Talk:The Suicide Squad (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Use title credits for ordering cast section

Are any other editors in favor of using the title credits to determine who goes in the cast list (as opposed to being in the paragraph beneath it) and their order? If we did, the cast section would look like this:

• Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn:
  A crazed criminal and former psychiatrist. Robbie said the film would show a new side of the character compared to her previous DC Extended Universe (DCEU) appearances due to her being in a new place and surrounded by new characters. Director James Gunn likened Harley's relationship with Bloodsport to the comedy duo Abbott and Costello, with Harley being Costello. Robbie wears a new costume that features Harley's traditional red and black color palette, with Gunn taking inspiration from the character's costume in the video game Batman: Arkham City (2011). He wanted her jacket to have "motorcycle gang style"-writing on the back, and chose "Live fast, die clown" over other potential options "Clown AF" and "World's Best Grandpa". Gunn also removed Harley's "Rotten" facial tattoo from previous DCEU films because both he and Robbie disliked it.
• Idris Elba as Robert DuBois / Bloodsport:
  A mercenary with a technologically-advanced suit and weapons that only he can use. After being convicted of shooting Superman with a Kryptonite bullet, he shortens his prison sentence by joining Task Force X so he can reunite with his daughter Tyla. Gunn said each member of the Suicide Squad in the film was inspired by a different film genre, and described Bloodsport as an unsentimental portrayal of a 1960s action hero like Steve McQueen, without the "moral repercussions" of those characters. Elba was reportedly originally cast to replace Will Smith as Deadshot, but the character was changed to Bloodsport to allow Smith to reprise his role in the future; Gunn did not change the story that he had written for Elba, and just chose Bloodsport because he liked the character in the comics. The character's comic book ability to manifest weapons is adapted in the film as different gadgets and transforming weaponry that come from his costume.
• John Cena as Christopher Smith / Peacemaker:
  A ruthless, jingoistic killer who believes in achieving peace at any cost. Gunn told Cena not to read any Peacemaker comics before filming, and Cena originally approached the role with an "angular, drill sergeant, Full Metal Jacket-esque personality" before Gunn told him to act like a "douchey, bro-y Captain America". Gunn added that the character was straight out of a 1970s television series like Wonder Woman.
• Joel Kinnaman as Col. Rick Flag:
  The field leader of the Suicide Squad. Kinnaman said the film was an opportunity to give the character a blank slate, and said Flag was sillier, less jaded, more naive, and funnier compared to his portrayal in the first Suicide Squad (2016).
• Sylvester Stallone as the voice of Nanaue / King Shark:
  A man-eating fish-human hybrid. Steve Agee developed King Shark's portrayal as a stand-in on set, with the character then created with visual effects. Gunn initially used a hammerhead shark design from the comics, but found it awkward to film the character with other actors due to his eyes being on the sides of his head. Gunn settled on a great white shark design similar to the one seen in the Harley Quinn (2019–present) animated series, though this was a coincidence as that series was released after filming for The Suicide Squad began. Gunn gave King Shark a dad bod to make him look less like a mammal, as well as small eyes, a big mouth, and a small head to avoid the "cute anthropomorphic beast" design seen in popular characters like Baby Groot from his Guardians of the Galaxy films and The Mandalorian's Baby Yoda.
• Viola Davis as Amanda Waller: The director of A.R.G.U.S. who runs the Task Force X program.
• David Dastmalchian as Abner Krill / Polka-Dot Man:
  An "experiment gone wrong" turned criminal in a suit covered with polka dots. Gunn described Polka-Dot Man as "the dumbest DC character of all time" who hoped to turn into a tragic character for the film.
• Daniela Melchior as Cleo Cazo / Ratcatcher 2:
  A bank robber who inherited the mantle of "Ratcatcher" from her father, along with equipment that allows her to control rats and communicate with them, including her pet Sebastian. Gunn described her as the "heart of the film".
• Michael Rooker as Brian Durlin / Savant: A vigilante computer hacker.
• Jai Courtney as George "Digger" Harkness / Captain Boomerang:
  An unhinged Australian thief who wields boomerangs. Courtney stated that unlike Rick Flag, Captain Boomerang has not changed since the events of Suicide Squad, being "the same shitbag liability we came to learn about in the first one. He's out there causing trouble as you would expect."
• Peter Capaldi as Dr. Gaius Grieves / The Thinker: A highly-intelligent supervillain.
• Alice Braga as Sol Soria: The leader of a rebel faction on Corto Maltese.
• Pete Davidson as Richard "Dick" Hertz / Blackguard: A mercenary who is easily manipulated into ruining his own schemes.
• Joaquín Cosío as Mateo Suárez: The Major General of Corto Maltese.
• Juan Diego Botto as Silvio Luna: The dictator of Corto Maltese.
• Storm Reid as Tyla: Bloodsport's daughter.
• Nathan Fillion as Cory Pitzner / T.D.K.: A metahuman formerly known as The Detachable Kid who can detach his arms from his body to use them as weapons.
• Taika Waititi as Ratcatcher: Cazo's father.

