Talk:The Suicide Squad (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

James Gunn found entire team?

https://heroichollywood.com/james-gunn-the-suicide-squad-whole-team/

Faromics (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I saw this and while it'd be good to add, I haven't seen a reliable source pick up on it yet (Heroic Hollywood isn't reliable, though I wish it were). JOEBRO64 19:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Move to mainspace(?)

This film's production start-date is today. Shouldn't it be moved to article form now?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd be fine with moving it now, but principal photography doesn't start for about a week, so I think we should hold off until then. JOEBRO64 21:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

We will be, as per WP:NFF. Cited source says September 23. Rusted AutoParts 21:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: & @Rusted AutoParts: Forgive me, I got ahead of myself this morning. Earlier today I thought it was the 23rd! Definitely hold off until production begins (i.e.: the 23rd or if photography kicks off a little sooner).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

New characters

New characters’ names should not be added until they have been confirmed. Since it’s just based on cast photos at the moment (in no way official confirmation), it’s still WP:CRYSTAL. JOEBRO64 15:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Original?

"Harleen Quinzel / Harley Quinn: A psychotic criminal and former psychiatrist who was in the original team of the Suicide Squad"... She was not in the original team that came out in 1959, nor in the next most original team in 1987. See the Suicide Squad wikipedia page here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_Squad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Jack Nash (talk • contribs) 20:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eric Jack Nash -- this is not at all what that statement means. It's talking about the first movie.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Trailer stuff???

So, I was writing about the new Rain trailer that came out, but an editor reverted my edits and claimed that only trailers with "significant commentary" or something can be logged. Now, there is the trailer logged here, but without any commentary, just stating the facts about the song used and the whole "cast-leak" stunt. I was wondering why this was the case, as I personally think its unfair. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I was slightly wrong, in that WP:TRAILER actually doesn't say significant, it says: use reliable sources to provide useful commentary about a method, such as a trailer's intended effect or the audience's reported reaction to it. instead of merely identifying it or describing its content. "Commentary" doesn't just refer to opinion pieces from secondary sources, just as critics or something like that, it refers to notable and useful information about and around the trailer, apart from just what it shows and when it is released. Perhaps this is a little light on commentary, but it has some at least. —El Millo (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

We should add some commentary on it for sure, but it is only necessary if there is nothing else noteworthy about the info (a trailer being released is not noteworthy since everything film gets at least one). The info added currently is more than just "a trailer was released" so that is why it is allowed to stay. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh OK, I see. Thank you guys. I think it would've been accepted if I added in that there was a "cast leak" stunt to my original edits. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Cast list

While usual practice is to include the cast who is listed on the billing/poster, it is also worth noting that all the marketing for this film has listed each of the main actors from the film as cast members. Along with this, the fact that the movie is centered around the whole team(s), why do we have most of the cast in paragraph form at the bottom of this section?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a good common practice because it gives us a clear, objective way to determine which actors get a bullet point and which go to the following paragraph. I don't see any exceptional quality this film has that would make it better for us not to follow that practice. The fact that the film is centered around the whole team doesn't mean that every team member will have an equal level of importance or screen time, there will still be clear main and supporting characters, and the top-billed actors may very well be more prominent in the film than the rest. —El Millo (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with El Millo, the billing block is an objective listing that we should definitely be using. The fact that there are Suicide Squad members not included in the billing most likely indicates that they will not be main characters in the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I think David Dastmalchian and Daniela Melchior are two exceptions. Although they are not included in the billing, their characters are featured in the art of the poster. The trailers also treat them as "main characters" similar to Harley, Bloodsport, Peacemaker etc. But yeah, in spite of that, I agree with the use of the billing block for the main cast list. YgorD3 (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with El Millo, although I personally think that it could be cordoned off into another subsection about minor cast members and/or other Suicide Squad members. Its much more easier to read and understand IMO as a bulletin board. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Green band trailer release date?

On the article, it states the trailer was released on April 1, however, for me, when I go to YouTube and check the timestamp, it says March 31. Is this a time issue (for me?) or a potential error in the article? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you are getting that, the April 1 date comes from Gunn's announcement and a source reporting on it, and I get April 2 when I check the YouTube video which makes sense since I am ahead of American time. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I see March 30 as the timestamp, but again, it could probably just be a time stamp issue for me, which would probably make sense. I am within the CDT (Central Daylight Time) timezone BTW. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

That's probably because of your time zone. It shows "April 1" for me when I view the video on YouTube here in the US. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2021

change recieved to received. This is part of the discussion of critical reception. 2600:8803:C07:8600:B988:B5BB:AAAE:6C85 (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

 DoneInteresting Geek (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

August 5 or August 6 release?

Despite James Gunn's announcement of a special August 5th (Thursday) evening preview in theaters and HBO Max, early preview evening showings for theatrically released films have been par for the course for a long time, at least in America. Yet films with or without these previews maintain the official release date, whether it's the Wednesday or Friday after the Tuesday or, in this case, Thursday evening preview, respectively. So I don't see the reasoning for listing August 5th as the film's official release date. -- Snowshredder140 (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2021

Hand-HI-FIVE-1 (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
the music

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Terasail^[✉️] 18:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Image of James Gunn

The image of James Gunn (from San Diego ComicCon 2016) is not representative of how he looks in 2021 as he promotes this film.[1] His hair and beard are white.

If/when a later image of Gunn that better resembles how he actually looked while promoting this film becomes available it would good to replace the photo. -- 109.76.135.9 (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2021

In the Critical response section please change:

• X Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian gave the film 3 out of 5 stars, and wrote "This second Squad outing (if you don't count last year's standalone Harley Quinn adventure Birds of Prey) is a long, loud, often enjoyable and amusing film that blitzes your eyeballs and eardrums and covers all the bases."[156]
• to Y Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian gave the film 3 out of 5 stars, and called it "a long, loud, often enjoyable and amusing film that blitzes your eyeballs and eardrums and covers all the bases."[156]

Keep the quote concise, and get to the point. -- 109.76.135.9 (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 23:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou. -- 109.76.135.9 (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2021

"The film received positive reviews from critics, who praised Gunn's direction, the visual style, and irreverent humor."

