Jump to content

Talk:Thunderbolts*/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"go" vs. "goes"

@Favre1fan93: I have to agree with Trailblazer101 here, I don't think "go" is correct. Per MLA, collective nouns such as "group" should be treated as singular, unless to emphasize that the individuals are performing the action separately. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

MOS:PLURALS seems to support this too. We can adjust back. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Trail Blazer

@Trailblazer101: Not meaning to insinuate bad faith or doubt in reliability, but your sourcing of your own website feels a bit like a conflict of interest. Rusted AutoParts 19:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: See the discussion I started here: User_talk:Trailblazer101#Your_newsletter_and_citing_here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I was not the one adding my newsletter and I by no means consider myself a source. I do not think my newsletter should be cited in these articles as the primary source for the information, though I can definitely add the PW subscription refs to the articles. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
ComicBook already took care of that so no need to use the exact PW source (which requires subscription). MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Now that's what I like to see! Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for laying it at your feet, I think when I was looking at the latest change (at the time about Chapek being an exec producer), and noticed the website being used for Fishburne/Weisz and jumped to conclusions. Rusted AutoParts 21:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
It's totally alright, no worries Rusted. 😃 I kind of half-expected it to be used but more expected it not to be, so I was as shocked as you to see it there. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Filming

I haven't been able to find any proof that Pugh has actually said that filming has started. I found this interview where she does talk about the film, but she doesn't say it has started and actually talks about being excited to get started. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't convince me that filming has started. They are doing prep right now from the looks of it, and considering Pugh is promoting Dune: Part Two right now, I highly doubt it started yet and am moving it back. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
and we should remove the 2025 bit since there is no other movie in existence named Thunderbolts KingArti (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/ComicBook/status/1762214761733779553 this is the only interview where she says she's been shooting Thunderbolts KingArti (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Yup she says "I just started" and "I’ve been shooting that" so that means she’s started filming. This was why I moved it to main space. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
It seems she just started working on it between the THR interview and the subsequent one. I will say, we need a third-party source added to the article and it is not the best practice to move a draft without providing a reference beforehand, let alone moving it to an incorrect title. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Irregardless about if it actually has started filming or not, MarioProtIV please in the future actually make the move to the proper article title, not adding dab elements to get it to the mainspace. If you personally can't do that because of your user access, many of the active MCU editors (myself included) can perform the move. WP:NORUSH and let's take a few beats if needed to do it all properly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
After adding a ComicBook article stating filming has started, I have properly moved it now. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

"Thunderbolts (2025 film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Thunderbolts (2025 film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 27 § Thunderbolts (2025 film) until a consensus is reached. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Title Change & Information

