Talk:Thunderbolts*

"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)

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)

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)