Talk:Thunderbolts*

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)

• Support per nom. Rlendog (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Thunderbolts* is the both the COMMON, WP:NATURAL, and official title of this film. I don't think the technical request was uncontroversial given the prior moves of this article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I also want to point out the pageview statistics for what readers are searching to get to this film. Thunderbolts* currently has amassed 176,232 pageviews with a daily average of 5,685 since April 17, while Thunderbolts (film) has only had 1,356 pageviews with an average of 44 views and a median of 23 views since that same date. It seems clear that more readers are looking for this with the asterisk rather than with the "(film)" disambiguation already. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Completely misleading. The article was moved to the title Thunderbolts* on April 11. The term had essentially zero hits before then. See here 162 etc. (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's because "Thunderbolts*" was not known to be a title officially used for this until it was confirmed on April 11 at CinemaCon. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Asterisk is not seen in secondary sources like Yahoo!, People, Us Weekly... Also violates our usual stylism guidelines. Needs more overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME evidence. Official title is not a consideration; see WP:OFFICIAL. 162 etc. (talk) 15:18, 17 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:

• Batteries Not Included (stylized as *batteries not included)
• 61*
• Imps*
• Bigger, Stronger, Faster*
• Corpus Callosum (film) (official title *Corpus Callosum)
• Broke*

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:

• Variety on May 6
• Variety on May 7
• The Hollywood Reporter on May 10
• The Hollywood Reporter on May 16
• Deadline on May 7
• Deadline on May 7

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)

• Support the asterisk is in the official logo and is thus part of the name of the film. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support per the WP:NATURAL arguments, even though without the asterisk will likely be the WP:COMMONNAME. The asterisk provides the necessary differentiation to satisfy the NATURAL guidelines for going with that rather than the preferred-but-ambiguous title. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting for further clarity on consensus. BD2412 T 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NATURAL argument. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 20:25, 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)

Harrison Ford

Kevin Feige said at the Hall H panel that Harrison Ford is not in the film. Here's a timestamped YouTube link to when he says it, and here's an Entertainment Weekly article that references it. Aldwiki1 (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

 Added with the EW ref. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is accurate to say "the panel made clear that [Ford] is not actually in Thunderbolts" based on what Feige said, it was Delaney who said Ford wasn't in the film but Feige's wording feels a little cage-y to me. He said "that is correct" which could be confirmation that Ford isn't in it, but in his next statement he just focuses on the Thunderbolts not being named after Thunderbolt Ross in the MCU. It feels to me that this doesn't necessarily counteract the earlier reports of Ford being in this one, unless Feige clarifies that Ford definitely isn't in it. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I just went back to the video and Feige saying "that is correct" could read more as him agreeing with the name similarities and not that Ford isn't actually in it, which came right before Feige's response. I presume that is why EW went with what they did, though I agree in heinsight that it is not as clear as EW made it out to be, and have restored the bit and hidden this mention for now until we get some clarity (leaning on WP:VNT here). Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Deadline's article on the panel lists Ford among the ensemble, so they likely didn't interpret this the same way EW did. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The last thing Delaney said before deferring to Feige was "...but he's not in Thunderbolts," to which Feige replied "That is correct." If Ford was in the film, wouldn't Feige have thought it appropriate to correct an error like that on the spot? But I realize that's speculative. Here are three more sources that interpreted Feige's words as Ford not being in the film: 1, 2, 3. Aldwiki1 (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel like if that were true, then the Hollywood trades like Deadline, THR, Variety, TheWrap, etc. would have picked up on it (similar to them debunking Ruffalo in BNW). Those are the higher-tier sources compared to these more blog-akin ones, and the latter source seems to question Feige possibly just playing coy about this. WP:VNT seems to apply here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly, Deadline has since removed any mention of Ford from their article I linked above, but does not mention anything about Feige's comments. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Five more reliable sources have interpreted Feige's comments as Ford not being in Thunderbolts: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The first two are from the same outlet but written by different authors. I've also come across a Variety article from 2022 that says Ford wouldn't appear in the film. If these are still not sufficient to remove him from the cast, can we at least mention that there are conflicting reports about his involvement? Aldwiki1 (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The 2022 Variety article can be added to where we have THR's confirmation and say there were conflicting reports at the time. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Added Variety's report. I've also elected to add the EW and Esquire articles but kept the wording open-ended. They're reliable sources so I don't think their commentaries on this should go ignored. Aldwiki1 (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources can get things wrong at times, and not all interpretations of their writers are always correct. WP:VNT applies until we get more concrete clarity/confirmation about this. For now, I am inclined to say the Ford details can remain considering several trades verified his involvement initially. Now, things could have changed from 2022 to now (from the strikes, Cap 4 and all), though considering only Variety cast doubt on his role in this and these sources linked are of lesser reliability, I think how this is currently being handled works for now. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Release date

We come to find out that the May 5 date was a typing error, as was revealed by Marvel Entertainment and Julia Louis-Dreyfus in an interview with EW with the cast and director, she said that the release was May 2, not May 5. KingArti (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

We have no source saying this was a "typing error" as you have presumed here. That was the most recent date used at CinemaCon by Marvel, so it is hard to believe they would let a mistake like that fly. Reputable trades such as Deadline have used that date while some more blog-oriented sites have not (though those are not always the most reputable). Marvel.com has notoriously been out of sync with Marvel Studios for years now and has gotten some things wrong before. The site still says Kang Dynasty is a thing and does not list directors, actors, etc. for some films, though that does not mean those are not true. It still uses the old logo for Thunderbolts on its page for the film. Could you provide a link to the video with a timestamp where this claim is said, as I do not have time to watch a 30 minute video to find one comment. I will say, if Disney's official release calendar was accessible, that would also be helpful, though I have seen sources differ on this date since the CinemaCon panel. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Disney's press site lists the date as May 2, 2025, and so does Disney's press release. Here's a recent tweet from Marvel Studios that lists the same date. And in the video linked by KingArti, the May 2nd date is mentioned at 13:14. Aldwiki1 (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I made the change based on the sources you provided. Rlendog (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This still seems very odd. Release date changes are usually widely reported. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe it wasn't reported on because the release date never actually changed. The release date on Marvel.com and Disney's press site has always been May 2nd. It's clear they made a mistake in the CinemaCon graphic and didn't feel the need to come out and publicly correct it because they probably figured nobody would think they'd actually release a movie on a Monday. Aldwiki1 (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Still speculation that the CinemaCon "May 5" date was a mistake. WP:VNT applies. I support how this is currently handled in the article by retaining the May 5 date where relevant. Studios have released films on days other than the typical Friday, such as releasing them on Wednesdays or on Tuesdays (such as Marvel's Spider-Man: Far From Home), so I wouldn't say releasing this on a Monday is too bizarre or weird, nor would that make it a mistake. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't realize May 5 is a Monday. That would be highly unusual and makes me think it was definitely a mistake. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)