Jump to content

Talk:The Suicide Squad (film)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanished user ijs898340t9jejkpog0u34pjio (talk | contribs) at 11:51, 13 August 2021 (→Use title credits for ordering cast section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

James Gunn found entire team?

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2021

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 23:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou. -- 109.76.135.9 (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Use title credits for ordering cast section

Are any other editors in favor of using the title credits to determine who goes in the cast list (as opposed to being in the paragraph beneath it) and their order? If we did, the cast section would look like this:

  • Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn:
    A crazed criminal and former psychiatrist. Robbie said the film would show a new side of the character compared to her previous DC Extended Universe (DCEU) appearances due to her being in a new place and surrounded by new characters. Director James Gunn likened Harley's relationship with Bloodsport to the comedy duo Abbott and Costello, with Harley being Costello. Robbie wears a new costume that features Harley's traditional red and black color palette, with Gunn taking inspiration from the character's costume in the video game Batman: Arkham City (2011). He wanted her jacket to have "motorcycle gang style"-writing on the back, and chose "Live fast, die clown" over other potential options "Clown AF" and "World's Best Grandpa". Gunn also removed Harley's "Rotten" facial tattoo from previous DCEU films because both he and Robbie disliked it.
  • Idris Elba as Robert DuBois / Bloodsport:
    A mercenary with a technologically-advanced suit and weapons that only he can use. After being convicted of shooting Superman with a Kryptonite bullet, he shortens his prison sentence by joining Task Force X so he can reunite with his daughter Tyla. Gunn said each member of the Suicide Squad in the film was inspired by a different film genre, and described Bloodsport as an unsentimental portrayal of a 1960s action hero like Steve McQueen, without the "moral repercussions" of those characters. Elba was reportedly originally cast to replace Will Smith as Deadshot, but the character was changed to Bloodsport to allow Smith to reprise his role in the future; Gunn did not change the story that he had written for Elba, and just chose Bloodsport because he liked the character in the comics. The character's comic book ability to manifest weapons is adapted in the film as different gadgets and transforming weaponry that come from his costume.
  • John Cena as Christopher Smith / Peacemaker:
    A ruthless, jingoistic killer who believes in achieving peace at any cost. Gunn told Cena not to read any Peacemaker comics before filming, and Cena originally approached the role with an "angular, drill sergeant, Full Metal Jacket-esque personality" before Gunn told him to act like a "douchey, bro-y Captain America". Gunn added that the character was straight out of a 1970s television series like Wonder Woman.
  • Joel Kinnaman as Col. Rick Flag:
    The field leader of the Suicide Squad. Kinnaman said the film was an opportunity to give the character a blank slate, and said Flag was sillier, less jaded, more naive, and funnier compared to his portrayal in the first Suicide Squad (2016).
  • Sylvester Stallone as the voice of Nanaue / King Shark:
    A man-eating fish-human hybrid. Steve Agee developed King Shark's portrayal as a stand-in on set, with the character then created with visual effects. 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. Gunn gave King Shark a dad bod to make him look less like a mammal, as well as small eyes, a big mouth, and a small head to avoid the "cute anthropomorphic beast" design seen in popular characters like Baby Groot from his Guardians of the Galaxy films and The Mandalorian's Baby Yoda.
  • Viola Davis as Amanda Waller: The director of A.R.G.U.S. who runs the Task Force X program.
  • David Dastmalchian as Abner Krill / Polka-Dot Man:
    An "experiment gone wrong" turned criminal in a suit covered with polka dots. Gunn described Polka-Dot Man as "the dumbest DC character of all time" who hoped to turn into a tragic character for the film.
  • Daniela Melchior as Cleo Cazo / Ratcatcher 2:
    A bank robber who inherited the mantle of "Ratcatcher" from her father, along with equipment that allows her to control rats and communicate with them, including her pet Sebastian. Gunn described her as the "heart of the film".
  • Michael Rooker as Brian Durlin / Savant: A vigilante computer hacker.
  • Jai Courtney as George "Digger" Harkness / Captain Boomerang:
    An unhinged Australian thief who wields boomerangs. Courtney stated that unlike Rick Flag, Captain Boomerang has not changed since the events of Suicide Squad, being "the same shitbag liability we came to learn about in the first one. He's out there causing trouble as you would expect."
  • Peter Capaldi as Dr. Gaius Grieves / The Thinker: A highly-intelligent supervillain.
  • Alice Braga as Sol Soria: The leader of a rebel faction on Corto Maltese.
  • Pete Davidson as Richard "Dick" Hertz / Blackguard: A mercenary who is easily manipulated into ruining his own schemes.
  • Joaquín Cosío as Mateo Suárez: The Major General of Corto Maltese.
  • Juan Diego Botto as Silvio Luna: The dictator of Corto Maltese.
  • Storm Reid as Tyla: Bloodsport's daughter.
  • Nathan Fillion as Cory Pitzner / T.D.K.: A metahuman formerly known as The Detachable Kid who can detach his arms from his body to use them as weapons.
  • Taika Waititi as Ratcatcher: Cazo's father.