I support using the title credits over the poster because it will help make the article more readable. Too many names and too much information is crammed into the paragraphs underneath the cast list. Bluerules (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The poster billing block is the standard that we use because minor cast members are often added to the onscreen list (in this case Rooker, Reid, Fillion, and Waititi) and though the poster billing isn't always perfect, it gives the clearest indication of who is being hired as the main cast members which is good to go on since it avoids the subjective opinions of editors here. The number of other actors that are being listed in the paragraphs below is also not anything unusual, and I would argue that it is actually more readable to have the minor characters in logical groupings in prose then having a long list of minor characters with repeated descriptions. Happy to continue this discussion, but the WP:STATUSQUO should be restored in the article until there is consensus to change the order away from the existing format. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Rooker, Reid, Fillion, and Waititi are not any more minor than Courtney, who is killed in the opening scene. Courtney and Capaldi are certainly more minor than Dastmalchian and Melchior, who portray central characters. While you could say it's subjective to call Dastmalchian and Melchior "main cast members" and Courtney a "minor character", it is objective that the former two have far more screentime and role in the story, as well as being in the title credits and billed higher. There will never be a clear indication of who actually was hired as the main cast members because that's often based more on name recognition/contracts (refer to Tyne Daly being on the Spider-Man: Homecoming poster for one scene and Anna Paquin being on the X-Men: Days of Future Past poster after having her role cut down to a non-speaking cameo), but the title credits provide the clearest indication because they provide the most names, increasing the probability of adding more main cast members who would have been omitted otherwise (e.g. Khleo Thomas isn't on the poster for Holes, but plays one of the main characters). The title credits are the standard we use, not the poster billing block, because they feature more names and an objective cut off-point (as opposed to the scrolling credits). This is still avoiding the subjective opinions of editors because the order is coming from an objective source.