Replace "positive reviews from critics" to "critical acclaim" BloodshotStudios (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2021

The Suicide Squad was released. 69.47.30.110 (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This issue with the article was already fixed WAY prior to your comment due to JTS notability. Please read the article before making nonconstructive edit requests. Thank you. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The soundtrack

As with other James Ginn films, the film's music employs retro and modern hit songs. Here is a list: https://www.comicbook.com/movies/amp/news/the-suicide-squad-2021-soundtrack-listen-songs-from-movie-playlist-no-spoilers/ Dcdiehardfan (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on August 2021

In the Plot section please change:

• X However, the skirmish creates a distraction that allows Bloodsport's team of Peacemaker, King Shark, Polka-Dot Man, and Ratcatcher 2 enters the country undetected.
• to Y However, the skirmish creates a distraction that allows Bloodsport's team of Peacemaker, King Shark, Polka-Dot Man, and Ratcatcher 2 to enter the country undetected.

 Done DonQuixote (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2021

Regarding The Suicide Squad, post credit scene shows Weason and Rick Flagg surviving. The WIKI article reports that Peacemaker survived which is incorrect. 2601:1C0:C803:9F50:8CF5:C926:4A93:80F9 (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Just checked, and it's John Cena lying in the bed. DonQuixote (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

No, it is officially confirmed that it was Peacemaker survived. Many sources confirm this. As an additional note, Weasel also survived as per PC scene, not Weason (?). Dcdiehardfan (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

King Shark Appearance

This phrase in the cast list, referring to King Shark's entry, is incorrect: "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."

The entry makes it sound like King Shark was originally a hammerhead shark in the comics but by coincidence both Gunn and the Harley Quinn showrunners made the same creative decision to go with a great white. But it only takes clicking on the character's page to see that he was a great white long before either show. The hammerhead shark thing was invented in the New 52 era. This is not a major detail, by any means, but since editing is blocked I figured I'd raise this as an error.

It's not an error, Gunn did initially use a hammerhead shark design from the comics, found it awkward, and settled on a great white shark design that happens to be similar to the one seen in Harley Quinn. All of that is true and sourced. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the IP simply wants clarification that the hammerhead shark design is from the New 52 era of comics, not the original comics. I don't see the harm in specifying that. Bluerules (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Why is that relevant to the film? The point is that it is from the comics and he chose not to go with it in the end. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

It's relevant to the context of information provided. "Gunn initially used a hammerhead shark design from the comics" is misleading because it implies that the character only has a hammerhead shark design from the comics. If the article says "Gunn initially used a hammerhead shark design from the New 52 comics", that misinterpretation is avoided. Bluerules (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I feel like you guys are misinterpreting that on purpose, but I'm fine with the change. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not a big comic reader, so I don't much about King Shark. Bluerules (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I have made the change. I also have not read the comics BTW, I just go off the sources in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Savant's description

In the "Cast" section, all characters have a short description of no more than four or five words. Savant is the only one who doesn't have one and I try to post it because he's a computer hacker. However, when I do, two vandalism users reverse the edit. We must be in favor of all characters having their description for those who are not familiar with the comics. ErnestoCabral2018 (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

To make things clear, User:Adamstom.97 and User:Facu-el Millo were not vandalizing the article. They were operating in good faith to restore the contents of the article as accurately based on the reliable sources we have in it. Your claims of Savant being a computer hacker are not supported by any reliable sources present in the article, and you failed to provide a reliable source confirming such as based on the film, so your edits were thus reverted. Because you kept on adding your unsourced information and those two editors had to revert you and attempted to explain it to you, it constituted vandalism and should not be reinstated without a talk discussion here first. Adam initially reverted your talk addition here as you accused him and Facu of being vandals when that is not the case, and now Adam has been wrongfully temporarily blocked. Please note that not everyone is operating in bad faith or trying to be a vandal, we are just following policy and require reliable sources to verify any information inserted into these articles. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

This editor repeatedly added unsourced and outdated information (among other edits) after being explained so multiple times. Then started making WP:OWN accusations (diff) as if the reason for the reversion hadn't been explained. Now he accuses me and Adamstom of being two vandalism users because we reverted his unsourced additions. —El Millo (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Calling editors you disagree with as "vandalism users is completely uncalled for. Adamstom and I have many disagreements, but he and Facu-el Millo edit this article out of good faith.

I don't see the harm in giving Savant a description - the film refers to him as "an expert in weapons and hand-to-hand combat", which is how I would write it. But Adamstom and Facu-el Millo are correct in that there is no reference for him being a computer hacker in the film. According to the film, his crimes are vigilantism, kidnapping, extortion, destruction of property, attempted homicide, and possession of illegal weapon. Bluerules (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Found a source, I'm gonna add it now. —El Millo (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done. —El Millo (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for the edit war. I didn't wanted Adamstom to be blocked btw. I felt it was unfair that all characters have a short description except Savant. I understand that in the comics, he acts as a vigilante while the DCEU Wiki claims that he is a computer hacker. The description itself was for people unfamiliar with the character in the comic. Once again, I apologize. ErnestoCabral2018 (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Can we request for Adamstom to be unblocked? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

It's okay, it happened and there isn't much to be done about it now. We got the right result in the end. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Bloodsport description

