Jump to content

Talk:Expend4bles

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

Requesting move to mainspace

[edit]

I have started a request for this article to be moved to the mainspace, as principle photography has been confirmed to have commenced by the film's actors.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - The requested move is posted on the Technical requests.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 May 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Nominator blocked for socking (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Expendables 4 → Expend4bles – The title of this film was announced at Cinema Con 2022 to be Expend4bles with a 4 instead of an A, not The Expendables 4, both on the posters and trailer: BarrySteakfries (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE: "Both posters and the trailer" means it's marketing and stylization, as already noted in the article. Not the actual title. If it was announced as the title, the Universal representative who presented the trailer would have stated so. "Looks like" is not "is" and on that same source you don't even get the attribution correct, linking one website to a different one. Scream 4 is not at Scre4m, and Fantastic Four (2015 film) is not at FANT4STIC or Fant4stic (2015 film). CreecregofLife (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I checked both now-bolded articles: IGN just goes by the poster (again, marketing stylization) and CinemaBlend doesn't even have that. Nothing official about it to say the stylization is the actual title. CreecregofLife (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

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) 04:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do upcoming movies really need a live article?

[edit]

Especially culturally unimportant ones like The Expendables 4? It just doesn't seem very encyclopedic. 192.95.206.244 (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

I am WP:BOLDly moving this page to Expend4bles, in spite of the previous RM, for the following reasons. Today's poster and trailer both use Expend4bles, as does the official press release from Lionsgate and official social media channels. However, the official website uses both The Expendables 4 and Expendables 4, and we do not have a complete billing block, so we must look to third-party sources to break the tie. The vast majority of sources acknowledge Expend4bles as the new title for the film, including Variety, Deadline, Collider, Empire, Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone, People and /Film. THR, TheWrap, and Total Film are the only outliers. Of course, if a billing block in the future uses The Expendables 4 or Expendables 4, this move should be promptly reversed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are major issues with using this title. We don't usually use the stylized names of media for the article (i.e.: see Fantastic 4 for example). I would suggest we move it back to The Expendables 4 given the fact that it is the official title.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, it is pretty clear to me that this is just stylization. The website is the biggest giveaway for me, as frankly most news sites simple copy press releases (and Wikipedia). In interviews, all actors involved speak of it as “The Expendables 4” as well. Although I will grant Lionsgate that they are standing by their hashtag as far as marketing goes. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per the evidence I presented above, evidence points to this being the actual title rather than a mere stylization. In the absence of a proper billing block, press releases are the closest thing we have to the actual credits. We have no evidence that The Expendables 4 is the "official title", only that it was the original title when the film was first announced. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, can someone re-upload the poster with the proper (standard) dimensions? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the official website only uses “Expend4bles“ as a hashtag and on posters and such, but never in text, where it is always “The Expendables 4“, which is weird if it is the official title. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the press release, as well as the sources I provided above, all of which say Expend4bles is the actual, correct, new title. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At long last, Lionsgate has published the film's full billing block (see the bottom of the official website. It uses "Expend4bles", not "Expendables 4". That means that is the actual title and not merely a stylization, unlike FANT4STIC. That settles it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. I've requested a revert at WP:RMT. See WP:PCM; you should know better. 162 etc. (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you talking about? This title has been stable for nearly four months, please read the second bullet point at the top of WP:RM. Your RM/T request will should be denied. Also, a previous RM does not mean a page cannot be BOLDly moved afterward — a lot changed since the previous RM, whose outcome I would have agreed with at the time. Please provide a reasoning for opposing the current title other than absolutely not. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PCM: "A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:
* there has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
* someone could reasonably disagree with the move."
Both of these criteria apply here, and therefore the discussion process (ie. WP:RSPM) must be used. To suggest that this move is uncontroversial and can be done boldly, when the previous RM is right there, is bordering on bad faith. 162 etc. (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@InfiniteNexus: You should have self-reverted this back on June 8 when two editors objected, given that neither of them had the necessary permissions to revert your WP:ROUNDROBIN swap. See WP:PMR#Conduct expectations (Editors without the [page mover] right are ... unable to revert ... "round-robin" moves. Therefore, unilateral decisions should be avoided, and moves should be reverted upon request if they prove to be controversial.). And four months isn't normally too long to revert an undiscussed move (especially when the move was promptly contested on the talk page even though not reverted). See WP:SVTRT, which is the closest there is to guidance on the meaning of a "stable for a long time". (The actual policy corresponding with WP:RMUM is WP:TITLECHANGE.) SilverLocust 💬 03:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But please do open an RM now if you like. I doubt it would succeed because of MOS:TM, given that several references use "Expendables 4" (which "most closely resembles standard English"). SilverLocust 💬 03:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two editors who objected to the bold move back in June were within their rights to request for a revert at RM/T, per WP:BOLDMOVE, and yet they didn't. Nor was I asked to self-revert, which I would have of course complied. They also did not respond when I addressed their objections by pointing to both official and third-party sources. This led me to believe that the two editors had no intention of challenging the move further, so I left it at that. In the four months since, no other editor has objected to the title until now.
As I noted above, the situation has changed drastically since the previous RM. In fact, I agree with the outcome of that RM, because it was indeed the correct title to use at that time. However, per the sources cited above and in the article itself, the film's title has since been altered, and this is reflected in both official materials and third-party sources. But yes, I will be starting a new RM given the newfound opposition. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revisited