User:Grandpallama and User:Trailblazer101, you two seem to be conflicting on the placing of certain information pertaining to this film in "Filming" vs. "Marketing"; I invite you to settle this here. Please do not continue to edit/revert the information you are in conflict about. ReddlSKye (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm unclear on why following the guidelines at WP:MOSFILM is being met with resistance. There are three separate statements in the content I moved to the Marketing section. The first piece addresses the addition of an asterisk to the film title; this could conceivably be part of a Production section, but the presentation happened at a convention (which is part of the marketing process for a film), and the announcement and discussion of the asterisk was specifically used to generate viral speculation (also a marketing issue). The second piece of content addresses the release date change; per MOS:FILMMARKETING, release date announcements (along with other kinds of release information) are part of a marketing campaign. In an article with no Marketing subsection, this sort of content is usually kept under Production, but if a Marketing section exists, the MOS is clear. The third piece of content I moved is about the viral online speculation about the meaning of the asterisk--that is about as market-y as it gets. None of this content is about the filming of Thunderbolts*. Grandpallama (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Changes to the title and release date are absolutely part of the film's production history and should not be moved from there. The marketing info therefore also needs to be mentioned in the production section to provide context for the title change. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
There's no objection from me about there also being a mention of this in the Production section, but per the MOS, the "home" for this info is the Marketing section. MOS:FILMMARKETING is clear. Grandpallama (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The "home" of the release date and title change is the Production section, not the marketing section. If there is something noteworthy about the way those were announced then that can be mentioned in the marketing section, but they primarily need to be noted in the Production section. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Again, I'd point out that MOS:FILMMARKETING specifically calls out release date information; it also makes a point of calling out as an example when such announcements are used to generate interest or to create viral speculation--exactly what has happened with the asterisk announcement. Presentations at places like CinemaCon are not part of the creation process of the movie--they are events meant to create audience interest and to gin up excitement and discussion about a film.
One thing that title changes and release dates are not is part of "filming". Again, the MOS is very clear about this: This section should be structured properly to fit the available content: for example, if there is sufficient material, the section could support subsections such as "development" and "filming". The MOS clearly shows that in an article of this structure, this content should not be under Filming. Grandpallama (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
MOS:FILMMARKETING says Topics that can be covered includes release date information. That is because for some articles it makes sense to combine the release section with the marketing section. There is no requirement to include all release date announcements in the marketing section. For this article, as with all MCU film articles, the appropriate place for it is in the release section and in the section for the phase of production during which the announcement was made. Some articles use headings such as "Writing", "Casting", and "Filming" to collect all of the information that is relevant to that heading, and if that was the case with this article then you would be correct in saying that a release date and title change announcement is not related to filming. However, this article (again, as per all MCU film articles) is not structured like that, instead it is structured into the phases of production (development, pre-production, filming, and post-production) and we include information in the phase that it was revealed, so this announcement belongs in the filming section because it was announced during the filming phase of production. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
To be clear--your position is that developments during the production of the film should be placed based upon when they happen during the course of production? In other words, if an event occurs during filming, even if it is not a part of filming, it should be placed in the filming section? All of these developments should be organized thusly, instead of topically, so that filming info is under filming, and marketing info is under marketing? Grandpallama (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that is how all MCU film articles are structured. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Some info is applicable in multiple spots of the article. The production section, in my opinion, should represent the entire history of the film's journey, which can include things not directly related to the said heading such as a title change. So I agree this should be mentioned in filming (for the time being) since it occurred while the film was filming. Previous to Feige's comments, it was appropriate to note the change in marketing with Pugh's set video because we didn't know if it was indeed the film's new title. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there really an asterisk?

Based on Pugh's Instagram post, Marvel's tweet, and the video itself (minute 1:23), it appears the asterisk is not a typo but actually part of the film's (marketed) title. But at this stage, we do not know for sure whether this is merely a logo stylization (akin to FANT4STIC or WALL-E) or the actual title (akin to M3GAN or Romeo + Juliet); even if the asterisk is part of the actual title, I am not sure if we should move the page per MOS:TMRULES, which says to avoid the use of special characters included for stylistic purposes, but this situation is a bit murky. The closest example I can think of off the top of my head is M*A*S*H, but it can be argued that is a special case due to it being universally rendered that way. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I concur in thinking that it is just likely a marketing title similar to those examples you have provided. Even if it were somehow part of the title, it shouldn't be in the article title. I already reverted an undiscussed move with the asterisk for the very reasons you brought up. It's such an odd thing to add and it doesn't really add any aid in making this distinction for it, let alone warranting us to change the title as even the trades seem confused by it and Marvel.com doesn't have anything about it. Plus, those set chair logos are not always the final ones, anyway. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I think that we shouldn't add anything on this until trades such as Variety or Deadline comment on it. It's such an anomaly while at the same such a little detail that we need extra confirmation for this. —El Millo (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Variety and Deadline both had articles on the video and made no mention of it. THR did just to note commentators were questioning it. I have added relevant discussion of this from the THR source to the "Marketing" section, though I don't think it signals any sort of title change and it is too early to call this a marketing title. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Not really. Quantumania pulled a similar move by showing a set photo of a chair bearing the name which read "Quobolobobop" but this is not the official title as we know it. Ergo, the title shown in the video doesn't count. JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Revisit