Currently, the Cast section's description of Bloodsport states that "after being convicted of shooting Superman with a Kryptonite bullet, [Bloodsport] shortens his prison sentence by joining Task Force X so he can reunite with his daughter Tyla.[10]" Whilst this is properly cited and the source makes such a claim, it is clear now that the movie is out that this is not the reason Bloodsport agrees to join the Task Force. (He joins purely to keep his daughter out of an adult prison, but has no intention of "reunit[ing]" with her.) Surely this innacurate claim can be removed? -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 15:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I have given his paragraph a c/e, does that work now? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Harley Quinn

Although she is not credited as such, the two film pages where Margot Robbie appears (2016's Suicide Squad and Birds of Prey) reads "Margot Robbie as Dr. Harleen Quinzel / Harley Quinn". This page should not be the exception? I would also like to know about placing "based on the supervillian team" like in 2016's Suicide Squad page. ErnestoCabral2018 (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is about this film, not the other ones (and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument for inclusion). What is the argument for adding "supervillian"? I'm pretty sure all of the squad members can't be described as supervillians. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Colonel Rick Flag

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

---

The end credits 2:04:18 in clearly shows his rank is Colonel. I don't understand why we are not trying to educate readers here by linking it, as if everyone can recognize military ranks, such as officer vs enlisted? It's false for @Adamstom.97: to say, "'Colonel' is not part of his name which is why it is mentioned as part of the plot but not in the cast list." The cast list again lists his appearance as Colonel Rick Flag. Please get our facts straight. Not sure which standard Adamstom.97 is trying to cite. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The correct policy is MOS:SEAOFBLUE. We're trying to avoid excess hyperlinks in the article and understanding "Colonel" is necessary for understanding of the article. South America isn't hyperlinked for the same reason. Bluerules (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what military agenda you are trying to push Supermann but it is a bit concerning. We already include his rank where appropriate and have explained why it is not linked. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Its not even that much of a big deal anyway. A military rank isn't an actual part of his name. However, I am not fully aware of the context of this situation and what happened. I did check the casting list and it is billed as "Colonel Rick Flag". I presume adamstom97 has a sufficient explanation for this, and would like more clarity. I think the correct idea would be to list him as Colonel in the casting list (per billing) but not in the plot. Thank you, and also, don't start an edit war over this. As I said, its not even that big of a deal and there's no need to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that Supermann is seeking to have Colonel hyperlinked in the article. As I mentioned above, MOS:SEAOFBLUE discourages this. Bluerules (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Bluerules, you are correct in terms of understanding my intent. My military agenda is just to help readers recognize officer ranks (and the colonel's sacrifice) vs Enlisted rank. I think the Ireland/South America vs Colonel are two different things, i.e. Apples vs Oranges. At a time when the Taliban is rearing its ugly head up, we need to pay tribute to the military. I am not asking for militarism, but basic recognition is important. Whatever US congress and Joe Biden decide to do, there will be consequences. It's up to educated voters/readers to hold them accountable. If adamstom97 is calling the shots here, then I think I would lose. But I respectfully disagree. Supermann (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

No one is "calling the shots here", but your explicit political agenda is a problem. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a fictional comic book film not meant to be taken to seriously. Colonel Rick Flag is not a real colonel because he's not a real person. This is not the place for information about the military, let alone real world information. Bluerules (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, Supermann is getting too sensitive over a trivial issue. There's no need to push any military or political agenda. As adamstom97 and Bluerules say, this is a FICTIONAL comic book film. While the film's themes may deal with politics (ie Peacemaker being a metaphor for imperialism), this shouldn't be used to directly influence the article, as you may be suggesting. Introducing a political angle would by definition mean bias, and Wikipedia presents the fact and truth with full neutrality and no bias. Again, this is a trivial issue, so I don't see the need for this to become huge drama. And again, MOS:SEAOFBLUE is being cited, which already advises against this. I would also like to point out that again, Colonel is mentioned in the article. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I still disagree it's trivial. It's like insisting on calling Norman Nordstrom in Don't Breathe a United States Army vet because that's what two uninformed characters said, when the more informed character in Don't Breathe 2 recognized he is more like a United States Navy SEALs. We need to be encyclopedic and inform our readers what is what. Calling it generically army is unacceptable in the first place, then not linking it is the 2nd strike, then not updating it to reflect Navy Seal is the third strike. We really need to educate our readers. Adding that one more link is not bringing down the house. We need to apply common sense. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 04:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

If this was an article about a real world colonel, I'd agree. But when the subject is a fictional film - let alone a fantastical fictional film, real world elements become trivial. Bluerules (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I already added this into the casting list for the record. adamstom didn't instate your edits due to your concerningly pro-military tone, but he wasn't opposed to it. I added it as he's billed as such. As for linking Colonel, it isn't really necessary. If readers want to learn about Colonels, they can simply just look for that article and WP:SEAOFBLUE has already been cited. Flag has been credited in the article as a Colonel. As far as I'm concerned, this case is closed. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem of not linking US colonel is if an uninformed reader search for colonel manually, there is colonel, colonel general, colonel (US) and colonel (Eastern European), colonel (UK). Why can’t we take our readers easily to the right destination? “South America” on the other hand is very easy to spot and less confusing. I am a pacifist, not peacemaker. Nor really pro military. If you guys want America’s exit and Taliban rule over Afghanistan with Sharia law, I am fine too. Taliban commander to CNN, "It's our belief that one day mujahideen will have victory, and Islamic law will come not to just Afghanistan, but all over the world. We are not in a hurry. We believe it will come one day. Jihad will not end until the last day." https://twitter.com/ayei_eloheichem/status/1426713093099249669?s=21 Supermann (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

If there was any doubt before about this guy's intentions, I think that pretty well clears it up. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

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

The Suicide Squad 2021 is a SEQUEL of Suicide Squad 2016? No.

I found that the identification of this The Suicide Squad 2021 as an "standalone SEQUEL" in the "Template:About" section is not really accurate arcording to the Producer Peter Safran's assertion in his quote in Pre-production section.