[edit]

The current title for this article is odd for a number of reasons. While Lionsgate has the title listed as such on the billing block, isn't it common practice to include titles in their common form when stylization/formatting is used? My argument would be that the page should be The Expendables 4 with some statement of "stylized as Expend4ables".--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the consensus in the RM below, Expend4bles is demonstrably the common name, per the overwhelmingly number of sources that use that title (and often, brutally make fun of it) and the overwhelming evidence that it is the only correct, official name. "The Expendables 4" has never been used in an official capacity and is at best a made-up name. It is not a "stylization" but rather the actual title as registered with the U.S. Copyright Office (and a dozen other places and sources, as presented in the RM below). InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph

[edit]

Per the policies and guidelines highlighted at WP:FILM1STSENTENCE, there are more noteworthy contexts to have in this film article's first sentence than the director and the writers. To identify this film as the fourth part in the series, as well as the starring actors, is far more defining of the film than naming the director and writers. It is undue weight to name them above more weighted contexts. Nobody is highlighting this as "a Waugh film" or whatever. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example -- the first sentence clearly names the starring actors and the fact that it is part of a franchise. Waugh isn't mentioned till the fourth paragraph. Per WP:DUE, it's inappropriate to prominently place Waugh above the other contexts. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 September 2023

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. After much-extended time for discussion, there is no consensus for a move at this time. This close is without prejudice to renomination should sources further develop in the future favoring such a move. BD2412 T 22:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The Expendables 4 → Expend4bles – Per the film's billing block, press release, MPAA rating certificate, and third-party sources, the official title of this film was changed by the studio from The Expendables 4 to Expen4bles in June. This is in contrast to Fantastic Four (2015 film) and Scream 4, whose logo stylizations were mere stylizations rather than official titles, per their billing blocks ([1] [2]). Expend4bles is also the COMMONNAME, widely used by high-quality sources: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. Even in news articles that do use Expendables 4 (or, rarely, The Expendables 4), Expend4bles is acknowledged as the actual title in prose: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 04:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This article should not have been moved unilaterally by Kashmiri. This RM discussion should be about moving from Expend4bles to The Expendables 4. If this was requested as a technical move by an editor not familiar with page-moving, it would have been shot down and a discussion encouraged. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This article was created as The Expendables 4 in 2021. An RM was opened in May 2022, which resulted in a "Not moved" outcome, and the article stayed put at The Expendables 4. Despite this community consensus, User:InfiniteNexus moved the article to Expend4bles a few weeks later. I stumbled across this yesterday, and asked for the reversion to the stable title at WP:RMT, which User:Kashmiri did. The current RM is the correct one. 162 etc. (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus can change. I used my judgment when the studio straight-up changed the title in June and made a BOLD move that should have been uncontroversial, and it has been stable for four months now. The previous RM is moot. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not how WP:PCM works at all. 162 etc. (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus can change does specifically call out the following: That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. Given that, anything that has gone through a previous RM should probably have a new RM opened unless the new title is completely different, like with a working title. Things do slip through, time to time, though. I've moved something that went through RM after the fact and offered a note to revert myself if someone objected. Got a note that it wasn't necessary. Things to learn for the future. -2pou (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, the circumstances are completely different than the previous RM. At the time, The Expendables 4 was the only official, correct, and common title of the film. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The close of the previous RM should be considered a procedural one. It was closed mere hours after it was opened for "Nominator blocked for socking". Nardog (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I still feel like this is stylization that they are just very thorough about. It is pretty evident, also when watching cast interviews, that they refer to it as “Expendables 4” and not “Expend-four-bles”. But I do see your point that 90% of written communication uses Expend4bles. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yeah, nobody can pronounce "Expend4bles" out loud, but that's a matter of colloquial vs. in writing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Every source and official documentation spell the film Expend4bles. This type of move should never have been done without a move discussion.Mike Allen 14:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This too is little more than a stylization. Killuminator (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the argument that they refer to it as Expendables 4 in interviews doesn't hold water, they can't pronounce "expend-four-bles". It's known as Expend4bles on IMDb, RT, most reviews I can see refer to it that way, and the poster credits do also. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as an extremely clear WP:COMMONNAME. InfiniteNexus' comparisons to Fant4stic and Scre4m are apt; this isn't stylization used purely in marketing materials as it was for those films, but the definitive (if stylized) title of the movie. No one would argue that 2 Fast 2 Furious should be moved to Too Fast Too Furious, and I don't see how this differs. Sock (tock talk) 18:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This type of stylization does not belong in the article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the title. Mike Allen 19:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless it is pronounced "Expendfourbles", it's not the actual name of the movie. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is. Please see the billing block, press release, and MPAA rating certificate I linked above. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The official name is not automatically where the article should be, but it's evident that it is both common and official name. It's a very gimmicky title for style reasons, but it's evident it's not just a fancy typography thing but the actual title and sources call it that. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (halfheartedly because I despise unilaterally-dictated moves) because while both titles are completely valid (judging from seeing both in relatively equal use in headlines), I think The Expendables 4 is more appropriate per WP:CRITERIA, that it is more recognizable and natural. The conceit of changing "A" into "4" is clever in itself, but I don't think it works as well on a global stage. The 2 Fast 2 Furious example does not work since there was no one writing Too Fast Too Furious at the time of release (June 2003). This is more comparable to Se7en which is at Seven (film) and S1M0N3 at Simone (2002 film). We do have M3GAN as it is (which I opposed), but doesn't that in itself seem to indicate Megan 3 without any context? A misreading that can imply that there was a Megan and Megan 2? How familiar should we assume that readers in ensuing decades be with the existence of the Expendables franchise that Expend4bles makes sense at face value? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's like saying readers will think Big Hero 6 (film) is the sixth Big Hero film or Ocean's 11 is the 11th Ocean's film. And as I wrote above, Fan4stic, Scre4m, Se7en, and S1m0ne are all stylizations. M3GAN and Expend4bles, on the other hand, are not. There's also COMMONNAME to consider, and redirects will help readers find this page even if they search for "Expendables 4". InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One could also call it M-three-GAN and still be technically correct. That instance is a bit of a one-off since it was a pseudo acronym/initialization (Model 3) with an actual meaning vice a replaced letter, it just happed to serve both purposes. -2pou (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These are fair counter-examples, but for titles that are not sequels, we can't strip anything away from these fundamental titles. In contrast, if a title cleverly has sequel-based information within its naming, we could either keep it that way or extract the information (and reliable sources are doing both). Furthermore, I think it's specialist knowledge to know if titles are stylizations or not. Remember that I think both titles have validity, and I recognize that either title can mention the other. I only think that The Expendables 4 (or Expendables 4, no strong feelings) is more naturally recognizable by the average reader and more appropriate for titling on Wikipedia. On one hand, someone intimately familiar with the franchise will know what Expend4bles means. On the other hand, with The Expendables 4, someone who knows nothing may think it's a standalone film, but let's be real, it's more likely indicative of a sequel. (I'm sure some readers thought Big Hero 6 was the sixth film of a series, but we can't do anything about that in the titling sense.) In between, both titles are pretty interchangeable, but I think The Expendables 4 is more typically recognizable. There's no wordplay about it, and I don't think we need wordplay if we don't have to. As a bonus, per WP:CRITERIA, it is also consistent with previous films' titles. I'm not going to be upset if this winds up at Expend4bles, just that I think that the alternative suits comprehensibility on multiple levels for the foreseeable future. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 01:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue Expend4bles is more recognizable to readers than The Expendables, because no logo or poster exists with a logo that reads The Expendables 4. Those who know nothing about the Expendables franchise could recognize "Expend4bles" as a film which they have vaguely heard of through marketing; on the other hand, if they see "The Expendables 4", they would have no idea that this is the same film they saw being marketed on a billboard or at a bus stop or whatever.
