Talk:The Suicide Squad (film)

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Adamstom.97 (talk | contribs) at 03:02, 26 March 2022 (Undid revision 1079309197 by AbsolutelyFiring (talk) wow, I'm afraid this isn't your talk page and you don't get to remove people's comments from here just because you don't like them). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:02, 26 March 2022 by Adamstom.97 (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 1079309197 by AbsolutelyFiring (talk) wow, I'm afraid this isn't your talk page and you don't get to remove people's comments from here just because you don't like them)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Suicide Squad (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Film: Comic book / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the Comic book films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Comics: DC Comics / Films Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Related work groups:
/
	This article is supported by DC Comics work group.
	This article is supported by Comic book films work group.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2021, when it received 10,864,812 views.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 6 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Viewership Figures

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? 2A02:C7F:E873:B200:ADE1:86C:A0A7:156D (talk) 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. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 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. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

So where does it belong? AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 06:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Unless there is something noteworthy or out-of-the-ordinary about it, not on Misplaced Pages. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

So the performance of a film isn't notable? AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not notable unless reliable secondary sources consider it notable. DonQuixote (talk) 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 reliable, secondary source 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. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. 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. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see this diff 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 WP:NOTSTATS. - adamstom97 (talk) 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. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 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 WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 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. WP:NPOV 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 WP:UNDUE.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. --GoneIn60 (talk) 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? AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 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. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Home media section: DVD sales

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! - adamstom97 (talk) 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". AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Without digging into the specifics, this back and forth is clearly disrupting the page. AbsolutelyFiring, I think you were aware that this section has been a hot-button area for a while now, and although bold attempts can always be tried, as soon as you're reverted the first time, it's best to come here next to obtain consensus instead of re-reverting. Let's try to avoid escalating this any further, which will likely lead to blocks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I responded to your message on my talk page and have explained many times why this information is not noteworthy. The only justification you have given for adding it is that it is in the "top 5", which I noted does not necessarily make something noteworthy because it depends on what the list is. As GoneIn60 says, you are the one who is boldly adding controversial details to the article despite ongoing discussions and previous reverts, and the fact that you keep restoring it and ignoring WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN is why I said that it is you who is imposing your will on the article. Before this discussion was started, you had filled the article with trivial, non-noteworthy reception data that goes against Misplaced Pages standards and guidelines, and you were the only one who objected to me cleaning those up and sticking to the significant facts. Since then you have repeatedly inserted the same unnecessary data knowing full well that we have had this discussion, and it is frankly getting annoying. Unless you can justify why this information is actually noteworthy it should not be added back. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of facts and data, and just because you have found a source that reports on these things does not mean that they should all be added here. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Adamstorm like I said you're giving your own justifications for what is notable or not. A film selling high is abosolutely notable. Btw it was you made the the change to the status quo, I didn't notice earlier you removed it. BRD apples to you and so does BURDEN. You keep telling people what to do. It's just one line. If you can't leave it alone that tells that you have no intention other than doing what you want. I have yet to see an actual explanation. I'm not citing its rank eveey week ir every month. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how many times I can explain the same thing. Not everything added to Misplaced Pages is noteworthy by default. You have to be able to justify why it is noteworthy when you add it, or it gets removed. This is not me telling people what to do or doing what I want, multiple editors have already explained this to you and it just so happens that I am the one who is trying to enforce it. These are standard Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines which you apparently think don't apply to you. The only justification you have given for keeping this random, useless data is that you think it is automatically noteworthy because it is in the "top 5" of the list and because "A film selling high is abosolutely notable", neither of which is necessarily true. I have kept the details from your additions that are noteworthy (top home media seller when it was released, key streaming viewership details to show its performance) but these other ones just aren't. You need to stop trying to force this stuff into the article by edit warring and WP:BLUDGEONing the talk page with the same disproven argument. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

And I have already told you in response that I have not added just about anything. Only selected information of the film's performance in a long time. Yes it is noteworthy if it is in the top 5 for two months. Because it means it is selling well. How else do you want me to put it? A movie doing well is definitely notable.

No one except you has raised a problem with anything. And I've let every edit of yours go without scrutiny. But there's a limit to which you can do what you want. And that limit has been reached. It is clear you're not interested in cooperation.