The quote from Peter Safran's answer in this Note 81 article in Pre-production talks about the relationship between The Suicide Squad 2021 and Suicide Squad 2016. Peter Safran answered very clearly that TSS2021 "IS NOT A SEQUEL". Because it uses the same cast from the SS2016 series, it's also "NOT REALLY A FULL REBOOT".

While the "Reboot" status is still in question, the "Sequel" status has been completely denied by himself. Therefore, defining TSS2021 as "sequel" is completely wrong. It makes more sense to rewritten it as a "STANDALONE VERSION" rather than an "STANDALONE SEQUEL". ACoD29 (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Have you searched for the term standalone sequel? It isn't a regular sequel and it is the term that most accurately describes this film's connection to the previous one. It is defined as a work set in the same universe, yet has very little, if any, narrative connection to its predecessor, and can stand on its own without a thorough understanding of the series. —El Millo (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

TSS2021 is in the same universe as SS2016 and they are all in the canon universe of DCEU??? I have not seen any confirmation of this. Even the DCEU is developing the multiverse with the latest work being The Flash 2022 with so many Batman & Falsh versions in many different universes (& black Superman version too - rumor), so it is unclear to know if TSS2021 or SS2016 have the same universe, or which is canon. That's why I suggest using "version" instead of "sequel". ACoD29 (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo is correct. We know it is not a direct sequel, and we know it is not a reboot (it is a DCEU film as can be seen in the article and there us no evidence that either film is related to the multiverse stuff from The Flash). "standalone sequel" best describes that relationship. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Just because it's a DCEU movie doesn't mean it's obviously a sequel. Assuming that there'll be a new Superman series in future that's also in the DCEU withh a totally reboot, will it continue to be defined as the sequels to the original Superman series? The movies mentioned in "standalone sequel" are not the ones that their Producers deny that they're a sequel like the TSS2021 Producer replied about it. ACoD29 (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Just because it's a DCEU movie doesn't mean it's obviously a sequel we're saying it isn't a sequel, it's a standalone sequel. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Harley Quinn recognizes the other returning characters (Captain Boomerang & Rick Flag) as her "friends". I believe this is not a coincidence. There is an interview where James Gunn says, "There's nothing really in there that contradicts David's movie". It seems clear that the two films are set in the same universe.. YgorD3 (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it can be seen more of as a spiritual sequel/reboot. Really it is a standalone film that can be enjoyed as its own experience, but continuity wise, it is a standalone sequel (different from a conventional sequel), is canon to the DCEU, and takes place after BOP. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thinker metahuman?

Where has the claim that the Thinker is metahuman come from? It isn't mentioned in either of the sources against him in the Cast section. From watching the movie myself, all I saw was a particularly cruel human (a human with spark plugs sticking out of his head, but a human nonetheless). -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 08:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure all of A metahuman scientist in charge of Project Starfish. is unsourced TBH. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. It was added in at some point but never verified. I shall remove it now. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 09:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Plot summary

@Bluerules: Instead of your continued edit warring, please explain why you are insisting on not introducing Harley and Weasel with the other characters. Editors that have reverted your changes have explained their reasoning but your concerns are not clear. You seem to be focused on the wording that is being used. Please clarify so we can come up with wording that does work for everyone. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The segment reads as follows:

"Flag's team is ambushed by Corto Maltese military, resulting in the deaths of Savant, Captain Boomerang, Blackguard, T.D.K., Javelin, and Mongal, and the capture of Harley Quinn. Weasel apparently drowns and Flag is found by rebel soldiers. This distraction allows Bloodsport and his team of Peacemaker, Nanaue, Polka-Dot Man, and Ratcatcher 2 to enter the country undetected."

* This description confuses the film's chronology. Weasel drowned before the other team members were killed, not after, as the summary implies. Likewise, Harley was captured after the second entered the country.

* Due to the way the sentences are ordered, the summary makes it sound like "Weasel apparently drowns and Flag is found by rebel soldiers" is the distraction that allows Bloodsport and his team to enter undetected, or was at least part of the distraction. Neither of those had any impact on Bloodsport's team entering Corto Maltese. It needs to be more clear that the deaths of the first team were directly correlated to the second team entering safely.

* As pointed out by Zodiackillah, who also opposes the Harley reference in the first paragraph, it is redundant to twice mention Harley's captivity.

* There are small contextual details (Flag's team is ambushed by Corto Maltese military upon arriving; However, this distraction allows Bloodsport and his team of Peacemaker, Nanaue, Polka-Dot Man, and Ratcatcher 2 to enter the country undetected) that are being removed without explanation. These exist to increase readability and help the reader better understand the story (Flag's team was immediately ambushed and their deaths contrast with Bloodsport's team entering Corto Maltese unscathed).

Furthermore, you have been restoring these segments in the summary:

• "The Thinker reveals that Starro was brought to Earth by the American government, who have been secretly funding the experiments on Corto Maltese for decades." The emphasis should be on the fact that the American government was behind Project Starfish. That was the Thinker's main reveal.
• "With the drive secured, Waller tells the squad that their mission is complete". This is inaccurate. There is no correlation between the drive being secured (which Waller actually wanted destroyed) and Waller deeming the mission complete. Waller deemed the mission complete because Jötunheim was destroyed.
• "With the drive secured, Waller tells the squad that their mission is complete but Bloodsport decides to lead his teammates in battling Starro. Waller attempts to execute the squad for not following her orders, but is stopped by her subordinates. Polka-Dot Man is killed, but Harley pierces a hole in the alien's eye and Ratcatcher 2 summons the city's rats to chew Starro to death from the inside." - These are three consecutive sentences written the same way. x happens, but y happens. a happens, but b happens. m happens, but n happens. That's poor writing. We should have more word and sentence variety to make the summary a better read. Bluerules (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

We do not need to exactly match the chronology if it makes for a better summary, but what we do need to do is introduce ideas before we reference them. We can't say that Harley escaped from captivity or Weasel was revealed to be alive if we haven't already established that Harley was captured and Weasel was presumed dead. It is also not necessarily correct that it is the deaths of the first team that is the distraction, I would argue that it is the ambush as a whole. As for the removed "contextual details", "upon arriving" is just not necessary for anyone's understanding in this context, and "However" is blatantly wrong because the other team gets in because of the distraction, not despite of it (which is what "however" means). We can still attempt a re-word to try and clear up some of your issues, but we should not be using your previous version of the paragraph. How about this as a suggestion?