I support using the title credits over the poster because it will help make the article more readable. Too many names and too much information is crammed into the paragraphs underneath the cast list. Bluerules (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The poster billing block is the standard that we use because minor cast members are often added to the onscreen list (in this case Rooker, Reid, Fillion, and Waititi) and though the poster billing isn't always perfect, it gives the clearest indication of who is being hired as the main cast members which is good to go on since it avoids the subjective opinions of editors here. The number of other actors that are being listed in the paragraphs below is also not anything unusual, and I would argue that it is actually more readable to have the minor characters in logical groupings in prose then having a long list of minor characters with repeated descriptions. Happy to continue this discussion, but the WP:STATUSQUO should be restored in the article until there is consensus to change the order away from the existing format. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rooker, Reid, Fillion, and Waititi are not any more minor than Courtney, who is killed in the opening scene. Courtney and Capaldi are certainly more minor than Dastmalchian and Melchior, who portray central characters. While you could say it's subjective to call Dastmalchian and Melchior "main cast members" and Courtney a "minor character", it is objective that the former two have far more screentime and role in the story, as well as being in the title credits and billed higher. There will never be a clear indication of who actually was hired as the main cast members because that's often based more on name recognition/contracts (refer to Tyne Daly being on the Spider-Man: Homecoming poster for one scene and Anna Paquin being on the X-Men: Days of Future Past poster after having her role cut down to a non-speaking cameo), but the title credits provide the clearest indication because they provide the most names, increasing the probability of adding more main cast members who would have been omitted otherwise (e.g. Khleo Thomas isn't on the poster for Holes, but plays one of the main characters). The title credits are the standard we use, not the poster billing block, because they feature more names and an objective cut off-point (as opposed to the scrolling credits). This is still avoiding the subjective opinions of editors because the order is coming from an objective source.
In respect to it being "more readable to have the minor characters in logical groupings in prose then having a long list of minor characters with repeated descriptions", Dastmalchian and Melchior do not portray minor characters. As a result, the prose about them becomes bloated and it's harder for readers to learn about them (e.g. Dastmalchian having vitiligo). Again, the title credits are the standard we use. The billing block was simply used until now because none of us had obviously seen the title credits. Bluerules (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support using the title credits. Daniela Melchior is nowhere near a minor role, with director Gunn even calling the heart of the film (which is very accurate if you watch the film). To have her in the bottom prose and have Courtney, who dies like 10 mins in the film, with his own bullet, is not appropriate. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think adding Melchior is justification for also adding multiple other cameos to the main cast list. If anything, we should be sticking to the poster billing and then adding Dastmalchian and Melchior to the end of the list if there is consensus that they should be bulleted. This is the compromise for other films where clearly major characters are not billed. We definitely should not be going through and adding/removing multiple characters to come up with our preferred list, that sort of behaviour is widely discouraged. But I would support adding Dastmalchian and Melchior to the end of the poster list. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favor of making such an exception, as both of them have a lot of information to them already included here and it warrants their own bullet point. Switching to title credits adds a bunch of other roles that are too small and the benefit of including these two isn't worth it. Since both switching to title credits and adding these two characters would be exceptions and outside the norm, the best exception of the two is just including these two. —El Millo (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think a better compromise would be to cut out the names that don't receive their own title credit, which are the bottom five. We can't make an argument against excluding roles that are "too small" when the poster dictates that we include Courtney, who doesn't make it to the opening credits. We need to follow a consistent standard that's as objective as possible. In that regard, following the title credits and solely the title credits (which place Dastmalchian, Melchior, and Rooker above Courtney and Capaldi and include Braga and Davidson), provides a consistent and objective standard. The title credits are from