Where have you even once disproven anything? The only counter I see from you in response is "it's not notable" without you bothering to explain why. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I give up. You are obviously so set on getting your own way that you will do or say anything to get it. Congratulations. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

If one of you would like to explain what content is being challenged, in a neutral way, then I'd be willing to weigh in to break the stalemate. Simply provide an excerpt of what's being added along with the sources. I could dig into the history, but providing it here verbatim might also encourage others to weigh in. There's also other forms of dispute resolution at your disposal, such as WP:30 if you want to go that route. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

We are discussing the last sentence of the Home Media section which says the DVD/Blu-ray was number 4 on a sales chart for October and November 2021. I just think it is trivial and not noteworthy enough to be included, AbsolutelyFiring thinks otherwise. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, it was confusing because originally we were talking about the "Streaming viewership" section (I moved this discussion to a new subsection).After looking it over, the section talks about being #1 for the first 2 weeks after release, so it would seem like a natural transition to mention where it fell to by the end of October. I think mentioning November is unnecessary. So instead, why don't we shorten the last sentence to read something like, "It fell to fourth on the chart by the end of October 2021", or something along those lines. We don't really need to track it beyond that point, unless of course, there are a significant number of sources reporting it's 4th-ranked position in November. Just ending up on a chart that shows up as a blip on one source's radar doesn't show the significance of that accomplishment. Sound like a fair compromise? --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've removed them. The Numbers has started releasing home media sales and I don't think they're necessary any longer. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I honestly think that mentioning where it ended up (4th) only 4 weeks later is a good thing. I don't think tracking it after that point is necessary though. I think we split the difference. Instead of outright removal, we trim the statement to only mention what I suggested. But if you two agree on outright removal, that works. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I have added GoneIn60's suggestion because it is honestly way better than ending the section with that Numbers data which has no context and will not be meaningful at all to readers. P.S. if you delete stuff from the article AbsolutelyFiring you need to remove the references as well or you just create errors like you did with that edit. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Home media section: NPD

AbsolutelyFiring I'm sorry, but I'm not going to do what you want is not how Misplaced Pages works. We all have to work together here whether you like it or not, and continuously reverting is not the way that things are done. I have given a very clear explanation for why your wording is not good enough and why I went with mine. You have ignored my explanations and chosen to revert rather than offer a new solution. Are you going to grow up and participate or do I need to report you for refusing to discuss and trying to start an edit war? - adamstom97 (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Adamstom.97 I know well about cooperation, but I'm tired of you creating trivial issues every time just because you can't let it go. I've discussed with you before. But you've been creating a dispute every time I edit that page. So the problem is clearly you always refusing to back down and accept that what you think isn't correct. I don't have time for this. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

the problem is clearly you always refusing to back down and accept that what you think isn't correct? You are the one who's not respecting BRD under the excuse of it not being a policy, starting to edit war and refusing to discuss. BRD may not be a policy, but it is an explanatory supplement on how to avoid edit-warring and discuss, two things which you must adhere to. —El Millo (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to expand the point about BRD... It is true that it is not required, because BRD is only one acceptable method of handling a dispute, not the ONLY method. The relevant policy is WP:EPTALK, and editors are generally expected to discuss their disputes at some stage of the editing process, especially once your edit is challenged. I haven't looked at the recent dispute, but just throwing this out there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

AbsolutelyFiring It may be trivial, and I agree that it is not the biggest problem ever, but the fact is that you made an edit that introduced unnecessary vagueness to the section without good reasoning, a section that you have continued to edit war over despite all the discussions we have had. And just because you are sick of me trying to improve the article doesn't mean you get to edit war and then walk away without actually addressing the issue. So do you have a suggestion for better wording than mine which addresses the problem you created, or are you not interested in participating? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

"Squad" capitalization"

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 Justice League, 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. Buh6173 (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

"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". - adamstom97 (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

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. Buh6173 (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a simple MOS:CAPS case. "Squad" falls under the "Generic Words" issue outlined in MOS:INSTITUTIONS: "Generic words for institutions, organizations, companies, etc., and rough descriptions of them do not take capitals". JOE BRO 64 20:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You completely walked past my point. Buh6173 (talk) 21:01, 25 January 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. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 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 WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and would also fall under MOS:CAPS (so "league" should be de-capitalized in that case). JOE BRO 64 21:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It would give your argument more weight if you cite reliable sources supporting your conjecture. DonQuixote (talk) 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. Buh6173 (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

So looking at a couple reliable sources – Rolling Stone and The Washington Post – 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. --GoneIn60 (talk) 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. Buh6173 (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

"Simon Hatt" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Simon Hatt and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 14#Simon Hatt until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Categories: