Talk:Birds of Prey (2020 film)/Archive 1

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * BirdsOfPrey2020TeaserPoster.jpg

Reverts
, explain to me how these edits aren't improvements. I really don't see why you two are edit warring and reverting to a crap article. JOE BRO  64  21:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The prose is absolutely incomprehensible. An example: "On April 17, 2018, Cathy Yan was reported to be the director of the film, becoming the third female filmmaker to join the DC Extended Universe as director, after Wonder Woman‘s Patty Jenkins and Ava DuVernay (for the upcoming The New Gods), and the first female Asian director ever tapped to direct a superhero film."
 * Casting is part of the pre-production process, so it shouldn't be a separate section.
 * There's tons of repetition. For example, both the development and casting sections start by saying that Robbie's reprising her role.
 * What on earth does "In addition, a number of projects focusing on Harley Quinn and Batgirl were announced during 2016 and 2017, including a film based on the female villains team Gotham City Sirens, consisting of Harley Quinn, Catwoman and Poison Ivy, with David Ayer returning to the franchise as director and producer; a Batgirl-centric film with Christina Hodson also hired as screenwriter, after impressing the studio with her work on Birds of Prey; and another film focusing on Harley Quinn and The Joker, with Glenn Ficarra and John Requa in final negotiations to be the co-writer/co-director team handling the project" have anything to do with this movie?
 * The format I used is an established format used in almost all superhero film GAs.




 * Hello,


 * Thanks for laying out your comments. I generally disagree with just plainly removing content from page with a sumary for the edits. I think that it would be best if you worked on simplifying some of the complicated and bloated prose instead of outright removing them. That is improvement much better.


 * Hayholt (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

LEaving it as Birds of Prey.
I think it would be better if it was left as "birds of Prey" and leave the rest as a subtitle. Hayholt (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I propose the article be moved to Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey as its title was officially changed to that to provide "a better understanding of what Birds of Prey is about." (Harley Quinn has better SEO, so Birds of Prey is getting a new name: https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/11/21132868/harley-quinn-birds-of-prey-name-change-seo-warner-bros-opening-weekend-trailers) It's essentially a Harley Quinn movie and only a very loose adaptation of the superhero team Birds of Prey. - Ash wki (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Time for move request
,, we should have a WP:RM discussion. Please note that Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film) is not the comparable title, Birdman (film) is, with its official long title Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance). Borat is another example with its official long title being ''Borat! Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan''. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO the subtitle shouldn't be in the article title, it's long and ugly to readers (WP:CONCISE). Birds of Prey is also overwhelmingly the WP:COMMONNAME JOE BRO  64  18:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you, but since you've both moved the article to preferred titles, having an RM discussion would show a consensus one way or another. Can you go ahead and start one? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "ugly to readers"??.. says who? No, a film title should carry the full-length/official title, regardless of your opinion.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * DisneyMetalhead, Would you argue that regarding the articles for the movies whose titles are Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat As Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade or the 5th sequel of Night of the Day of the Dawn series titled  Night Of The Day Of The Dawn Of The Son Of The Bride Of The Return Of The Revenge Of The Terror Of The Attack Of The Evil, Mutant, Hellbound, Flesh-Eating, Crawling, Alien, Zombified, Subhumanoid Living Dead — Part 5 , as well? — al-Shimoni  (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

My statement was over a year ago. Since then, reading various articles with long titles (as you have referenced), I have seen the usefulness of a shortened form. With all of that into consideration, so long as the film's article references it - I would still argue that the subtitle should be used/listed on the franchise article.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move (January 2019)