Intelligence officer Amanda Waller sends two Task Force X teams led by Colonel Rick Flag and Bloodsport to the South American island nation of Corto Maltese after its government is overthrown by an anti-American regime. In exchange for lighter sentences, the Belle Reve penitentiary inmates who comprise the squads are tasked with destroying the Nazi-era laboratory Jötunheim which holds a secretive experiment known as "Project Starfish". Flag's team loses a member when Weasel apparently drowns on arrival. They are then ambushed by the Corto Maltese military, resulting in the deaths of Savant, Captain Boomerang, Blackguard, T.D.K., Javelin, and Mongal. The military captures Harley Quinn and Flag is found by rebel soldiers. With the military distracted, Bloodsport and his team of Peacemaker, King Shark, Polka-Dot Man, and Ratcatcher 2 enter the country undetected. They find Flag at a rebel camp and convince rebellion leader Sol Soria to assist them.

For the Starro line, you are going to have to be clearer on what the difference is between my version and yours, because I feel like they say exactly the same thing except your version is wordier and less concise. The drive bit has already been fixed. Your last bit is kind of silly because this is an encyclopaedia, not a creative writing class. But we can try improve the flow if you want. My initial suggestion:

Starro escapes the destroyed laboratory, kills the Thinker and much of the military, and begins taking control of the island's population. Waller tells the squad that their mission is complete now that Jötunheim is destroyed, but Bloodsport chooses to ignore her and leads his teammates in battling Starro; Waller's subordinates prevent her from executing the squad for this. During the battle, Polka-Dot Man is killed, Harley pierces a hole in the alien's eye, and Ratcatcher 2 summons the city's rats to chew Starro to death from the inside. With the military diverted, Soria takes control of the government and pledges democratic elections. Bloodsport forces Waller to release him and his surviving teammates from their imprisonment in exchange for keeping the contents of the drive confidential, and the squad are airlifted out of Corto Maltese.

adamstom97 (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

We need to match chronology when we're writing about directly connected events. It's acceptable to mention Polka-Dot Man setting off the explosives after Peacemaker kills Flag because we explain to the reader that these events were occurring separately. But when we say Weasel drowns after the squad is ambushed, we create an inaccurate depiction that may confuse readers; Weasel's drowning wasn't connected to the ambush. And we're not introducing "ideas", we're providing information. Note that the summary doesn't immediately identify all the members of the two squads. It would overload the reader with information and create a poorly-written, run-on sentence, which is what we're currently saddled with. The summary establishes that the mission went badly for the first team, which draws a correlation to the impact of Weasel still being alive. It may be better to simply remove reference to most of the first team members because they're minor characters (Weasel has zero impact on the story), but that's another issue. If it's not clear that Harley was taken captive from the second paragraph, then the sentence can simply be adjusted to say They are joined by first team survivor Harley Quinn, who escaped the Corto Maltese government's captivity after learning of their plans to use Project Starfish against other nations., removing the redundancy and making the information more concise.

Even if you consider the ambush to be the distraction, the point stands that the current summary muddles what the distraction really was. When you say, "this distraction", the implication is the distraction was described in the previous sentence. Again, the current summary makes it sound like "Weasel apparently drowns and Flag is found by rebel soldiers" is the distraction that gets Bloodsport's team into the country, which isn't true. "Upon arriving" is necessary because it gives missing context to the reader, letting them know when the ambush occurred. "However" is blatantly correct because the first team being ambushed contrasts with the second team entering safely. That is what "however" actually means.

We should be using my version because it is simply better written. The only editor who objects to it and the exclusion of Harley's capture is yourself. This insistence towards trying add all these details falls right into WP:PLOTSUMNOT. Your suggestion is a moment-by-moment recap of the beach sequence, which WP:PLOTSUMNOT establishes as not being a summary. Like I mentioned above, it's debatable if we should even mention every minor member of the Suicide Squad. Removing their names wouldn't impact reader understanding of the story.

For the Starro line, I'm not certain how you're deeming the current version - which I wrote - to be less wordy and more concise. The current version is 25 words, my version is 20 words. The current version beats around the actual reveal - that the American government is behind Project Starfish - my version get right to the point. And it's silly to criticize well-structured writing - the better the writing, the more engaged the reader will be. Your proposal is an improvement, but I believe more work can be performed. We can start by eliminating the excessive "and"'s and finding better ways to connect the sentences. Bluerules (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Please try to be constructive. This is just arrogant and provably untrue: We should be using my version because it is simply better written. The only editor who objects to it and the exclusion of Harley's capture is yourself. We both have preferred versions for different reasons and now we are having this discussion to try come up with a compromise. Are you interested in working together on this or are you just going to be rude? - adamstom97 (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I have been attempting a compromise from the beginning, but you have repeatedly reverted my edits in favor of your own. You restored blatantly incorrect information because you chose to revert edits in their entirety instead of identifying what should be changed and what should be restored. My goal has been trying to work around both what I believe is best and what other editors have been adding to the plot summary. I am vehemently opposed to mentioning all of the minor characters who aren't necessary to understanding the storyline and are only cited to say that they die. This is a perfect example of WP:PLOTSUMNOT because editors are creating a recap over the deaths of minor characters. However, because other editors have repeatedly restoring their names, I tried to work out a compromise that mentions them without creating a run-on sentence. But now we have a new run-on sentence due to the addition of Harley's capture.