In respect to it being "more readable to have the minor characters in logical groupings in prose then having a long list of minor characters with repeated descriptions", Dastmalchian and Melchior do not portray minor characters. As a result, the prose about them becomes bloated and it's harder for readers to learn about them (e.g. Dastmalchian having vitiligo). Again, the title credits are the standard we use. The billing block was simply used until now because none of us had obviously seen the title credits. Bluerules (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I strongly support using the title credits. Daniela Melchior is nowhere near a minor role, with director Gunn even calling the heart of the film (which is very accurate if you watch the film). To have her in the bottom prose and have Courtney, who dies like 10 mins in the film, with his own bullet, is not appropriate. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think adding Melchior is justification for also adding multiple other cameos to the main cast list. If anything, we should be sticking to the poster billing and then adding Dastmalchian and Melchior to the end of the list if there is consensus that they should be bulleted. This is the compromise for other films where clearly major characters are not billed. We definitely should not be going through and adding/removing multiple characters to come up with our preferred list, that sort of behaviour is widely discouraged. But I would support adding Dastmalchian and Melchior to the end of the poster list. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I would be in favor of making such an exception, as both of them have a lot of information to them already included here and it warrants their own bullet point. Switching to title credits adds a bunch of other roles that are too small and the benefit of including these two isn't worth it. Since both switching to title credits and adding these two characters would be exceptions and outside the norm, the best exception of the two is just including these two. —El Millo (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I think a better compromise would be to cut out the names that don't receive their own title credit, which are the bottom five. We can't make an argument against excluding roles that are "too small" when the poster dictates that we include Courtney, who doesn't make it to the opening credits. We need to follow a consistent standard that's as objective as possible. In that regard, following the title credits and solely the title credits (which place Dastmalchian, Melchior, and Rooker above Courtney and Capaldi and include Braga and Davidson), provides a consistent and objective standard. The title credits are from the film itself, the basis of this article, not promotional material. Bluerules (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

But that is neither consistent nor objective and is a much bigger departure from the normal approach. Best to keep it simple. Using the poster billing and adding the other two is close to consistent with most other articles, and is consistent with the few other exceptions that I know of, and it gives us all of the main cast members plus Courtney. His role does basically amount to a cameo appearance, but he is a returning actor from the first film and there is precedence for franchises to list returning main cast members in the new main cast even if their role is small (see Avengers: Age of Ultron for the exact same scenario: Hayley Atwell and Idris Elba have cameo appearances in that film but they are returning main cast members for the franchise so they are in the main cast list, and this has been the consensus through several similar discussions). I agree with El Millo that this is the better of the two compromises and avoids as much editor subjectivity as possible while still giving us a better list for this film. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

It is 100% consistent to use the same source for ordering the cast instead of subjectively deciding one source holds more weight than another. It is 100% objective to directly follow a cast listing provided by the film itself instead of subjectively deciding who's "important" enough and who's "minor". This is the "normal approach" on DCEU articles. Just look at the previously released Zack Snyder's Justice League, which lists 11 names not featured on the poster because they were in the title credits. We're getting into WP:OTHERSTUFF territory here, but if we're talking consistency with DCEU articles, sticking solely to the poster and prioritizing it is not consistent.

You say "best to keep it simple", but subjectively deciding that one source holds more weight than another and subjectively deciding who belongs and who doesn't is not simple. Simply following the title credits is the textbook definition of simple. I apologize if I appear abrasive, but much of your position is rooted in the same "editor subjectivity" that you oppose. Like Atwell and Elba in Age of Ultron, Courtney is included because he is objectively on the poster, regardless of how subjectively minor we consider his role to be. But the same approach applies to Rooker (the focus of much of the opening), Braga (who has more impact on the story than Courtney), and Davidson (who also has more impact on the story). You believe they should not be listed because you subjectively consider them to be "minor". I believe they should be listed because they are objectively listed in the title credits. It is your subjective opinion that the poster should be prioritized over the title credits. It is objective that the title credits derive from the film itself, which is objectively the subject of this article. Bluerules (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

No, my objective opinion is that we should use the poster billing block like most other film articles. I am just suggesting a compromise because you want to add and remove characters from the list. The reasoning you have given for adding these minor characters to the list is Rooker (the focus of much of the opening), Braga (who has more impact on the story than Courtney), and Davidson (who also has more impact on the story) which is all subjective. And your understanding of poster billing is incorrect, it is not based on who is on the poster (Atwell and Elba were not), it is based on contracts with the actors which makes it actually objective. That's why it is recommended that we use them. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

But it is not true that "most other film articles" use the poster billing block. Most MCU articles do because they have massive billing blocks, but most DCEU articles (which have smaller billing blocks) don't, and this is a DCEU article. You are subjectively making a case for those billed higher by the title credits (Dastmalchian and Melchior) to be below those on the poster (Courtney and Capaldi) by prioritizing advertising material over content directly from the film. And no, that is a strawman for why I believe Rooker, Braga, and Davidson should be added to the list. I flat out said I believe they should be listed because they are objectively listed in the title credits. Deeming them "minor characters", however well-founded that assertion may be, is editor subjectivity. The fact that they are listed individually in the title credits (with Rooker receiving higher billing than Courtney and Capaldi) is objective.