 * 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 section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below, and please try to keep moves from one title to another in the draft space to a minimum if possible–they're in the draft space precisely because not everything about the article has been developed or decided yet. Dekimasu よ! 19:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. The film is far more commonly known as just Birds of Prey, and the subtitle is overly long. This is the same reason Birdman resides at Birdman (film) (not Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)) and Frankenstein at Frankenstein (not Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus). JOE BRO  64  19:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Yup, classic WP:COMMONNAME situation. Though, one could argue WP:NATURALDIS, but I think this is more of a Birdman situation, rather than something like Solo: A Star Wars Story. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as the more concise title. Birdman is the perfect comparison, and the similarity between that title and Birds of Prey's has been noticed. Borat is another such film article with an official long title but only the short version used as the more common name. For Birds of Prey, the long title can be shown in the opening sentence and referred thereafter as simply Birds of Prey. This should continue as it moves from the draft space to the mainspace (which looks like soon, if filming begins as intended). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Since principal photography is supposed to start very soon, I'd suggest leaving the result of this page move (if it is to change) until the mainspace move. Just do it all in one move, instead of one move to the new title in the draft space, and then the move again into the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree/Against - this argument is rubbish. The film was given a long title on purpose. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and should be as accurate as possible. The easiest resolution to this would be to name the articles as their correct names and then add a redirect link for the "Birds of Prey (2020 film)" search. Placing opinion/preference as priority over fact, is ridiculous.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, your argument is the "rubbish" one. You haven't cited a single policy/valid reason not to move this besides your personal preferences. I have cited multiple Wikipedia policies and longtime precedents. JOE BRO  64  12:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The easiest resolution to this would be to name the articles as their correct names is pretty much why we have WP:COMMONNAME so we don't name articles like this, in situations like this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Only 1 disagreement, I think you could safely close the discussion and complete the move. -- 109.76.138.251 (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support some kind of move, but neutral on this specific proposal If we are going to go with this "official" title, then "One" needs to be capitalized. There is overwhelming precedent that MOS:CAPS overrules any "official stylization" of film titles. Before I noticed this RM, I considered BOLDly moving the page myself to Draft:Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn), since a misprint in a draft title is likely to just not have been noticed, but thought that since it's a draft that will be moved anyway once the film enters production (within the next three weeks?) the question might be moot. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Sock   ( tock talk)  08:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Absolutely. It doesn't make sense to keep the article's title that long. It should be just as the Birdman article. Simple and easy to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OhsalveelCesar (talk • contribs) 11:58, January 8, 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Heroic Hollywood
For those unaware (since I saw it used as a source a couple of times in the article), Heroic Hollywood isn't a reliable source. They are notoriously click baity and have been known to post misinformation.  Dark Knight  2149  00:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? I coulda sworn someone told me it was reliable in the past (might be mistaking it with another source). I'll cull 'em. JOE BRO  64  00:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I've got most of them. I think I only added one or two of them myself (I had to do tons of work to get this article where it is now; this is what it used to look like and I kept getting reverted by a sockpuppet troll). JOE BRO  64  01:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You might be thinking of The Hollywood Reporter. THR, Deadline Hollywood and Variety are the three most trusted sources in the film/TV industry. Good work on the article overall, though.


 * I myself have dealt with a fair share of sock puppet trolls, the most severe case being in 2016 with the incident, which went on non-stop for several months. I can sympathise there.  Dark  Knight  2149  05:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Film's official title
Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of one Harley Quinn) - I am now bringing this topic to the talk-page. Regardless of how many editors have reverted the primary source (directly from the film studio), the title listing on the article is still incorrect. Regardless of pronouns vs nouns, as has been pointed out in the edit comments there - a film studio, or any creative output, can "stylize" a title however they want. Placing limitations on titles, is derisory to those who make the product. An example can be shown in Spider-Man: Far From Home title. usually 'from' would not have a capital 'F', but because it is the official title as released by Marvel Studios - the title reflects the same here. My argument is obviously, that the title here should reflect the studio's official name for the film. WB announced the film with a lowercase 'o' in 'one', and therefore the title is such. I don't see a logical nor reasonable alternative. What are the arguments against this?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The "F" in Far From Home is capitalized because verbs in creative titles are capitalized. The "O" in "One" is no different. Your personal preference doesn't override Wikipedia policy. JOE BRO  64  18:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As others have said, Wikipedia policy is that the 'O' be capitalized here. Worth noting that your assertion regarding WB's official stylizing may not be correct any way - on warnerbros.co.uk, it is written as 'One' - []. AutumnKing (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Based on Characters section...
Just an F.Y.I., Harley Quinn was created by Paul Dini and Bruce Timm and first appeared in Batman: The Animated Series so therefore under the Based on Character section of the InfoBox I am going to add Mister Dini and Timm. YborCityJohn (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Plot Summary
I have very little experience on managing Wikipedia articles, but maybe the plot should be stored until closer to the film's release date for both spoiler reasons and to make it verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snurple78 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * According the the article the movie has (supposedly) been released in Mexico City on the 25th of January so it's not unreasonable that there could be someone that saw it and posted an English summary of the plot. As for the sources, yeah it probably could use a few (in Spanish?). Sak ura Cart elet Talk 06:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The entire plot section is a spoiler. Surely there's a way to summarize. I've never read a Wiki movie article that told the entire story--not even old films. Billwonka (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored and Wikipedia does not do spoiler warnings, information should be complete WP:SPOILER. Plot sections are supposed to include the full plot, including the ending, but they are also supposed to be brief, 400-700 words WP:FILMPLOT. Films get released in different places at different times, plot sections can be added anytime after a film has been released, and that will annoy readers outside the US much more often than rare cases like this where it might annoy US readers. -- 109.78.214.243 (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Plot Summary is unverifiable
There are no citations! No reviews yet. Who is User:Snurple78? Probably came from reddit DCEUleaks. 75.155.176.114 (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC) EricG