the film itself, the basis of this article, not promotional material. Bluerules (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But that is neither consistent nor objective and is a much bigger departure from the normal approach. Best to keep it simple. Using the poster billing and adding the other two is close to consistent with most other articles, and is consistent with the few other exceptions that I know of, and it gives us all of the main cast members plus Courtney. His role does basically amount to a cameo appearance, but he is a returning actor from the first film and there is precedence for franchises to list returning main cast members in the new main cast even if their role is small (see Avengers: Age of Ultron for the exact same scenario: Hayley Atwell and Idris Elba have cameo appearances in that film but they are returning main cast members for the franchise so they are in the main cast list, and this has been the consensus through several similar discussions). I agree with El Millo that this is the better of the two compromises and avoids as much editor subjectivity as possible while still giving us a better list for this film. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is 100% consistent to use the same source for ordering the cast instead of subjectively deciding one source holds more weight than another. It is 100% objective to directly follow a cast listing provided by the film itself instead of subjectively deciding who's "important" enough and who's "minor". This is the "normal approach" on DCEU articles. Just look at the previously released Zack Snyder's Justice League, which lists 11 names not featured on the poster because they were in the title credits. We're getting into WP:OTHERSTUFF territory here, but if we're talking consistency with DCEU articles, sticking solely to the poster and prioritizing it is not consistent.
You say "best to keep it simple", but subjectively deciding that one source holds more weight than another and subjectively deciding who belongs and who doesn't is not simple. Simply following the title credits is the textbook definition of simple. I apologize if I appear abrasive, but much of your position is rooted in the same "editor subjectivity" that you oppose. Like Atwell and Elba in Age of Ultron, Courtney is included because he is objectively on the poster, regardless of how subjectively minor we consider his role to be. But the same approach applies to Rooker (the focus of much of the opening), Braga (who has more impact on the story than Courtney), and Davidson (who also has more impact on the story). You believe they should not be listed because you subjectively consider them to be "minor". I believe they should be listed because they are objectively listed in the title credits. It is your subjective opinion that the poster should be prioritized over the title credits. It is objective that the title credits derive from the film itself, which is objectively the subject of this article. Bluerules (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, my objective opinion is that we should use the poster billing block like most other film articles. I am just suggesting a compromise because you want to add and remove characters from the list. The reasoning you have given for adding these minor characters to the list is Rooker (the focus of much of the opening), Braga (who has more impact on the story than Courtney), and Davidson (who also has more impact on the story) which is all subjective. And your understanding of poster billing is incorrect, it is not based on who is on the poster (Atwell and Elba were not), it is based on contracts with the actors which makes it actually objective. That's why it is recommended that we use them. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not true that "most other film articles" use the poster billing block. Most MCU articles do because they have massive billing blocks, but most DCEU articles (which have smaller billing blocks) don't, and this is a DCEU article. You are subjectively making a case for those billed higher by the title credits (Dastmalchian and Melchior) to be below those on the poster (Courtney and Capaldi) by prioritizing advertising material over content directly from the film. And no, that is a strawman for why I believe Rooker, Braga, and Davidson should be added to the list. I flat out said I believe they should be listed because they are objectively listed in the title credits. Deeming them "minor characters", however well-founded that assertion may be, is editor subjectivity. The fact that they are listed individually in the title credits (with Rooker receiving higher billing than Courtney and Capaldi) is objective.