I know it sounds arrogant, but my version is better written. You said it shouldn't be used, I'm saying why it should. It doesn't contain run-on sentences, it doesn't overwhelm the reader with information, it doesn't create misinterpretations, and it flows better. As far as the restorations of Harley's capture in the first paragraph, I have not seen any other editors restore this detail. I have seen an editor other than myself remove it because it was redundant. I know this page has undergone a large number of edits, but again, I was not able to identify a revision from a different editor that restored this detail. I'm open to making this a separate sentence in the first paragraph or making her capture more clear in the second paragraph; we need to avoid making sentences too long and with too much information. Bluerules (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

A plot summary is generally used to provide a concise description of the work in question, to allow the reader to understand the discussion related to that plot, and to illustrate points within an article. I think it is useful to the reader to mention all of the title characters, even the ones that are killed straight away, because the film is literally called "The Suicide Squad" (them being there and dying is the whole point of the film) and we have a lot of discussion in the article about all these characters. I have already provided an option for concisely introducing all the characters without making a run-on sentence, do you care to comment on it or provide your own solution? Ignoring my attempts to find a compromise and continuing to tell me how much better your version is will not get us anywhere. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Saying the plot summary should mention all the title characters "because the film is literally called The Suicide Squad" is like saying the plot summary for 47 Ronin should mention all 47 rōnin. The plot summary for 13 Assassins doesn't even mention all 13 assassins and that article has good status. Throwing in the names of seven minor characters just to establish they are killed (or seemingly killed) is not concise. It's overwhelming the reader with superfluous detail - the important information is most of Flag's team was wiped out and the point of them being on a suicide mission is illustrated by simply stating that most of them were wiped out. This is the plot section, after all; whether they are mentioned heavily in other sections has no bearing on the role in the story. We still maintain reference to them in the article, just not where they aren't necessary.

I did comment on your option by pointing out that it falls under WP:PLOTSUMNOT. Flag's team loses a member when Weasel apparently drowns on arrival. They are then ambushed by the Corto Maltese military, resulting in the deaths of Savant, Captain Boomerang, Blackguard, T.D.K., Javelin, and Mongal. The military captures Harley Quinn and Flag is found by rebel soldiers. is a recap covering every moment of the beach sequence. It's not concise to be giving brief and minor moments their own sentences. I'm not going to remove the minor characters without the support of a consensus, but I stand by the notion that we're falling into recap/run-on sentence/word flow issues by mentioning all this information in the first paragraph. Bluerules (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Not all sequences are equally important or filled with relevant details. I wouldn't insist on the inclusion of Weasel's drowning if it weren't for the fact that it is shown to be alive at the end of the film, which gives the initial drowning more importance. The death of several characters purported to be relevant is definitely notable. We're not detailing how each and every one of the characters died, we're just stating that they died, making a particular distinction for the character who only seemingly died, because it is a relevant distinction to make. Harley being captured by the military is the catalyst for all the rest of her story. The least relevant bit seems to be Flag being found by rebel soldiers, but these rebel soldiers also need to be introduced and this seems like the best place to introduce them. —El Millo (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that Weasel's mid-credits scene still doesn't justify his inclusion in the plot summary because that was a gag, not a vital part of the story. Weasel could be removed completely and the story wouldn't change. The post-credits scene with Peacemaker is important because he's a major character and it's presumably setting up his series. But the scene with Weasel is a joke, like the giant ant playing drums in Ant-Man and the Wasp and Captain America's fourth wall-breaking PSA in Spider-Man: Homecoming. Note that both these articles only mention the mid-credits scene because that actually holds importance to the story.

I know we're not detailing how the minor characters died (although some editors have tried to), but we're still mentioning them by name just to say that they die. We can summarize this better (and avoid overloading the reader with superfluous information) by stating that most of Flag's team was wiped out. Some years ago, I had a disagreement with another editor over the Mad Max: Fury Road article because I was adding minor characters to mention that they die later. He pointed out that I was only adding these names to mention that they die. And he was right. The characters may seem relevant, but by removing their names, the reader still understands the plot summary. It's relevant that most of the first team died; it's not relevant who died when they're all minor characters with minimal to no impact on the story.

As for Harley's story, that's a subplot. We can summarize it in one sentence to better connect it to the main story and not take focus away from the main story. Likewise, the rebel soldiers can be introduced in the same sentence where the second team finds Flag, maintaining a connection between the main story and a subplot. Bluerules (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

You complained that the sentence was too long and a run-on so I split it up, now you are complaining that it isn't concise. Once again you are just criticizing the options that I have suggested and not providing any of your own. And mentioning the six prominent characters who happen to be killed off in the opening sequence is hardly akin to naming all 47 Ronin. My point still stands that there is a lot of coverage for these characters in the article where having context from the plot summary is useful to readers (which is not the case for the 47 Ronin). - adamstom97 (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

If I was "just criticizing", I would not be giving reasons for why I am opposed to these revisions. The point stands that you can't use the title of the film to justify whether characters should be mentioned in the plot summary (as is also the case with 13 Assassins). Likewise, the point stands that coverage for these characters outside of the film has no bearing on whether they are important to the plot summary (and they're not). The cast section already says "The ill-fated first Suicide Squad team includes", which provides that useful information to readers. Being prominent in the advertising doesn't make a character prominent in the story and the latter is all that matters in the plot summary. If it was up to me, the first paragraph would say:

Task Force X, a squad of inmates from Belle Reve penitentiary, are sent to the South American island nation of Corto Maltese after its government is overthrown by an anti-American regime. Under orders from intelligence officer Amanda Waller, two teams are promised lighter sentences in exchange for destroying Jötunheim, a Nazi-era laboratory that holds a secretive experiment known as "Project Starfish". One team is led by Waller's subordinate Colonel Rick Flag, while the other is led by assassin Bloodsport, who accepts the mission to prevent his daughter from being incarcerated at Belle Reve. Flag's team is almost entirely wiped out by the Corto Maltese military upon landing, but this distraction allows Bloodsport and his team of Peacemaker, Nanaue, Polka-Dot Man, and Ratcatcher 2 to enter the country undetected. After finding Flag at a base camp for rebel soldiers, the squad convinces rebellion leader Sol Soria to assist them.

