Talk:The Suicide Squad (film)

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)

Will Smith, Joel Kinnaman and Jai Courtney Deadshot, Rick Flag and Captain Boomerang's article

I think Jai Courtney and Joel Kinnaman should have their own article as Captain Boomerang and Rick Flag, because they appeared in two films! In my opinion they are important characters... LRP19PT (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You can create a draft, see Category:DC Extended Universe drafts for a list of drafts that currently exist

WP:MCUCHARACTERS is for the Marvel Cinematic Universe but seems relevant, they would need two more appearances or one solo film Indagate (talk) 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 Indagate (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Indagate 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! LRP19PT (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how to create a draft but please can you create it for Will Smith's Deadshot, Rick Flag and Captain Boomerang, and a Gotham City Sirens (upcoming film) ---> (it was confirmed, with Margot Robbie also returning for her role as Harley Quinn) LRP19PT (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Standalone?

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).[1] 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)

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. Spanneraol (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

We have sources in the production section supporting this as a standalone sequel, so there are no WP:OR 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. - adamstom97 (talk) 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. Spanneraol (talk) 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. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

We have sources which ones specifically? I already linked to the reference that I thought was the source of this claim,[2] 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.[3] Again people can interpret that in certain ways (WP:OR) 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 (WP:UNDUE). 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. -- 109.76.194.173 (talk) 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 standalone sequel per the definition at that link. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Sources that call it a "standalone sequel":

• 'Suicide Squad' vs 'The Suicide Squad': Is The 2021 Movie A Sequel? – Decider
• Suicide Squad 2: Every Character Who Didn't Return For The Sequel (& Why) – Screen Rant
• The Suicide Squad Has Another Secret Survivor Reveals Director James Gunn – MovieWeb

Cheers! --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

GoneIn60 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 WP:WEIGHT. 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 needs to be highlighted in the lead. -- 109.79.173.43 (talk) 04:23, 24 July 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. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:54, 24 July 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.

109, I know that doesn't satisfy all your concerns, but at least it'd get us to a better place. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

"lack of bankable movie stars"

For some reason, this has become a point of contention. I'd like everyone to look at this article and determine whether it's arguing that the film completely lacks bankable stars or if Will Smith, who was a massive draw to the first film, being absent hurt the Box Office. The only star whose bankability is ever called into question is Elba's. Even the point about Harley's allegedly overblown popularity is not speaking about Margot's bankability, yet users, in violation of Wikipedia Policy, conflate it as the same argument.

10 Reasons Why ‘The Suicide Squad’ Is A Box Office Disaster (forbes.com)

What I am proposing, and what is currently in effect, as I'm not the only user who has implemented this change, is that we strike any notion that the film lacked bankable stars, and simply leave Mendelson's argument that Smith, a huge draw to the first film, not returning to the second ended up hurting the film's box office. Seems sensible, right?

ChimaFan12 (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)