"Duplicated" link in the infobox
, the removed link isn't duplicated, since infobox isn't prose and MOS:REPEATLINK applies. I looked at the "Starring" section of the infobox, wanted to click on Margot Robbie but could not, and then had to visually hunt through infobox to find a link. That's a disservice to the reader, without providing any benefits in return. GregorB (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not the first R-rated film in the DCEU. The Ultimate Edition of Batman v Superman was rated R
The first paragraph of the opening says Birds of Prey is the first R-rated film in the DCEU, but that's incorrect, as the Ultimate Edition of Batman v Superman was rated R. Should this statement be changed?The Editor 155 (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. The threatical release of BvS is not R-rated. YgorD3 (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

But the Ultimate Edition is, which techically makes it the first R-rated film in the DCEU.The Editor 155 (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox title must match article name
Wikipedia infoboxes are supposed to display the article title, not the whole official or unofficial name of a product or person. Thats why there is a "full_name" parameter for most infoboxes, so that the full name can be displayed but the top name is still the article title.★Trekker (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said in my edit summary, See Rogue One and Birdman. There is consensus to name the article with the shortened, common name, but the name of the film is still the long one. El Millo (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pure OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Saying "the long name is the official name" does not override that an infobox name should be the same as the article title. The parameter on Template:Infobox film states that it should be the films full COMMONNAME, since the article is not named the full title, it's fair to assume that the full title is not the COMMONNAME. The COMMONNAME is actually just Birds of Prey, because almost no one is using the full title.★Trekker (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Facu-el Millo here. The article name is different, sure, but that doesn't mean the infobox shouldn't contain the official name. I don't think there's anything that prohibits that. JOE BRO  64  19:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So the template stating that it should say the COMMONNAME means nothing because you two feel that way?★Trekker (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What is even the point of having guidlines if they can just be ignored?★Trekker (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in others: Other stuff sometimes exists according to consensus or Policies and guidelines, sometimes in violation of them". OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument here. Those examples, as well as this page, are the way they are because of consensus. El Millo (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2020
The international territories and worldwide box office totals in the box office section of this article are wrong. The correct figures are:

International territories: $47,828,375. Worldwide: $89,986,677

Source: https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Birds-of-Prey-(And-the-Fantabulous-Emancipation-of-One-Harley-Quinn)-(2020)#tab=international

The Box Office Mojo estimates for international territories such as Australia, France, Germany and Taiwan are all off by a factor of 10. It appears to be a data entry error, where a '0' has been added, resulting in a $64M error. If Birds of Prey really did have a $26M USD opening weekend it would be the biggest opening weekend of all time in Australia, eclipsing Avengers: Endgame and The Force Awakens. However Australia only had a $3.85M AUD ($2.6M USD) opening.

Source: https://www.mediaweek.com.au/box-office-birds-of-prey-and-margot-robbie-top-the-box-office/

Box Office Mojo is wrong, and this article is wrong as a result. Mongoloidia (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pending-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.  JTP (talk • contribs) 15:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

To break even
According to Screen Rant, it would only take $194.2 million globally for the film to break even, against a $97.1 million budget and fees. Giorgio Zeniquel (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * They just multiplied the budget by two, based on the general rule of thumb. El Millo (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