As for your assertion that my "understanding of poster billing is incorrect", Atwell and Elba are on the poster for Age of Ultron. I'm not talking about them being physically on the poster or having their names on the top, I'm referring to the billing block, where their names are present. They would not be allowed in the starring parameter otherwise, per infobox guidelines. I already acknowledged that billing is "often based more on name recognition/contracts". If the title credits objectively billed Dastmalchian and Melchior below Courtney and Capaldi or didn't even mention them, then I would support having them listed below Courtney and Capaldi. But we have an objective source that bills Dastmalchian and Melchior above Courney and Capaldi. And when that source is objectively part of the film itself, the subject of this article, it is recommended that we use it. Bluerules (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with putting links to the DCEU cast member page or the Characters list at the top? Given that this film is still officially in the DCEU, it would be good to link to those pages. I've added it there only to see it promptly removed.--WuTang94 (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Those articles are already linked in the appropriate place, which is the DCEU navbox at the bottom of the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Understandable, but my only concern is that mobile users generally can't see navboxes, from what I recall.--WuTang94 (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

If that is the case then I think that is a general concern with the mobile format as the navboxes have other noteworthy and useful links that also do not appear in the article (and the same applies for many other articles as well). - adamstom97 (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I know that this might be beating a dead horse or re-opening Pandora's box, but every other DCEU film page has these links at the top of the cast section. I may bring this back to maintain consistency with those pages and will mark the edit as such (especially given the known issue with mobile users not seeing navboxes), but if people feel strongly against it or want to have this taken off all DCEU film pages, I'd understand.--WuTang94 (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I would support removing them from all DCEU articles, they really just belong in the navbox at the bottom of the page. They are interesting / somewhat useful from a shared universe perspective, but as far as this film goes we should not be suggesting that there is a more in-depth The Suicide Squad cast/character list somewhere like there might be for a long-running TV show. The relevant character articles are also already linked to from here. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm also in favour of using either the title credits billing, or the billing as per the poster at https://twitter.com/JamesGunn/status/1375221388185726979. It's ridiculous that Daniela Melchior and David Dastmalchian, who play two of the most prominent characters in the film, are not in the infobox starring section. --Stats71 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

That poster is a better option than the the list from the film in my opinion, since it is clearly the main cast plus Braga and the members of the other team so at least it is a logical list. My preference is still to use the official billing with Dastmalchian and Melchior on the end, but if there is support for using this poster then I wouldn't oppose it. I would question whether we wanted to use it in all three places though, since it is a long list. We could stick to the billing for the lead and infobox but use the expanded list on this poster for the actual cast list. Thoughts? - adamstom97 (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

If we use the title credits and cut off from those who aren't individually billed (which ends with Davidson), we would have 13 cast members listed. If we use this poster, we would have 17 cast members listed. The four additional names - Nathan Fillion, Sean Gunn, Flula Borg, and Mayling Ng - are subject to the same "minor character" argument that may be made towards Rooker, Courtney, Braga, and Davidson. While I prefer this poster to the billing block, I believe the individual title credits are more in line with what we're seeking because it has less names and less characters considered minor, leading to less debate.