This provides missing context that prevents misinterpretations of the plot summary (Flag works for Waller rather than being an inmate, Bloodsport is motivated by his daughter instead of having a lighter sentence) over mentioning minor characters to just state that they die/seemingly die. I'm stepping back from the plot summary for the time being because it is not my intention to disrupt a consensus, but I still support my revision over what we currently have. Bluerules (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Bluerules, with your proposed wording, how do you propose we word the mid-credits scene where it is shown Weasel is alive? Because his purported death has to be mentioned somewhere in order to mention that he's actually alive. —El Millo (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe Weasel should be mentioned at all because like I stated above, the mid-credits scene is a gag, not a major story development. Peacemaker is a major character whose post-credits scene is setup for his series, but the mid-credits scene is a joke for a joke character. Bluerules (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem with removing mention of all of those characters, which I have been trying to point out, is that the plot summary is supposed to give context for the information in the article. By removing that context from almost half of the cast, who are widely discussed throughout the body, we then need to go back and explain this plot information in multiple places throughout the cast section as well as in the production section. Yes, the main parts of the plot can be understood without that information, but we should also be including things that do not necessarily enhance understanding of the plot but do enhance understanding of the article. And it's not like we are talking about scene-by-scene minutiae here, we are literally debating three or four short, high-level sentences with no real details in them. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

What context is being removed? We call the first team "ill-fated" in the cast section and identify the members. The context is already there, especially when the minor characters aren't referenced before the plot section. We say most of the team is wiped out in the plot section, we say who they are in the cast section while calling back to their fate. Readers will have no problem understanding that. Bluerules (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

That line in the cast section only covers some of the team (and probably about to be less after the cast list is updated). Anyway, that side of things is more of a nice to have to be helpfull to readers, and I don't really have strong feelings about. If we did remove mention of Flag's team members then I would be more inclined to support removing Weasel from the plot summary entirely which solves the whole introduction issue. That just leaves Harley for the first paragraph issues. I am still very much against your version of her introduction. We either need to explain that she is captured when it happens, or come up with better wording for the second paragraph. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I support having better wording in the second paragraph for Harley's capture. I think we could also have it as its own sentence in the first paragraph (possibly at the end) to reflect its subplot status. Bluerules (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, based on all our discussions so far, here is a suggestion for a new plot summary:

Suggestion adamstom97 (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Intelligence officer Amanda Waller assembles two Task Force X teams comprising Belle Reve penitentiary inmates, who agree to carry out missions for Waller in exchange for lighter sentences. They are sent to the South American island nation of Corto Maltese after its government is overthrown by an anti-American regime, and are tasked with destroying the Nazi-era laboratory Jötunheim which holds a secretive experiment known as "Project Starfish". One team is led by Waller's subordinate Colonel Rick Flag, who are almost entirely wiped out by the Corto Maltese military upon landing. This distraction allows the other team to enter the country undetected. The second team is led by assassin Bloodsport, who accepts the mission to prevent his daughter from being incarcerated at Belle Reve, and consists of Peacemaker, King Shark, Polka-Dot Man, and Ratcatcher 2. They find Flag at a base camp for rebel soldiers and convince rebellion leader Sol Soria to assist them. Harley Quinn survives the attack on the first team and is taken captive by the Corto Maltese government. She learns of the new regime's plans to use Project Starfish against other nations. In the Corto Maltese capital, the second team captures the Thinker, a metahuman scientist in charge of Project Starfish. Harley escapes and joins the others, who use the Thinker to break into Jötunheim. Most of the squad rigs the facility with explosives as Flag and Ratcatcher 2 enter the underground laboratory with the Thinker. He reveals that Project Starfish is Starro the Conqueror, a giant alien starfish that creates smaller versions of itself to kill people and take control of their bodies. Starro was brought to Earth by the U.S. government, who have been secretly funding experiments on him in Corto Maltese for the past thirty years using thousands of the island's citizens as test subjects. An enraged Flag decides to leak a hard drive containing evidence of this revelation, but is killed by Peacemaker who is under secret orders from Waller to cover up the U.S.'s involvement in the experiments. Meanwhile, a skirmish between the squad and the Corto Maltese military leads to Polka-Dot Man accidentally setting off the explosives prematurely. As the facility falls apart, the drive falls into Ratcatcher 2's posession. Peacemaker attempts to execute her for knowing the truth about Starro, but Bloodsport shoots him and takes the drive. Starro escapes the destroyed laboratory, kills the Thinker and much of the military, and begins taking control of the island's population. Waller tells the squad that their mission is complete now that Jötunheim is destroyed, but Bloodsport chooses to ignore her and leads his teammates in battling Starro. Waller attempts to execute the squad for this but is stopped by her subordinates. During the battle, Polka-Dot Man is killed, Harley pierces a hole in Starro's eye, and Ratcatcher 2 summons the city's rats to chew the alien to death from the inside. With the military diverted, Soria takes control of the government and pledges democratic elections. Bloodsport forces Waller to release him and his surviving teammates from their imprisonment in exchange for keeping the contents of the drive confidential, and the squad are airlifted out of Corto Maltese. In a post-credits scenes, Peacemaker is shown to be alive and under the supervision of Waller's subordinates.