According to Variety, the film needs to earn around $250 to $300 million to break even. https://variety.com/2020/film/box-office/birds-of-prey-box-office-disappoints-1203498018/The Editor 155 (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * They also only took in the production budget, not the marketing budget which will be many many millions. 117.199.85.213 (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC about relation to DCEU Universe and break-even point
Should the lead section mention 1. that the film is the lowest-grossing film in the history of the DCEU and 2. that the film's earnings are short of its widely reported break-even point of $250–300 million? KyleJoan talk 08:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No to both as proposer per WP:SYNTH, WP:DUE, and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. The first statement was only supported by a list of DCEU films and their respective earnings where the film is present and nowhere else in any reliable source; not only that, the film's box office numbers are still rising as of yesterday. The second was entirely unsourced, as its foundation was a synthesis of the film's earnings subtracted by its budget, concluding in a negative number. KyleJoan talk  10:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The second also fails WP:V. Yes, the film's earnings do not match the reported break-even numbers. However, no reliable source has stated that the film has or has not broken even, therefore, mentioning anything about breaking even in the lead is inappropriate. KyleJoan talk  11:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nowhere else in any reliable source? https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/DC-Extended-Universe#tab=summary. Entirely unsourced? https://comicbook.com/dc/2020/02/10/why-birds-of-prey-disappointed-opening-weekend-box-office-analysts-explain/, https://comicbook.com/dc/2020/02/10/why-birds-of-prey-disappointed-opening-weekend-box-office-analysts-explain/. And if you want to talk about numbers still rising, then you'd have to revert out the 'fourth highest grossing film of 2020' as those figures will obviously change as its only the start of the year. And if you then want to insert a qualifier to make it more relevant (4th highest grossing 'as of today' etc), then the same can be applied for the other measures of performance to create a balanced piece with all perspectives addressed. Davefelmer (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * EDIT in response to OP crossing out part of previous complaint - uhhh, yes, reliable sources have mentioned it not breaking even. Here is an article from CBR stating it hasnt broken even https://www.cbr.com/birds-of-prey-could-get-sequel/. And if you want to reply with 'but it could break even still in the future', then I will reply with 'but it could easily end up not the 4th highest grossing movie of 2020 in the future' and so that could only then be included with the qualifier of being so 'right now', the same line of logic that can be applied to not breaking even. Also, I presume we are then at least settled on the debate concerning the lowest grossing DCEU film ranking, considering the aformentioned link and this source https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/DC-Extended-Universe#tab=summary which disproves your claim that "nowhere else in any reliable source" does it show BOP being the lowest grossing DCEU film? Davefelmer (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comic Book Resources (CBR) saying that the film is on track to break even without any mention of what is considered breaking even + Variety reporting that the breakeven number is . . . $250 million = CBR says the film's gross has not reached its breakeven point, which–according to Variety–is $250M.
 * There's that WP:SYNTH again. KyleJoan talk  13:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The source literally says "has not yet broken even" at the very top which is the point here. But this is likewise easily solvable, as it is a problem over semantics. The phrase "has not yet broken even" can be sourced to literally showcase that, and then another source added afterwards from variety explaining the break even point is 250-300M. Or you can simply use the Variety etc links above independantly to simply state what it needs to achieve to break even, without direct reference to it not doing so or not doing so yet. So the article can say - "It has grossed $199.2 million worldwide, making it the fourth highest-grossing film of 2020 but the lowest grossing film (link) in the history of the DCEU (source - https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/DC-Extended-Universe#tab=summary). The film is reported to need $250-300 million to break even. (sources - https://comicbook.com/dc/2020/02/10/why-birds-of-prey-disappointed-opening-weekend-box-office-analysts-explain/, https://comicbook.com/dc/2020/02/10/why-birds-of-prey-disappointed-opening-weekend-box-office-analysts-explain/)".


