then fine. But "team" or "group" would go much further to alleviate confusion on whether it's referring to the group formally or informally. ] (]) 19:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:* – MovieWeb |
|
:::This is a simple ] case. "Squad" falls under the "Generic Words" issue outlined in ]: "Generic words for institutions, organizations, companies, etc., and rough descriptions of them do not take capitals". ]]] 20:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You completely walked past my point. ] (]) 21:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
:Cheers! --] (]) 05:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:: ] has verified that some sources do in fact call it a standalone sequel. That is the bare minimum that should have been done, it still does not mean this article needs to give it so much ]. The production section of this article barely mentions it and as I already said above Gunn tries to avoid such labels. It is definitely a sequel, it might also subjectively be "standalone" subtype of sequel, but I do not agree that is an important detail that ] in the lead. -- ] (]) 04:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
:::::I think interchanging "squad" with "team" would be fine to mix it up a little, but I agree that these terms should be lower case. --] (]) 21:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::Like I said before, we know the film is not just a sequel and putting that in the lead would be a lot of WP:WEIGHT to give to something that we know isn't true. If we agreed not to put standalone sequel in the lead then we would probably have to not mention the film's relationship to ''Suicide Squad'' at all, and I don't think we should be doing that. So if we have to call it something, it should be the most accurate thing. - ] (]) 05:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
:::::Your point is that "squad" should be capitalized; I ''responded'' your point. I also forgot to mention that your ''Justice League'' example is also ] and would also fall under ] (so "league" should be de-capitalized in that case). ]]] 21:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::I think you both have a point. The problem is that from the time production starts up until the month or so before release, the production section gets fleshed out with little tidbits of details scooped up from the media. Rarely is there a need to go back and add some specific detail about the film in this section, as is the case here. To help bridge the gap, someone could add more details regarding the "standalone" label down in the article body, which would add more justification for it in the lead.{{pb}}109, I know that doesn't satisfy all your concerns, but at least it'd get us to a better place. --] (]) 12:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
:::::It would give your argument more weight if you cite reliable sources supporting your conjecture. ] (]) 21:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Exactly, every time I cite an example you just come in with the Wiki jargon equivalent of "past precedent means nothing, do what I want." And my point was that squad should be capitalized because it's the proper noun ''name of the team'', which you also skidded past with Justice League. ] (]) 07:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::So looking at a couple reliable sources – and – ''squad'' is lowercase when used outside of the title. ''The Washington Post'' does it both ways, only capitalizing when putting "Squad" in quotes, likely because it's indicating a reference to the title. Unless there's better sources out there showing something different, then we shouldn't be capitalizing either unless written in a similar quoted fashion. --] (]) 08:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough. In that case, I'd still shoot for using the term "team" or "group" or something, but if others really want to fight for "squad", then fine, I guess. ] (]) 19:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
Some editors really like to highlight if a film is a "standalone sequel" a subjective interpretation of how much a film does or does not directly follow from its predecessor. This interpretation is frequently original research although editors are claiming that it is supported by sources in this case. (Please show those sources specifically.) This film is a sequel, it seems unnecessary, unhelpful, and WP:UNDUE to make claims or emphasize what type of sequel it might be. Also the WP:FILMLEAD should summarize what is in the article body: The production section does not use the wording "standalone sequel" instead it has comments from Gunn noting that the film does not explicitly address or contradict the other film (at least not intentionally). He wasn't calling it a "standalone sequel" he was merely calling it
"its own thing", which you could choose to interpret in several ways or you could just leave it out. I don't think it is helpful when encyclopedia film articles get stuck on points like this about how much of a direct sequel or standalone sequel, or how "canon" a film is, or how loosely it adapts source material. Fans may care deeply about this but I don't think it is good for an encyclopedia to highlight these sorts of subjective descriptions unless the filmmakers do so first-- 109.77.192.135 (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