Ok so this is official per Feige at CinemaCon, but I still don't know if the article should have it as I'm fairly certain simply "Thunderbolts" will by far be the WP:COMMONNAME. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd support keeping it as just Thunderbolts (film) and making note of the asterisk in the lead section. KingEuronIIIGreyjoy (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
This. Just do what we did with 2015 F4, which was marketed as “FANT4STIC” yet we kept the main name. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
It's because that was the officially registered title. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm still conflicted. I'm not as certain which will be the COMMONNAME given Feige explicitly drew attention to the asterisk, and keeping the asterisk would obviate the need for parenthetical disambiguation (WP:NATURAL). If the official "billing block title" does not include an asterisk, I would favor dropping it. For now, I think either works. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
While I'm not fond of this having already been moved yet again without any consensus (seriously, guys, we gotta stop making these erroneous moves!), the asterisk is not a common character used in titles. Yes, we now have direct confirmation that it is part of the official title, though we have to keep Wikipedia's own titling policy in mind when it comes to article titles, especially when the titles they use conflict with said policy. I'm a bit conflicted as with Infinite, given a WP:NATURAL disambiguation is more preferable, I don't see the asterisk being as commonly searched for by readers looking for the Thunderbolts film. Considering WP:SMALLDETAILS, which the asterisk would fall under, it could remain, although I think Thunderbolts (film) is still the more accurate title for this article and the one that most readers would be searching for. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm happy to keep the asterisk for now as natural disambiguation, but we need to make sure the right redirects and hatnotes/disambig pages are set up to make sure people who don't know about the asterisk can still find their way here. My suspicion is that the asterisk will be the common name in sources since Feige has called it out and it is in the new logo, so entertainment journalists and reviewers will most likely be using it in their articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
It is better off using Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. We can use Thunderbolts as it is and leave a note in the lead stating that it is marketed with an asterisk. Wonder Woman 1984 was marketed as WW84 but we used the full name anyway. JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Except in that instance, Wonder Woman 1984 was the official title. We're not talking about a marketing title here, as Feige said the asterisk is in the official title. It is still far too early on to determine what the common name will be, given WP:RECENTISM bias. Just because I don't want this article going through any more roundabout page moves, I think it should be fine leaving it as is, though we definitely should reconvene once an official bottom billing block and any filings have for the title, especially closer to its release. I'm cautiously thinking this could become similar to Birds of Prey's title change situation post-release. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@4TheWynne and Robertsky: There was no consensus at this talk page discussion to make the article moves you made. This should be reverted through a "revert undiscussed moves" request, but I am hesitant to keep moving the page back-and-forth before consensus is finalised either way here. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 I was just effecting an technical request to bring the talk page in line with the article move made by @4TheWynne and have no preferences either way for now. Also thus far, there has been no consensus I see here that the article should be at the asterisk version. However, as you have mentioned that there have been moves in both directions since March when the draft finally landed on the mainspace, it is prudent to just open a Requested move discussion. Also do take note that a no consensus from a move-related discussion will result in the article being at its last stable title, or in the absence of it due to the short life of the article, the first title of the article, which in this case would be Thunderbolts (film) (ignoring the (2025 film) dab if there is no need further disambiguation). – robertsky (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I have started the RM discussion below. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
This is becoming a lot like the Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness debate. Wonder when this debate will get it's article. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 17 May 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is still insufficient coverage to determine whether or not Thunderbolts* is the WP:COMMONNAME for this article. However, incorporating the asterisk allows WP:NATURAL disambiguation, and it is considered part of the title, not just a stylization. There is precedent for including asterisks in similar situations, as Erik pointed out. Ideally, once the film has been released and news sources have settled on a WP:COMMONNAME, we can decide which title is best for the article. Thanks to 162 etc., for the links; however, as Rlendog said, those were all released before the announcement regarding the film's title; they should be discounted. In short – there is consensus that the article should be moved to the proposed title, per WP:NATURAL. (closed by non-admin page mover) Cremastra (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thunderbolts (film) → Thunderbolts* – The official title for this film is Thunderbolts*, with the asterisk, as confirmed by Feige's announcement which is sourced in the article. It is not just marketing sylisation. While it is