 * This way, all concerns are addressed. Davefelmer (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dave. This is not a SYNTH issue. It's combining facts from two sources in a sentence, but it's not using those facts to synthesize anything new. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Some might consider the combination itself to be the synthesis. Due weight is also an issue since we don't know whether Comic Book Resources is reliable. I don't believe the lead needs to reference breaking even at all. Why not say, "the film has made X amount of money against X budget"? It essentially makes the same point. KyleJoan talk 07:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, anyone who says that doesn't understand what synthesis is. The very act of building an article requires editors to put together facts from various sources in ways the original sources don't. Anything less is plagiarism.
 * To your second point, I don't think your alternate phrasing is the same point. Some readers may not be familiar enough with industry standards to judge for themselves if a film is a disappointment based only on BO/Budget. In this specific case, the film performed so far under expectations they changed the name. I think it's notable enough to be lede worthy. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * SYNTH states that we should not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources, and no source explicitly states that the film's earnings are short of its widely reported break-even point of $250–300 million. That aside, I believe that describing the film's underperformance in the lead section can be done without mentioning breaking even. KyleJoan talk  15:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please review What SYNTH is not, which is what we're talking about. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Except the discussed statement insinuates that the (only) source stating that the film has not broken even (i.e., Comic Book Resources–and we have not even discussed whether it is reliable) was basing their analysis on the same break-even point that another source reported. It seems that we disagree on this, which is fine. Let's say it is not SYNTH and it's merely unclear writing; I don't believe unclear writing belongs in the lead section either. KyleJoan talk  17:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What's unclear about the writing? Do you not understand the claim that the film has made $X, and needed $X+Y to break even? The reliability of CBR is moot, since there are other sources where the amount earned can be found. The only one that really matters for this claim is the number from Variety, which you have so far raised no concerns with. This is a routine calculation. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's unclear; my intended point was that I see it as SYNTH while you do not, which creates somewhat of a grey area. That aside, a routine calculation would be what I suggested above. If you're comfortable with the lead section stating, "the film has not broken even (1) because it has only grossed X amount (2) when it needs X amount (3)," in Wikipedia's voice, then that's fine. I, on the other hand, believe a reliable source is necessary to support all three points and not just the latter two.
 * Edit: I struck a statement from my last response because it misrepresented a point in the discussion. That said, I maintain that the lead can describe the film's BO performance without referencing the break-even point at all. Let's see how others feel. KyleJoan talk  20:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It depends on how it is written. As you already linked to it being the 4th highest grossing film of 2020, the balancing point of the sentence to show both sides of the coin of the film's results would be to add "but the lowest grossing film in the history of the DCEU (with the link, plus this source https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/DC-Extended-Universe#tab=summary as previously discussed) and a box office disappointment (with for example this NYTimes article linked lower in the thread https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/24/movies/cathy-yan-harley-quinn-birds-of-prey.html). My only issue with this would be in regards to the general reader, as without knowledge of BO metrics like the break even point, they might not be able to link how the 'fourth highest grossing movie of the year' was a disappointment. Thus, the information about the break even point should be added in to explain that. Davefelmer (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with including point (2) in the lead because it's discussed in the body and I think it's a good summary of the performance. I'm not a fan of including point (1), which is not discussed or supported in the body. Furthermore, I think adding enough material to the body to justify including point (1) in the lead would be off-topic and undue. I think this particular bit of information belongs on DC Extended Universe (or a related article). Argento Surfer (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

 * To expand on the point here a bit, this is the original content of the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birds_of_Prey_(2020_film)&diff=946286639&oldid=946286272. In much the same manner that a link establishes that the movie is the 4th highest grossing of 2020, a link was there to show that it was the lowest grossing movie (so far) of the DCEU franchise that it is a part of. Several sources also exist to illustrate that it further did not meet its break even point to be a commercial success. These served to show all sides of the coin in terms of the film's performance, relating it to other films in the year of release, its results amongst its own franchise and its results relative to its own commercial success as a money maker. All sides of the coin being shown like this is surely particularly important with a movie that turned out to be a box office disappointment, so to filter out and censor any mention of it not in a positive light introduces an element of inherent bias that is ill-fitting in an encyclopedia.


 * The above editor reverted my edit claiming that the notion of BOP being the lowest grossing DCEU movie was unverifiable, missing the link that showed it within the sentence he deleted. He then reverted the content again, claiming I believe that wikipedia couldnt be used as a source for itself and you needed an outside source to show it was the lowest grossing DCEU movie. A source was provided https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/DC-Extended-Universe#tab=summary and reverted. Furthermore, he's now reverted a second editor that tried to label the movie a box office disappointment, claiming that to be unverifiable when several sources exist https://comicbook.com/dc/2020/02/10/why-birds-of-prey-disappointed-opening-weekend-box-office-analysts-explain/, https://comicbook.com/dc/2020/02/10/why-birds-of-prey-disappointed-opening-weekend-box-office-analysts-explain/ to show that its break-even point is in the 250-300M range and hasn't been met, sources that were all provided and reverted. A record of all these actions can be seen in the relevant article's edit summary.


 * My position is that this type of behaviour surely undermines the project as it allows for a free-for-all mentality where we can all simply censor and filter out whatever information we want on a given topic and keep reverting until others give up, which sets a bad precedent for the future. However, I will patiently await the decision here. Davefelmer (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't consider CBR a reliable source in matters of film. Not every source is a reliable thing for everything. And many of its articles are plain crud fan-fiction, 5 characters wh can do x. But I did cite a film analyst expert writing for Forbes who did call it a box-oofice disappointment. He has written for many publications and been cited by evem msinstream reliable outlers. User:Autumnking2012 however has made one claim after the other against it, regardless of being proven wrong and the author having strong credentials. 117.199.92.44 (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