As for your assertion that my "understanding of poster billing is incorrect", Atwell and Elba are on the poster for Age of Ultron. I'm not talking about them being physically on the poster or having their names on the top, I'm referring to the billing block, where their names are present. They would not be allowed in the starring parameter otherwise, per infobox guidelines. I already acknowledged that billing is "often based more on name recognition/contracts". If the title credits objectively billed Dastmalchian and Melchior below Courtney and Capaldi or didn't even mention them, then I would support having them listed below Courtney and Capaldi. But we have an objective source that bills Dastmalchian and Melchior above Courney and Capaldi. And when that source is objectively part of the film itself, the subject of this article, it is recommended that we use it. Bluerules (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything wrong with putting links to the DCEU cast member page or the Characters list at the top? Given that this film is still officially in the DCEU, it would be good to link to those pages. I've added it there only to see it promptly removed.--WuTang94 (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles are already linked in the appropriate place, which is the DCEU navbox at the bottom of the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, but my only concern is that mobile users generally can't see navboxes, from what I recall.--WuTang94 (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case then I think that is a general concern with the mobile format as the navboxes have other noteworthy and useful links that also do not appear in the article (and the same applies for many other articles as well). - adamstom97 (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also in favour of using either the title credits billing, or the billing as per the poster at https://twitter.com/JamesGunn/status/1375221388185726979. It's ridiculous that Daniela Melchior and David Dastmalchian, who play two of the most prominent characters in the film, are not in the infobox starring section. --Stats71 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That poster is a better option than the the list from the film in my opinion, since it is clearly the main cast plus Braga and the members of the other team so at least it is a logical list. My preference is still to use the official billing with Dastmalchian and Melchior on the end, but if there is support for using this poster then I wouldn't oppose it. I would question whether we wanted to use it in all three places though, since it is a long list. We could stick to the billing for the lead and infobox but use the expanded list on this poster for the actual cast list. Thoughts? - adamstom97 (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we use the title credits and cut off from those who aren't individually billed (which ends with Davidson), we would have 13 cast members listed. If we use this poster, we would have 17 cast members listed. The four additional names - Nathan Fillion, Sean Gunn, Flula Borg, and Mayling Ng - are subject to the same "minor character" argument that may be made towards Rooker, Courtney, Braga, and Davidson. While I prefer this poster to the billing block, I believe the individual title credits are more in line with what we're seeking because it has less names and less characters considered minor, leading to less debate.
As far as the infobox goes, this poster does not have an actual billing block, so it would not be permitted under the guidelines. A billing block has all the production information, not just the cast and one crew member. The actual billing block order (seen in the current poster) is already recognized in the infobox. I feel the lede should also be retained to avoid confusion over the billing block. Bluerules (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument above was Simply following the title credits is the textbook definition of simple, but now you are suggesting that we only use some of the title credits which again I think is getting too complicated and too subjective. So I think in the interest of simplicity and as much objectivity as we can get, we should be using the full list from wherever we choose and only add people if consensus agrees. So that would make these our options: the official billing block with the two missing main cast members (we all seem to be agreeing on that point) added to the end; this poster which has the main cast, the other squad, and Braga; or the titles from the film which have the main cast, some of the other squad, some of the Corto Maltese characters, Reid, and Waititi. My preference is to stick as close to the official billing as possible, but if we want to use a longer list then I think it makes sense to use the poster because (a) if we are going to have some of the other squad then I think we should have all of them, (b) I don't think Reid and Waititi should be listed and I think Cosío and Botto are borderline, and (c) the film is called The Suicide Squad so I guess there is an argument to be had about listing all of the squad members in the main cast. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Differentiating those billed individually and those who are not is textbook simple. It is objective who had their name appear by itself in the title credits and to me at least, it's pretty clear if that name objectively appeared by itself. These notions that we should list all of the members of the Suicide Squad in the main cast and they should be prioritized over the likes of Reid, Waititi, Cosío, and Botto fall into the same editor subjectivity you say you're opposed to. To me, using the names billed individually in the title credits is a reasonable compromise. We get Dastmalchian and Melchior, we get them above objectively above Courtney (and there will be objections towards Courtney being above Dastmalchian and Melchior), we get less characters deemed minor, and the source is the subject of this article. Bluerules (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm in favor of whatever gets us to including clearly main characters such as Dastmalchian and Melchior and excluding as many minor characters as possible, while avoiding recurring to more subjective assessments. So I'm both in favor of simply adding Dastmalchian and Melchior at the end of the characters billed in the current poster's billing block and going by those individually billed in the film titles. I oppose using the "billing" from the other poster, which has 17 names, and I'd rather not use the whole film titles, since that is 18 names long. Bluerules' seems more objective, while Adamstom's is shorter. Still, thirteen is short enough so it might a good compromise, Adamstom, rather than having 17 or 18 characters there. —El Millo (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So to be clear(er) about what we are choosing between:
    • A Billing block: Robbie, Elba, Cena, Kinnaman, Stallone, Davis, Courtney, Capaldi
    • B Billing block (adjusted): + Dastmalchian, Melchior
    • C Poster: + Dastmalchian, Melchior, Rooker, Braga, Davidson, Fillion, Gunn, Borg, Ng
    • D Film: + Dastmalchian, Melchior, Rooker, Braga, Davidson, Cosío, Botto, Reid, Fillion, Waititi
    • E Film (adjusted): + Dastmalchian, Melchior, Rooker, Braga, Davidson
My preference is B because it is close to A but includes Dastmalchian and Melchior. My next preference is C because at least it is logical. I think D adds too many minor characters and I think E is just too random. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
B, otherwise E. Option B would be an exception based on consensus that these two added characters are main and that have enough information about them to warrant their inclusion. Option E has the disadvantage of adding more characters that aren't main ones, but it the second option with the least additions. Adamstom97, deciding on using the individually billed actors as a cutoff is just as random as adding Dastmalchian and Melchior, we do it on consensus. Option E makes it less subjective, and if chosen would eliminate any possibility for other editors to suggest adding some other character just because they think they "deserve it", which is basically what we're doing with option B. The only reason I support B over E is that it is reasonable to add these two and I think it serves the reader best out of all these options. Regarding C and D, it seems to be a case of adhering too closely to the "rules" in detriment of what's actually better, giving WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to too many characters.—El Millo (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My first preference is E, with C as my second preference. But I'm also ok with B as a compromise. Either way, I also think that it's essential for Dastmalchian and Melchior to be added to the infobox starring section and the lede. --Stats71 (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
E is my preference. It addresses both sides by adding Dastmalchian and Melchior to the cast list while not adding an excessive amount of names and follows an objective order from the film. Bluerules (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since we're all in agreement over at least adding Dastmalchian and Melchior to the cast list, shouldn't that be done in the meantime while the final solution is determined? --Stats71 (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is there's contention over where they should be ordered. If we use E, they would be above Courtney and Capaldi. If we use B or C, they would be below. Bluerules (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well this reinforces my support for E and reduces my support for C and B. As I think it certainly makes more sense to have them above Courtney and Capaldi, who played very minor roles in comparison to them. --Stats71 (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should not be making any changes until there is consensus, and we probably shouldn't be making decisions based on who is above who in the order. We are trying to at least appear to be objective here. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True. But there is consensus on adding at least Dastmalchian and Melchior (if not on the order in which they are placed), so shouldn't we get that bit at least resolved quickly? Because it would be pointless to maintain the current status quo (which everyone agrees has to go) just because of such a minor disagreement. --Stats71 (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2021

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

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Colonel Rick Flag

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Found a source, I'm gonna add it now. —El Millo (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. —El Millo (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Suicide_Squad_(film)&oldid=1038578979"