too early to confirm whether this or Thunderbolts is the WP:COMMONNAME, some news sources have been including the asterisk since the announcement and we can't rule out use increasing once marketing begins properly. More importantly, the asterisk provides WP:NATURAL disambiguation from Thunderbolts (which is a redirect to Thunderbolt) and Thunderbolts (comics). - adamstom97 (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  • All the sources provided here predate Feige's confirmation that the asterisk is part of the title (and one of them predates any revelation of an asterisk at all), so are not particularly relevant to whether the article title post-confirmation should include the asterisk. No one was suggesting that the article title should include an asterisk back in February, the article was moved to a title including the asterisk only after the new information came out including the asterisk. WP:OFFICIAL is an essay, not a guideline, and even that says that an official English title should be considered. I would probably be more sympathetic to this argument if the title Thunderbolts did not require disambiguation. But even if Thunderbolts is the more common name (and I don't think it is at this point, and the evidence does not need to be "overwhelming"), we still need to call it "Thunderbolts (something)" on Wikipedia. "Thunderbolts (film)" is certainly not the common name, and while that would be consistent with typical Wikipedia disambiguation practice, here we have a better way to disambiguate since the official name and possibly the common name is Thunderbolts*. Rlendog (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per MOS:TM and 162. The "official" title is not what matters. Unusual unpronounced symbols are unlikely to be dominant in independent use, and examples of sources that don't use it have been provided. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above arguments. Even as mentioned in the proposal, it's too early to know if the asterisk is part of the COMMONNAME (and regardless of the increase in sources, we might not even know until the film is released, given that's when Kevin Feige said the asterisk's use would be explained), and even if it does end up leaning that way, I feel like using a more common disambiguator would be more effective. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 18:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now since I'd rather revisit this based on how reliable sources name the film upon its release. The current title is not detrimental, and the release-date coverage will give us the greatest sample size of how a film will be known going forward. I mean, its release is two weeks short of an entire year away. That said, here are instances of asterisks in film titles (or non-use) on Wikipedia:
While "other stuff exists", I think with something like 61* and Bigger, Stronger, Faster* could indicate the direct relevance of the asterisk use. So it's possible that will happen here. Just want to wait till we all see the film and react to it. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. KingArti (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. There should have been a discussion before the page was recently moved to begin with. -- ZooBlazer 18:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @4TheWynne should not have unilaterally moved this page, and @Robertsky should not have endorsed it; the technical request should have been denied. There was a rough consensus in the previous discussion and an implicit consensus for a full month to keep the title as Thunderbolts*. The second bullet point of WP:RM states (with emphasis added): If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location. This falls in the latter category. If 4TheWynne wanted to contest this title, it was up to them to open an RM to override the existing consensus and stable title. Claiming that the previous title was more "stable" because it's been around longer is misleading and ignores the context; the film's title was only confirmed to have changed a month ago, so anything before that is irrelevant. If we count from the day when a new title had possibly been revealed in late March, the old title only stayed for two weeks whereas Thunderbolts* remained uncontested for one month. 4TheWynne's move was subject to a prompt revert per WP:BOLDMOVE; their move fails the third bullet point anyhow, and possibly the second one as well. As an admin, Robertsky should have recognized this.
    Nonetheless, support. Ideally, we would have waited for further confirmation in the poster billing block, official press materials, and copyright filing, and then open an RM if necessary, but we will have to make do with the current evidence available, which indicates that this is indeed the official title and not a stylization that MOS:TMRULES discourages (but not prohibits, as a guideline). Erik listed several other film titles with asterisks, so there is precedent for this form of naming/disambiguation, and there is also M*A*S*H as noted before. As a result of Kevin Feige (the film's producer) explicitly calling out the presence of the asterisk in front of a room full of press, it is highly likely that this will be the common name going forward. WP:NATURAL, which calls for the use of natural disambiguation instead of parenthetical disambiguation (regardless of which is more common) whenever possible, is another strong reason. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    I reiterate: moving the talk page to match where the article is is not an endorsement of any moves. It is just prudent to do so. Thereafter a conversation followed here in which I recommend that a Requested move discussion to be opened given that all moves thus far, as much as I can see, were bold moves. – robertsky (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    If the previous move was a bold move, it has since gained consensus through the previous discussion as well as implicitly. This bold move had no consensus and was immediately objected to by another editor. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    And previous discussion's consensus was determined by who? As an experienced editor, you should have recognise that consensus is best left determined by someone uninvolved. I note that there there was one dissenting voice in the previous discussion after the last move to the asterisk version. Should it have been moved back to the film dab version then rather than just silently be left as it was? However, I apologise for overlooking the implicit consensus mostly due to the presence of the discussions above. Regardless, this discussion is open now. Let's see how this discussion plays out. – robertsky (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    You're talking about a formal assessment of consensus by an uninvolved editor (typically in the form of a close), when most discussions on Wikipedia are not formally closed and produce only rough consensus. The previous discussion clearly ended with consensus for keeping the asterisk because (1) not a single editor attempted to revert the move until now, and (2) counterarguments were made in response to dissenters, and then they received no further rebuttal or response. If this RM finds no consensus, the default title to revert to should be Thunderbolts*, which was the last stable title with some level of consensus until this unilateral move. This is basically gaming the system. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    I will add that if someone had reverted the initial move from a month ago a few days after the fact, then yes, an RM would have to be held to propose moving to Thunderbolts*. But it wasn't a few days ago, nor was the move performed quietly without anyone noticing. It's been a month. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: The asterisk is not a gag or just a stylistic choice, it is part of the official title as proven by a number of editors. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: It should be noted that because the film is nearly a year away, there is very little generalist coverage about the film, most of it being from Marvel-centric and fandom-related sources, which are reliable for basic descriptions of the film's production. This is not representative of how the world at large (via non-specialist reliable sources) may write the title in common parlance, so WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The most authoritative of such specialist sources, the trade papers, are not engaging in such fidelity, writing only "Thunderbolts" this month so far:
The supports so far are incorrectly grounded in prioritizing the official title despite the above instances and the fact that it is simply too premature. It's possible that the asterisk will be well-known, but we cannot say for sure until the film comes out. It could be as irrelevant as it was for Batteries Not Included, or not. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
All those trades are published by the same company. So while that is certainly a relevant data point in determining the common name, they only amount to one data point. Other sources use the asterisk. Rlendog (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I concur with Rlendog's assessment on those trades. Those Penske-owned sources all essentially count as one party. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Fair point on similar ownership, but that set is far more reliable and more reflective of the real world than the likes of Screen Rant, ComicBook.com, Comic Book Resources, Cinemablend, ComicBookMovie.com, and SuperHeroHype. That was my entire point, that we have very specialist fandom-based sources being used to claim that the official name is the common name. Outside of these, this film has barely been covered, and the most rounded coverage that reflects the world at large will be when it comes out. There's no rush. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
COMMONNAME is merely one of the things we consider when deciding on an article's title; it's not the only one. WP:NATURAL is another, and it states (with emphasis added): Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred. Even if Thunderbolts* does end up not being as common as Thunderbolts, the latter is ambiguous and thus necessitates the use of parenthetical disambiguation. NATURAL, along with WP:NCDAB, clearly states that if an alternative title that is also commonly recognizable but requires no parenthetical disambiguation is available, it is generally preferable to the more common but ambiguous name. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Relisting for further clarity on consensus. BD2412 T 17:41, 24 May 2024 (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.

Removed press coverage template

@Favre1fan93, on this:[1] I'm not interested enough to revert you, I saw it posted on imdb so I thought why not, but it may be blog-ish. Like the template says, it mentioned this WP-article. Note however, that to what extent such an item is WP:RS doesn't matter, this is a talkpage. And it is a WP:RS for what it was quoted for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Favre that some random blog's post about an obvious vandal addition to the Wikipedia article doesn't merit much attention on our end. Because this is a talk page, it is expected that the links would be beneficial in some way in an encyclopedic sense, and I don't think vandalism is worthwhile to keep track of on here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
We think differently on that. My view is that it's potentially good for editors to have a hint of outside coverage, such coverage can lead to all kinds of things, and the template can give some context on edits made. But in this case, there is a degree of meh. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The template is to record coverage of the article in news reports. I don't think this counts, as it is a random blog speculating about vandalism. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thunderbolts*/Archive_1&oldid=1247759801"