FYI, even New York Times has called Birds of Prey a box-office dissapointment. Can we add it now or does someone else want to discredit it too? There's no reason to not mention it as a box-office disappointment at the least. 117.199.84.225 (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2020
Add that the film was a box-office dissappointment. Reception section will be an okay place for it. Here's the source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/24/movies/cathy-yan-harley-quinn-birds-of-prey.html 117.199.84.225 (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please see discussion above. QueerFilmNerd  talk 23:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "The discussion" has stopped and reached a dead end. And they're offering no real refutation either way of reliable sources. So if you want to wait for the hotage crisis by a few editors holding up properly sourced content, well that's up to you. 117.199.83.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect statement, failing to present worldwide view
"The film was released digitally and on video on demand on March 24, 2020". Here in the UK it still hasn't been released digitally or VOD yet, as of March 26. So this statement needs to be corrected to include the words "in the United States" or "in North America" or whatever. 86.150.11.141 (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As of 9th April the film has still not been released digitally or on VOD in the United Kingdom (even though the reason for early release, according to the article, is the coronavirus pandemic, which is present here too). I have updated the article to add a geographical restriction to the otherwise incorrect statement. 10:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.103.21 (talk)

Box office section has superfluous, misplaced info
Birds_of_Prey_(2020_film)'s film name issue has nothing to do with the box office. There are two lengthy, superfluous sentences that circle back to it means nothing. It's a little interesting, but it had zero impact on the box office. If the issue had caused decrease ticket sales or had any impact, then it would be perfect, but the sources dont even suggest it.

At the same time, there is a Robbie quote over the name, but unfortunately in the pre-production section. if i'm reading it right there have been multiple attempts to change the name here on wp. So I don't think the info is completely unworthy, just that it needs reduced and placed elsewhere, possibly in release.

Where that is immediately escapes me, so im hoping someone else might have an idea. The alternative would be to significantly reduce the lengthy sentences, but im open to any solution. ToeFungii (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It is poorly phrased for sure. (For starters, it is terribly clunky to specify the source of the various announcement in the article text, should be enough that they have proper references.) It lacks purpose, it doesn't clearly explain that people believed the name had been changed (a la X-Men: Dark Phoenix) by the studio to increase ticket sales. The studio said it wasn't an official change and that it was was about search engine optimization, and IMO that makes it a non-event, and it would be easiest to just remove it from the article. It would be more difficult but I agree, you could reorganize the information into something more relevant. The reason the alleged name change got attention in the first place was because various critics were already suggesting the title was a mistake and should be changed. Scott Mendelsohn for example thought the title was a problem, although he seemed to think the R-rating and factors limiting the potential audience was the bigger problem. Maybe this sort of (business) Analysis could be place in a separate subsection, because I think the article probably should include some explanation of the perceived "underperformance" that has got so much press coverage. -- 109.77.194.110 (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

LGBT related
Someone saw fit to add the LGBT related category to the article but that editor and the article has failed to explain in any way whatsoever what the connection might be. That happens too often on Wikipedia. The easy answer would be to remove the category.

The other more difficult option would be to try and explain why the category might be relevant, and actually show it in the article. In the film it is mentioned that Gotham City district attorney Ellen Yee is detective Renee Montoya's ex-girlfriend (and I suppose the cast section does mention this). That's it, that minor incidental detail is the only LGBT connection that actually exists in the film. Correction: apparently there was also a blink-and-you'd-miss-it scene that Harley Quinn once had a girlfriend Do those two very minor scenes justify including the LGBT related category?

Before the film released there was some suggestion that McGregor's character was "probably gay" and if you care to look you can find various discussions that sparked: diversity, queerbaiting, queer coding of villains et cetera. It doesn't amount to anything in the film, it is a barely noticeable possible subtext. There was a suggestion that in earlier versions of the script Black Mask was gay and that chasing the diamond was not merely so that the already rich villian could become even more rich, but instead he needed the codes so that he could avoid embarassing pictures of him being revealed. I'm not sure that one source is enough, or if any of this is sufficiently notable.

TLDR: The article should be substantially improved to justify the category and make clear what the LGBT relation is, or remove the category. -- 109.78.215.215 (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the category, until such time as the article is improved to enough to show the category is relevant. -- 109.79.86.10 (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

BoP a box office dissapointment
Don't know why many sites are ignoring this but this film is a box office dissapointment. Forbes has however called it that, so I think we can mention it as a box-office dissapointment/under-performer. https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2020/03/17/harley-quinn-birds-of-prey-from-box-office-bomb-to-vod-game-changer/#18f078ab2c9d 117.199.85.213 (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source, as per WP:RSP. AutumnKing (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Correction, Forbes can be considereded reliable at times. While the author Scott Mendelson may be a contributor, he is a senior contributor who is also an expert on film industry. His own bio states he has studied film industry both academically and informally and analaytically for 3 decades. He's been writing on the subject since 11 years. So he does qualify as a good and reliable source, being an expert.