As far as the infobox goes, this poster does not have an actual billing block, so it would not be permitted under the guidelines. A billing block has all the production information, not just the cast and one crew member. The actual billing block order (seen in the current poster) is already recognized in the infobox. I feel the lede should also be retained to avoid confusion over the billing block. Bluerules (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Your argument above was Simply following the title credits is the textbook definition of simple, but now you are suggesting that we only use some of the title credits which again I think is getting too complicated and too subjective. So I think in the interest of simplicity and as much objectivity as we can get, we should be using the full list from wherever we choose and only add people if consensus agrees. So that would make these our options: the official billing block with the two missing main cast members (we all seem to be agreeing on that point) added to the end; this poster which has the main cast, the other squad, and Braga; or the titles from the film which have the main cast, some of the other squad, some of the Corto Maltese characters, Reid, and Waititi. My preference is to stick as close to the official billing as possible, but if we want to use a longer list then I think it makes sense to use the poster because (a) if we are going to have some of the other squad then I think we should have all of them, (b) I don't think Reid and Waititi should be listed and I think Cosío and Botto are borderline, and (c) the film is called The Suicide Squad so I guess there is an argument to be had about listing all of the squad members in the main cast. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Differentiating those billed individually and those who are not is textbook simple. It is objective who had their name appear by itself in the title credits and to me at least, it's pretty clear if that name objectively appeared by itself. These notions that we should list all of the members of the Suicide Squad in the main cast and they should be prioritized over the likes of Reid, Waititi, Cosío, and Botto fall into the same editor subjectivity you say you're opposed to. To me, using the names billed individually in the title credits is a reasonable compromise. We get Dastmalchian and Melchior, we get them above objectively above Courtney (and there will be objections towards Courtney being above Dastmalchian and Melchior), we get less characters deemed minor, and the source is the subject of this article. Bluerules (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

At this point, I'm in favor of whatever gets us to including clearly main characters such as Dastmalchian and Melchior and excluding as many minor characters as possible, while avoiding recurring to more subjective assessments. So I'm both in favor of simply adding Dastmalchian and Melchior at the end of the characters billed in the current poster's billing block and going by those individually billed in the film titles. I oppose using the "billing" from the other poster, which has 17 names, and I'd rather not use the whole film titles, since that is 18 names long. Bluerules' seems more objective, while Adamstom's is shorter. Still, thirteen is short enough so it might a good compromise, Adamstom, rather than having 17 or 18 characters there. —El Millo (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

So to be clear(er) about what we are choosing between:

• • A Billing block: Robbie, Elba, Cena, Kinnaman, Stallone, Davis, Courtney, Capaldi
  • B Billing block (adjusted): + Dastmalchian, Melchior
  • C Poster: + Dastmalchian, Melchior, Rooker, Braga, Davidson, Fillion, Gunn, Borg, Ng
  • D Film: + Dastmalchian, Melchior, Rooker, Braga, Davidson, Cosío, Botto, Reid, Fillion, Waititi
  • E Film (adjusted): + Dastmalchian, Melchior, Rooker, Braga, Davidson

My preference is B because it is close to A but includes Dastmalchian and Melchior. My next preference is C because at least it is logical. I think D adds too many minor characters and I think E is just too random. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

B, otherwise E. Option B would be an exception based on consensus that these two added characters are main and that have enough information about them to warrant their inclusion. Option E has the disadvantage of adding more characters that aren't main ones, but it the second option with the least additions. Adamstom97, deciding on using the individually billed actors as a cutoff is just as random as adding Dastmalchian and Melchior, we do it on consensus. Option E makes it less subjective, and if chosen would eliminate any possibility for other editors to suggest adding some other character just because they think they "deserve it", which is basically what we're doing with option B. The only reason I support B over E is that it is reasonable to add these two and I think it serves the reader best out of all these options. Regarding C and D, it seems to be a case of adhering too closely to the "rules" in detriment of what's actually better, giving WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to too many characters.—El Millo (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

My first preference is E, with C as my second preference. But I'm also ok with B as a compromise. Either way, I also think that it's essential for Dastmalchian and Melchior to be added to the infobox starring section and the lede. --Stats71 (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

