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)[reply]

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

The production section indicates Ford is not expected to appear in the film. We can't have the article contradict itself. I'm removing him from the cast list. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the rest of this section as this has already been discussed. Changes should not be made without new information coming to light and a new consensus here. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a consensus to decide that the article shouldn't contradict itself. That's just basic editing. It can be debated which part to change, but we can't list Ford in the cast list when the only mentions of him in production says that he is not expected to appear in the film. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the article states that he is not expected to appear then that goes against the consensus established in this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked and as I suspected, somebody had changed the body of the article to no longer align with the consensus above. I have reverted that change and aligned the wording in the cast section so there should be no concerns about the article contradicting itself. If others think the wording needs to change then that should be discussed here first. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Character mames

Per Wikipedia guidelines, fictional characters are referred to based on their common names. Wonder Woman's real name is Princess Diana of Themyscira, but the article doesn't refer to her as "Diana" or "Princess Diana". Outside of the ledge and biography section, she's just "Wonder Woman". The same should apply here. To take Yelena Belova as an example, unless she's primarily referred by her last name throughout her appearances, she should be referred to as simply "Yelena" across the article. Has her last never ever even been mentioned across her appearances? PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also MOS:SURNAME. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 01:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding, that's for real-life figures. Not fictional characters. PanagiotisZois (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We tend to use last names per WP:MCU, unless a character is genuinely not referred to by that name. There is no consensus for using "Yelena" or "Alexei" at other articles for those characters. I think we need to invite others at WT:MCU to participate in this discussion so a wider consensus can be formed. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger Things years

It is standard to add the years of release in parentheses for references to other media (films, series, books, etc.) where the release year is not already mentioned. For example, in the lead we have one of several creatives who returned to work with Schreier from the Netflix series Beef (2023–present). The same has been done for Stranger Things in the filming section, until PeeJay decided to change it. They have also ignored WP:BRD and my message on their talk page. PeeJay believes that in the context of this sentence, the year comes across as referring to production years rather than release years: Harbour planned to shoot his scenes as Red Guardian concurrently with his scenes as Jim Hopper for the fifth season of Stranger Things (2016-present), also in Atlanta, before that production was also delayed by the writers' strike. I do not agree, both because this format is never used to refer to production years and because the context of this sentence makes it clear that production on the season hadn't even started yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that when we are referring to a specific season of a series, we tend to only list the year of that season's release. That would be 2025 for Stranger Things season 5, but that was not known at the time this bit was originally included in this article, so the full series' run years were included in the past. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need to put any years there at all? The release date of Stranger Things is irrelevant to the sentence, and as I pointed out, it's ambiguous. Harbour's involvement in seasons 1-4 of that show have nothing to do with the filming clash with Thunderbolts. – PeeJay 16:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Release dates are noted to provide context, and they are done so consistently. The question isn't why should they be added, it is why they shouldn't be added this one time. Your personal confusion isn't enough justification for making this change. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be useful to add the years in parentheses, yes, but it shouldn’t be a requirement, especially when it introduces ambiguity. – PeeJay 23:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is common practice to denote the release date year for creative works in parenthesis, and this is done across many film and TV articles. Harbour's initial filming schedule for ST season 5 was going to conflict with his Thunderbolts schedule. This has nothing to do with the prior seasons, which is why I suggested listing season 5's 2025 release year in the parenthesis instead. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it said 2025, that would be fine, but it said “2016-present”, which is why I removed that text. – PeeJay 23:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added 2025 in parenthesis. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

De Fontaine

When referred to by only her surname, Valentina Allegra de Fontaine should be referred to as "De Fontaine" with a capital D. Just letting you know. – PeeJay 12:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, is there a guideline or something internally for Wikipedia that states this? I'm not disagreeing or anything, I'm just curious. Mjks28 (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking, but I don't think there is, so I've raised it at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Capitalisation_of_particles. However, the BBC style guide says: "The Dutch van and the Italian di are lower case if the whole name is used. They are capped if only the surname is used eg: 'Angelo di Loreto says he might retire', but 'It is not the first time Di Loreto has said so.'" – PeeJay 12:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once the BBC provides Wikipedia with a quorum of its funding, we'll listen to them. Until then, you're not in the right.
Trail said "Wikipedia does not follow external style guides because it is its own independent site with its own procedures", which should be enough for you. Notice how the comma is outside of the ending quotation mark on that quote? that's because Wikipedia follows its own style guide, and not others who would recommend differently. BarntToust 17:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the comma has to do with this. I'm not interested in punctuation, I'm interested in Wikipedia actually making a pronouncement about whether or not surnames should be capitalised, which is not specified anywhere. I've provided an external site to follow, what's wrong with that? – PeeJay 22:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm providing an example that depicts Wikipedia tending to adhere to logical format. Eh, it may not even be that. I don't think external style guides should be considered without deliberation on each separate matter. Also, Trail made a pertinent comment somewhere that BBC is British, we should be considering American style guides, like AP. BarntToust 00:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
External style guides do not and never have dictated how Wikipedia writes material. That is decided by community consensus via discussions such as this one. No style guide is a binding rule of this site other than our own MOS, which can always be changed and updated to reflect a changing landscape or when something ought to be reviewed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring and then popping in to 'just let us know' is not how Wikipedia works. Your change was reverted by multiple editors and you have admitted that there is no policy or guideline stating that you are correct. You should revert your latest change, apologise for your behaviour, and wait until there is consensus for the change before restoring it. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've not provided anything that says we should keep it as lower case. I have provided you a link to an external style guide and sought to close this particular blind spot in Wikipedia's own policies. I have nothing to apologise for. – PeeJay 14:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not follow external style guides because it is its own independent site with its own procedures. We follow what the site tells us to do. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What does Wikipedia tell us to do then? There's nothing on this site to say it should be one way or the other. I've provided an external site that should guide us one way or the other. Why are you resisting it? – PeeJay 22:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC is British English language. This is an American English language article. I am not resisting any change, there are just procedures that must be followed to determine a clear consensus. Wikipedia follows what is laid out at WP:MOS, not what external sites dictate. Discussion should focus on Wikipedia's manual of style, first and foremost. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's MOS does not make any pronouncements about this issue. That's why I'm providing an external source to guide us on the matter. Do you have an American English style guide to point us in any particular direction? Without one, the BBC's is the best we have. – PeeJay 23:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I have no strong opinion on this matter and acknowledge that no style guide holds precedence over Wikipedia's manual of style, the APA style guide for sentence case describes the following (bolding emphasis): "In sentence case, most major and minor words are lowercase (proper nouns are an exception in that they are always capitalized). major words: Nouns, verbs (including linking verbs), adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, and all words of four letters or more are considered major words. minor words: Short (i.e., three letters or fewer) conjunctions, short prepositions, and all articles are considered minor words." So, the American styling would prefer against capitalizing a two letter article in this context. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another example I also brought up at the biography discussion is the Chicago Manual of Style guide: "CMOS 8.5 says the particle is “always capitalized when beginning a sentence or a note.” But CMOS 14.21 says, “A bibliography entry starts with a capital letter unless the first word would normally be lowercased (as in a last name that begins with a lowercase particle; see 8.5).” Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thunderbolts*
No tags for this post.