 * See Mendelson's bio . All Forbes articles are not prohibited and we should proceed on case-by-case basis. This isn't your usual writer with little credentials to his name, so yes he can be used. 117.199.85.213 (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I concur that Scott Mendelson at Forbes is a reliable source. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Reading through the various Wikipedia reliable source discussions on Forbes contributors, claims in his own bio as to his own expertise/notability would not seem sufficient to qualify him as a convincingly reliable source. His "credentials" are other contributing submissions. In general, self-published sources, including those from Forbes contributors, should be avoided particularly as the basis for making sweeping assertions in an article. Perhaps if used in combination with other sources, but not sufficient to include the statement as suggested at the start of this thread on the basis of this source alone. AutumnKing (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand that his role seems like anyone-can-contribute, but Mendelson is a recognized film critic and box office pundit. For example, Observer here calls Mendelson "film critic and box-office pundit at Forbes". USA Today recognizes him as a critic here. CNN references him here for box office commentary. He's been referenced in the books Children Beware!: Childhood, Horror and the PG-13 Rating, Utopia and Dystopia in the Age of Trump: Images from Literature and Visual Arts, Aging Heroes: Growing Old in Popular Culture. I'm fine with his commentary being combined with other commentary about the box office performance here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * No Scott's credentials are not self-contributing submissions. The outlet he writes for generally doesn't have much editorial oversight for contributors. That doesn't necessarily mean self-published or no editor can check his content, especially for a very senior contributor. He has also published for Film Threat, one of the topmost independent sites that's even been awarded. I don't think it lacks editorial oversight especially seeing as it's dedicated to championing indie films, if you've got evidence it does you can hold a discussion for it.


 * Not just that you're talking as if his 30 years of experience that also includes academic and analytical doesn't even matter. This is a very expert author, and your reasons to question his credibility aren't good. That too when even other reliable sources have used him like CNN, USA Today and others as presented by Erik. 117.199.85.213 (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I likewise agree that Mendelson at Forbes is a reliable source. On top of that, there are now other good sources existing that acknowledge the movie as a BO disappointment such as this one linked further down below on the page: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/24/movies/cathy-yan-harley-quinn-birds-of-prey.html. Davefelmer (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you. I think it should be mentioned, because it's kinda' obvious, isn't it? Numbers are not so huge(aspecially compaired to movie's budget), even Cathy Yan talked about the movie as a dissapointement in terms of box office. So i think we don't need any Mendelson to add this "a-bit-shameful" mark. BrandtM113 (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

McGregor
Maybe Ewan McGregor was praised for his performance but that is not supported by sources (yet?), and I removed claims from the article and the generalization in the lead that McGregor was praised for his performance. The review of the film from Variety can reasonably be interpreted as praise for Robbie, but I find it difficult to interpret the description of McGregor's performance as praise "McGregor makes him less a grand gangster than a life-size deviant slime." I don't recall reading any particular praise (maybe mild criticism from some) for his performance, and I might be wrong, but there is not enough in the article at this time to show it, and not enough to make any generalizations.

(It seems both myself and another editor removed the image of McGregor from the Critical response section at almost the same time. Confusing but we avoided an edit conflict error.)