Please let me know any parts of this you would still like to discuss. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that's an effective summary. I may have some suggestions in the future, but for now, I support using it. Bluerules (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Cool, good progress then. This of course does not need to be final, it is just a good place to continue tweaking if necessary now that we have gotten through the major disagreements. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Polka-dot's mom

why there is no mention about polka dot's mom??

who is the actress? or something? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.227.46.49 (talk)

She is not mentioned because she's not pertinent to the movie's overarching plot. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 09:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit warriors

Nice job. A couple of important things: "what is the tomatometer", MOS:FILM, WP:BRD, WP:BETTER. You shouldn't really try to "fix" any situation you don't know shit about. ภץאคгöร 12:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

What is your concern here? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The fact that 2-3 editors are constantly adding "standard wording" to the critical reception section while violating WP:BRD, without even realizing that there is no such thing. They should start reading the links above (especially the first two). One of them wanted to discuss further but they are nowhere to be found. ภץאคгöร 17:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You appear to not be reading MOS:FILM correctly. It suggests that the wording you're insisting on using be used in the case of aggregator sites which "combine original reviews with reviews from later dates". Clearly that's not the case here. Barry Wom (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about??? We are discussing "approval rating" here. ("The data from these websites is potentially less accurate for films released before the websites existed; therefore, care should be exercised in determining whether to refer to them." = This is a 2021 film, irrelevant to this discussion) And you claim that I haven't read it properly. The irony...

• MOS:FILM: ...It is also recommended to include the date the data was captured: ("As of May 2021, 50% of the 68 reviews compiled by Rotten Tomatoes are positive and have an average rating of 5.20/10."). - Doesn't suggest "approval rating".
• https://www.rottentomatoes.com/about#whatisthetomatometer - Doesn't use "approval rating" when describing what Tomatometer is. ภץאคгöร 18:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

So your sole complaint is the usage of the term "approval rating", despite its widespread use elsewhere on Wikipedia?

Please check Wikipedia:Review aggregators#Use_in_articles, which suggests using the phrase exactly as its being used here. Barry Wom (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't suggest it ("this specific wording is not a requirement.") and it is taken directly from an article that was edited by the same person who added this wording to multiple articles like a bot. ภץאคгöร 18:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

No wording is enforced by the MOS, and this is clearly understood in past discussions at WT:Manual of Style/Film. You are also engaging in this disruptive behavior at other articles, such as Hancock (film), and the essay WP:Review aggregators. This needs to stop. Gain consensus through discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Requiring and suggesting aren't synonyms. It doesn't require it, but it does suggest it. —El Millo (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I've wrote what MOS:FILM and the actual website shows. WP:Review aggregators' example sentece is added by GoneIn60, who keeps instisting on using "approval rating" without a valid reason. Not sure if a sentence from a random article that was edited by the same person who added the specific wording in the first place can be called "a suggestion". (FYI, I've already replied and discussed this same topic multiple times.) ภץאคгöร 19:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

If you've discussed this multiple times, it would obviously be useful if you could supply links to those discussions, in particular those where any other editors have agreed with your position. Barry Wom (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

For anyone following this discussion, read the comments at WT:Review aggregators#RT and MC wording restored. This editor has been asked to discuss the changes they would like to see on multiple occasions, disappears, then comes back weeks later ramming the same changes back in. I actually don't think "approval rating" is all that great either, but the edit-warring WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior needs to end in favor of discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, the edit by Nyxaros as seen here does not incorporate any of the language from the essay or MOS:FILM, so it is bewildering to me that this editor feels they are acting on behalf of some stated guideline. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't. Those two pages are specifically stated to indicate that they don't use "approval rating" anywhere. My previous edit DID include "reviews are positive", which the essay and MOS:FILM does show. However, an editor reverted it for being "poor" (meaning another WP:IDONTLIKEIT) and did not write anything else. That's why I reworded to "critics have given the film a positive review", and you can see this exact phrase if you click the question mark next to the Tomatometer. It says: "About tomatometer: The percentage of Approved Tomatometer Critics who have given this movie a positive review." ภץאคгöร 19:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I say what I say and leave when no consensus is reached or nothing new and reasonable is said from anyone, I'm not gonna sit and wait for your reply. What I understand from you not giving a valid reason for this issue and not finding this specific phrase "great" yourself is that you have a more personal problem with me, but this page and WP:Review aggregators are not the right discussion places for that.

Also, no one is gonna revert to status quo? ภץאคгöร 19:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• There really isn't anything to discuss here. RT's percentage is an approval rating, and the line in MOS:FILM is referring to cases where RT mixes both contemporary and retrospective reviews. The wording used in the article currently is pretty standard across WP. Also, there's only one person edit warring here. JOEBRO64 19:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Nyxaros: If you want to change the essay, then that essay's talk page is the appropriate venue. The last comment directed at you was, "Use this page from this point forward to discuss the change you want to make." You didn't respond and left the discussion, only to reappear today to revert the essay back to your preferred version and engage in disruptive activity here (and elsewhere). The essay is currently on a revision that represents a stable version that existed for years prior to your March 2021 change. It can always be improved, but it needs to happen through discussion (for the umpteenth time). --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You have not yet provided a well grounded feedback advocating the use of this particular phrase. And you still haven't changed the page revision back to the status quo. You just do whatever turns you on. ภץאคгöร 10:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

In the cases I linked to, you were reverted. The WP:ONUS lies on the editor seeking inclusion. If you have a problem with the status quo that was selected, let's discuss that on the relevant pages. I'll begin a new subsection at WT:Review aggregators. If you are referring to this article, you'll need to clarify, so the editors who are involved can weigh in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)