Talk:Zoolander 2

Sting credit a spoiler?
I don't know if there is any kind of spoiler policy on wikipedia, but in the cast list when it says that Sting plays himself/Hansel's father that's a bit of a plot spoiler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.14.12 (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. Wikipedia's policy on spoiler is that spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers.  However, in this case I think listing Sting as Hansel's father is being overly specific.  We wouldn't list Derek Jr. as "Derek's son" or Matilda as "Derek's wife".  The relationships are better suited for the plot.  Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Director?
Stiller may very well now be directing, but the only site in this entire article that talk about the director says this: "In February 2010, it was reported that Justin Theroux, who also co-wrote Tropic Thunder with Stiller, would write and direct the sequel."

If there's newer information saying Stiller is directing, ADD IT and CITE IT. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, here's one: http://deadline.com/2015/04/fred-armisen-billy-zane-zoolander-2-sophie-shooting-the-warwicks-1201412946/. Adding it now. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Name?
This page is titled Zoolander No.2 however this seems to be based almost exclusively on the poster. The Internet Movie Database lists it as "Zoolander 2" and when Paramount themselves released the trailer it was listed as "Zoolander 2" Furthermore a google search for "Zoolander No 2" leads to most sites referring to it as Zoolander 2. The only site I could find (other than Wikipedia) using that name was a site called "Imp Awards" that was a link to the poster. Being that the trailers refer to the movie as "2oolander" I think that calling it "No 2" on the poster may also be a name gag.

What do you think. Should we move it? --Deathawk (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The trailer is a little older than the poster, isn't it? And IMDb may not be caught up yet. I don't think it is just a name gag on the poster because it has a billing block, which according to this is "the product of detailed legal agreements and intense contract negotiation". The block for this film here shows the official title being Zoolander No. 2. I would say to leave it as it is until we see newer evidence to the contrary. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , see above. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 04:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , see above. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I made the initial move because of the billing block. That should be the basis for the title of the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2016

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved to enact the clear consensus from the RM discussion below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Zoolander No. 2 → Zoolander 2 – According to every TV spot the official title is "Zoolander 2". "Zoolander No. 2" appears to just be apart of a running marketing joke. Koala15 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Every report I see has "Zoolander 2", the "no." only appears on the poster. I would compare this to how the film Seven was promoted (where the "v" was replaced with a "7" in the poster, but never in any official or third-party source). --M ASEM (t) 20:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The billing block writes "Zoolander No. 2". For the "Seven" example, this shows "Se7en" as the fancy title, but the billing block shows "Seven". When I Google for this title specifically, I see some results. It may be a case of people finding it easier to write "Zoolander 2". The question is if we should do it too. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now since it seems like the official title is "Zoolander No. 2" due to that being written in the billing block, not just as a fancy alternative way to write the film title. Would rather see more evidence one way or another. WP:COMMONNAME does say, "...inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." It may be that sources find it easier to write "Zoolander 2". Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support since this is the on-screen title. As confirmed below, the film shows its title as Zoolander 2. So I guess the billing-block argument for Zoolander No. 2 does not hold water., do you find this enough as well? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now as per Erik above Support, looks like the situation has changed and become more clear. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 00:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The promo title is the official release title —  Film Fan  19:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Every result I'm finding it states "Zoolander 2" .... The Facebook & Twitter pages are titled "Zoolander 2" ... even the Trailer (released by Paramount Pictures) is titled Zoolander 2 ... So personally I'd say "No. 2" is simply a marketing joke.... – Davey 2010 Talk 16:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can say for sure. Going to the official website, the web page's title says "Zoolander 2", but the page's heading says "2oolander", yet the release-date pages all say "Zoolander No. 2". I think the billing block is the most genuinely official display of the title. Is there not a way to look up the copyright registration for this film?, can this be done for a film not released yet? I recall that you've looked it up for older films to confirm their titles. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The US Copyright Office doesn't have records for anything "Zoolander" later than 2013. That doesn't mean it's no registered, just might not yet be in the digital search area. --M ASEM (t) 18:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * New to Wikipedia so sorry if I'm not doing proper formatting in the talk page, but official billing is "Zoolander No.2" with no spaces in No.2 in the billing. Billing is always the real title. Zoolander 2 is used for explanatory marketing. This happened when the movie X2 was promoted as X2: X-Men United because marketers were presumably concerned that X2 didn't explain the movie had X-Men. Wikipedia rightfully has the movie as X2. Also an official press release from Paramount about the movie's tie-in with Fiat calls the movie "Zoolander No. 2" ( albeit with a space): http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/derek-zoolander-is-face-of-new-fiat-500x-advertising-campaign-in-partnership-with-fiat-brand-and-paramount-pictures-upcoming-film-zoolander-no-2-300202009.html "Zoolander 2" and "2oolander" are unofficial marketing titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoozoofoofoo (talk • contribs) 23:57, January 24, 2016‎
 * Wow, I did not even notice that there was no space between "No." and "2" in the billing. I am not sure if any secondary sources are even writing it without the space. Does that mean we need to move to Zoolander No.2 for the sake of fidelity? While I highlighted one part of WP:COMMONNAME above, another part says, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." I guess the other statement about "inaccurate" titles may be stricter? It is not like only the secondary sources are using "Zoolander 2"; the official website does it too. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The vast majority of reliable, independent sources, even those cited in the article, are calling the movie "Zoolander 2", so we should follow suite.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per reasoning by Koala15. Every TV spot and trailer calls it "Zoolander 2", with the name being pronounced that way, as well. None have called it "Zoolander No. 2". Even Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic call it that. Aria1561 (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are not reliable sources when it comes to titles, since they mostly just copy IMDb, which is anything but a reliable source. —  Film Fan  22:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Question: What title was shown in the film itself? Does the credits show anything official as well? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The title sequence of the film shows Zoolander 2. Sock   ( tock talk)  14:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, as the film itself has the title card of Zoolander 2 (I saw it last night). Sock   ( tock talk)  14:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as the official title of the film. I also just saw this in theaters and only "Zoolander 2" is used in the film itself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:14, 14 February 2016 (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.