If you think McGregor was praised for his performance please clarify and show your sources. -- 109.76.219.185 (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:FILMLEAD was updated to make it clearer that editors should try to be more careful to avoid synthesis in the lead, which I think has happened again here (and such claims should be reverted from the lead until there is enough in the article to support it.) -- 109.76.219.185 (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Another editor restored the dubious praise to both the lead the Critical response section.. I may have been BOLD but I have tried to explain clearly, please DISCUSS. -- 109.76.219.185 (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD does not work without the discuss part. The reverts came fast (and an accusation of edit warring too, after I had already started this discussion) but no such haste to add a comment. For further background context, my changes were prompted by an edit which added a photo of McGregor with a caption claiming he had been "highly praised" but if you look at this article not only was he not highly praised, the only apparent praise was from Variety magazine, and if you check the sources and read the review you get a description of his performance, which is not the same as praise.
 * I'm disappointed that once more and yet again a poorly sourced generalization is being left in the intro of a film article because people have not checked the sources. WP:SYNTH and WP:FILMLEAD -- 109.79.176.231 (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The misleading generalization was eventually removed from the intro, but still no discussion or explanation why it was ever forced back into the article. The Variety review did not praise McGregor either, so I have removed it again. -- 109.79.181.181 (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Again someone added the claim that McGregor was praised to the intro. No edit summary was included. No new sources were added. I reverted it. -- 109.77.216.201 (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Another edit adding unsourced praised for McGregor and other characters too. It seems many editors do not understand the need for sources WP:RS, or WP:LEDE/WP:FILMLEDE. -- 109.77.207.155 (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Editing warring by user
JRobinson99 continues to revert my (and other’s) edits, particularly the line of criticism in the lede section. I’ve requested protection for the page and left a note on his Talk page (of which he had been warned already several times over the last three months), but want to create as many notes as possible, just to be clear he was warned about vandalism. TropicAces (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I find this edit war a little confusing. I don't get why JRobinson99 did not make any effort to start a discussion here.
 * The critical response section says "thanks in large part to the stiletto-sharp screenplay by Christina Hodson" but it also says "The screenplay should never have been filmed", so someone could make a reasonable argument about WP:FILMLEAD and discuss that the Critical response section does not really have enough references to support any generalization, nevermind the negative generalization about "criticism towards Hodson's screenplay" in the intro. Also Metacritic says the film received "mixed reviews" but the intro makes it seem like this film was strongly praised.
 * I don't want to argue over it but I would like to see someone improve the Critical response section so that it properly supports and justifies whatever claims are made in the lead: WP:FILMLEAD. -- 109.78.201.10 (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Contract killing
There are a couple of issues with the current version of the article: it says without sources that Harley Quinn and Cassandra Cain go into business as contract killers (which is not something obvious from watching the film) and it uses the term "harass" for what happens to Erika at Sionis' nightclub, when multiple sources refer to it as sexual violence. I'll be editing to fix both these issues. 98.199.212.227 (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. 98.199.212.227 (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I checked the end scene too, they really don't say what kind of business they are going into. Someone must have gotten contract killing from the comic books or something.
 * WP:FILMPLOT requires brevity, which I assume was the reason the word "harass", was used rather than any intention to downplay that unpleasant scene. It would be more accurate to say what actually happens in the scene, that Sionis terrifies her and tears off her dress and forces Erika to dance, but that would take up too much space, and still wouldn't fully explain the scene. -- 109.76.130.104 (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Not a highest grosser
Birds of Prey is not in the top 10 highest grossing movies anymore! Not even in the endorsed Wikipedia page. So, why is the claim that it is "the tenth highest grossing film in 2020" still keep appearing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueBlurHog (talk • contribs) 22:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The article cites Box Office Mojo, which says the film is the tenth highest grossing. What source says it isn't? KyleJoan talk 01:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This, Entgroup is a Chinese box office tracker, or whatever it is you would call BoxOfficeMojo, check out the source, and then look up Shock Wave 2, that's all. (BlueBlurHog) 10:43, 9 February 2021.

Non notable awards
Are all the awards in the Accolades table really notable? There doesn't seem to be enough to split the table out into a separate article and some of the smaller awards seem inconsequential.

Also why is the Hollywood Critics Association listed twice? Are their midseason awards really notable? I would think that only their end of year awards and notable and that the midseason awards should be removed. -- 109.79.81.227 (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Each award in the Accolades section has their own article and is mentioned in multiple publications so I'd say they're all notable, even if they seem "inconsequential". SinkingInMercury (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why list Hollywood Critics Association twice though? Midseason awards sounds like a participation trophy. Surely the end of year awards are the only ones really worth noting? -- 109.79.81.227 (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So I looked it up and apparently it awards films released in the first half of the year. It's unusual, but the Midseason Awards are still actual awards so maybe it should still be in the article. SinkingInMercury (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:SinkingInMercury said "so maybe it should still be in the article" which sounds like very weak support for keeping the midseason awards. If anyone else has other opinions please do tell? -- 109.76.137.77 (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on the MOS, the discussion here, the featured accolade lists here and here, and WP:N, the consensus seems to be that awards/organizations with non-redirect Wikipedia articles and sufficient publication coverage can be listed, so I think all the awards in the article should be kept. The Midseason Awards in particular appears in this featured list and has been reported in multiple publications, so I think it should stay. - SinkingInMercury (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Birds of Prey Poster.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Birds of Prey Poster.jpg
 * Someone tried to unhelpfully to "update" the poster which resulted in these similarly unhelpful warning messages which can safely be ignored since the article and previous image were restored. -- 109.77.194.30 (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)