E is my preference. It addresses both sides by adding Dastmalchian and Melchior to the cast list while not adding an excessive amount of names and follows an objective order from the film. Bluerules (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Since we're all in agreement over at least adding Dastmalchian and Melchior to the cast list, shouldn't that be done in the meantime while the final solution is determined? --Stats71 (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem is there's contention over where they should be ordered. If we use E, they would be above Courtney and Capaldi. If we use B or C, they would be below. Bluerules (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I see. Well this reinforces my support for E and reduces my support for C and B. As I think it certainly makes more sense to have them above Courtney and Capaldi, who played very minor roles in comparison to them. --Stats71 (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

We should not be making any changes until there is consensus, and we probably shouldn't be making decisions based on who is above who in the order. We are trying to at least appear to be objective here. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

True. But there is consensus on adding at least Dastmalchian and Melchior (if not on the order in which they are placed), so shouldn't we get that bit at least resolved quickly? Because it would be pointless to maintain the current status quo (which everyone agrees has to go) just because of such a minor disagreement. --Stats71 (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there isn't an objective way to add only Dastmalchian and Melchior because we're subjectively leaving out other names listed. If we put them above Courtney and Capaldi, per title credits, we subjectively decided to leave out Rooker (who's also billed above Courtney and Capaldi), Braga, and Davidson. If we put them below, per the alternate poster, we subjectively decided to leave out the other names below Courtney and Capaldi. Plus, the alternate poster puts Stallone and Davis at the bottom, which opens up another can of worms in having an objective cast listing - why are we disregarding the other cast members objectively above them? And in the case of option C, we're subjectively determining characters to be "main" and "minor", along with subjectively deciding that the main poster order holds more weight than the title credits order. If the title credits had put Dastmalchian and Melchior below Courtney and Capaldi, we'd at least have a degree of objectivity by adding only them, but since that's not the case, we can't add them until a consensus is reached. Bluerules (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

In the interest of getting a resolution for this discussion, I am going to suggest that we go ahead with E unless there are any concerns from anyone. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I have made the change. Bluerules (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

"Unnecessary Bit Of Trivia"

I have no issue with Prefall reverting my changes, but you might want to take a look at the rest of the article - especially the amount of information devoted to casting rumours that were later debunked and critical reaction to trailers. 2A02:C7F:E873:B200:A9B5:72A7:C6AF:9E9B (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The casting process and commentary on the trailers are both standard parts of film articles in line with MOS:FILM and are not at all the same thing as the trivia that you added. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I take your point Adamstom, it isn't the same thing. All the information in this article as it stands is relevant - indeed "standard" - and this entry is not bloated with unnecessary trivia. I was especially interested to read about the motto on Harley's jacket in the cast section, amongst the many, many other relevant details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:E873:B200:A9B5:72A7:C6AF:9E9B (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Well I'm glad we could sort that out then. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Cast listing in the infobox

• Bluerules, adamstom97, JDDJS, El Millo

Would one of you kindly advise how to handle this proposal by 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! --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

It should not be changed, per Template:Infobox film, 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. Bluerules (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, that's what I thought, and I alluded to this in my revert. Just wanted to be sure some other consensus wasn't decided for this article. Thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, there was a full discussion about the cast order at #Use title credits for ordering cast section which led to consensus for the current ordering in the infobox, lead, and cast section. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Current synopsis

Does anyone have any issues with this revision of the synopsis, other than the capitalization or lack thereof of "Squad" (covered below)? User:Adamstom.97 is performing blanket undos of basically all changes made in the past few days, despite only one change actually having any dissent. Buh6173 (talk) 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 Talk:The_Suicide_Squad_(film)/Archive 1#Plot summary. 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. - adamstom97 (talk) 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. Buh6173 (talk) 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. JOEBRO64 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. Buh6173 (talk) 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. - adamstom97 (talk) 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. Buh6173 (talk) 07:41, 26 January 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". JOEBRO64 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). JOEBRO64 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 Wikipedia: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)

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 Wikipedia. - 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

I mistook this as talk page, sorry. Anyway I don't have any comments nor want to dispute anything. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)