    As for CONSISTENT, I feel that is not as important a factor when it comes to determining film titles. CONSISTENT would mean we should move Jurassic World Dominion to Jurassic World: Dominion (to match Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom), Scream VI to Scream 6 (to match Scream 2, 3, and 4), Mission: Impossible III to Mission: Impossible 3 (to match Mission: Impossible 2), Alien: Covenant to Alien Covenant (to match Alien Resurrection), etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You raise a good point about Arabic numerals versus Roman numerals, but I think these are more interchangeable than an approach of putting the sequel information in the main title. As for marketing, that doesn't last forever. In any case, I did try something else -- looking at Metacritic's list of mainstream reviews, and it looks like only two out of 30 write Expendables 4 (a couple of reviews were paywalled, so I couldn't see how they titled them). This seems like a good stable set of reliable sources that embrace Expend4bles much more than the alternative, so I'll concede the matter and Support the move. Thanks for the food for thought. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One problem is that the title "Expend4bles" will cause problems for vision-impaired people who use screen readers to help out. That might cause a stir on them, which is one reason the title should be "The Expendables 4". BattleshipMan (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Erik, your rebuttal genuinely cracked me up! When you spell it out like that it really was a rubbish example, wasn't it? The fact that I kinda want to facepalm myself aside, I still stand by my overall point, but I'm also in the camp that very much agrees with the M3GAN title and several other pages that are named using a widespread stylization (like Anderson .Paak). Sock (tock talk) 02:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually started out writing my comment complimenting your example! After some thought, I went another direction. Apologies! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Is anyone able to show that "The Expendables 4" has been deprecated by reliable sources, or at least is used considerably less than the form "Expend4bles"? That would be key to determining WP:COMMONNAME. — kashmīrī TALK 20:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you click on each of the sources I cited in the nomination and do Ctrl+F for "The Expendables 4", you'll find that virtually all of them will yield zero results. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked for other sources than the ones you listed, or for source comparison data (a ngram, etc.). — kashmīrī TALK 20:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Google Books ngram viewer only has data up to 2019, so this request isn't feasible. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Failing that, move to Expendables 4 (sans "The") per MOS:TMSTYLE (and COMMONNAME comparatively). Nardog (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - I find Rreagan007's comment about pronouncing it "Expendfourbles" fairly persuasive if we want to maintain some semblance of a professional WP:TONE as an English encyclopedia vice a slang/pop encyclopedia, I'd give a bit more weight to the naturalness WP:CRITERIA of WP:AT than to WP:COMMONNAME (almost an opposite of WP:JARGON and along MOS:TMRULES). Weak, though. Concur with Nardog that Expendables 4 (sans "The") works as well. -2pou (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But this isn't jargon or slang; it's just what it's called. That it is unpronounceable is irrelevant; Wikipedia is a text-based encyclopedia. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We also try to be accessible to vision impaired people who used screen readers. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with 2pou and Geraldo on this. Using that title name isn't very good for vision impaired people. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose despite bad unilateral move, this is the pronounceable common name. The poster is a visual gimmick, see (hear) Stallone interview. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Pure stylisation. Who on earth is going to call it Expend-four-bles in speech? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a valid argument since this is all text-based. If someone ever made a spoken version of this article, I'm sure we'd all agree that the recorded speaker should say "Expendables 4". Reliable sources, particularly reviews, have written Expend4bles pretty predominantly. Not to mention there are a great deal of names that are phonetically different from how they are written, but we have no policy or guideline that prioritizes how these are said over how they're written. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The closing editor needs to be aware that there has to be consensus one way or another, since "no consensus" defaults to the current article title. However, this article was moved from Expend4bles to The Expendables 4 unilaterally, and a RM discussion was started after that. Generally, the default would be The Expendables 4. If that editor simply started a RM discussion, and no consensus resulted, Expend4bles would be the default. So the discussion should continue until a consensus emerges, and that consensus clearly explained. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The closer should consider moving this page back to Expend4bles if they find no consensus. As Erik and several others have noted, this page was moved inappropriately and unilaterally from a stable title by Kashmiri, at the misguided request of 162 etc. and with the support of SilverLocust (none of these three editors had any prior knowledge or involvement with the article). When I asked that Kashmiri revert their move, they refused, and I wasn't about to start a move-war, so here we are. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I explained above, the stable title is "The Expendables 4", as confirmed by the prior RM, and the article was moved unilaterally to "Expend4bles" without consensus. The assertion that "Expend4bles" is the stable title is false. 162 etc. (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm incline to agree with those who opposed it. For one, having "Expend4bles" will cause some issues with vision impaired people who use screen readers and that title will cause some problems for them. So it is better to have it as "The Expendables 4" for those people. Secondly, Expend4bles sounds like a gimmick and The Expendables 4 sounds more appropriate, if you ask me. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. Fifteen weeks earlier, the article was moved unilaterally and against explicit consensus (two sections earlier) from "The Expendables 4" to "Expen4bles"[28]. My subsequent restoration of the long-standing title was in response to a justified request at RM/T. Because "The Expendables 4" is undoubtedly a version that there has not been a consensus to change. — kashmīrī TALK 21:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call an RM that was open for six hours and had three participants "explicit consensus". Nardog (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Four (!) participants in merely 6 hours is not a bad result – many move discussions see fewer than that in a week. — kashmīrī TALK 18:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I believe InfiniteNexus has met the burden of proof to claim Expend4bles is the common name, and also agree that the page shouldn't have been moved without prior discussion. Moonreach (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the title is changed back, just keep also known as The Expendables 4 on it for convenience. Other than that, I don't really care about the official title name of it. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Expend4bles" is an unpronounceable stylization. The "4" is leetspeak for "a" so is basically an "a" in a different font. We are not obligated to title articles with stylizations. Write it with normal standard fonts. "Expendables 4" is better for understanding what it is and what the film is called in normal spoken English. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran a text to speech program over the current lead and it read out as "expend" "four" "blurs". Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, it's always stylized that way. Whether it's pronounced "The Expandables Four" is a whole other matter.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The tile of it should be "The Expendables 4" since it makes sense for reader and "Expend4bles" doesn't help vision impaired people who use screen readers as Geraldo stated. Also, The Expendables 4 as the title seems more appropriate than Expend4bles. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Joseph 💬 09:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Title does not help the visually-impaired users. Dibol (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed -- Expend4bles is a stylized title, so its mention as such should only be mentioned in the lead as "marketed or stylized as Expend4bles". The article itself should be The Expendables 4 to be consistent with the other films. Armegon (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if this page were to be titled The Expendables 4, the lead should **not** call "Expend4bles" a stylized title, because that is factually incorrect. Per the billing block and press materials I have presented, it is the actual, official name. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It should be noted that those !voting "oppose" based on the screen reader argument have no policy-based reason for violating WP:COMMONNAME. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But it will be problem for vision-impaired readers who use them. That should be taken under consideration. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As summarized at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility: "Wikipedia pages should be easy to navigate and read for people with disabilities." Putting unpronounceable text in an article goes against that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, we should prioritize making this article easy to find and recognize for the majority of our readers, per WP:COMMONNAME (policy). MOS:ACCESS (guideline) comes second, and there are other ways we can accommodate the visually impaired, for example using {{screen reader-only}} to "pipe" each mention of Expend4bles in the article body. "The Expendables 4" is inherently an incorrect title; claiming that this film is called anything but Expend4bles is a factual inaccuracy. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Accessibility shouldn't be an issue with such ridiculous policy. That title will cause some problems with user with vision-impairment. Tell that to those users with those problems. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The MOS is a guideline on how to do it, accessibility for all users is a very strong goal across all Wiki projects including enwiki. Policy should not be interpreted in ways that go against it. Yes there are work arounds such as {{sronly}} in appropriate places, but that is not something that works with article titles. At the very least no matter how this discussion goes we will need redirects so blind people can search for and find this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Expend4bles" is written just so the title looks cool, and can be used instead of the letter "A". Nobody pronounces the film that way. Saimcheeda (talk) 21:35, 01 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody pronounces the film as Expend4bles, and nobody writes the film as The Expendables 4. Now, do the majority of readers consume Wikipedia by reading or listening to text? InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Who says nobody writes it as Expendables 4? I just searched it on Google and the first page has articles from websites like Koi Moi, MovieWeb, Variety, Deadline, The Direct, The Economic, USA Today, Yahoo, all writing it as such. So that claim that nobody writes it as Expendables 4 is incorrect.
    I also agree with the users below. There's no need to badger anyone for their opinion with sarcastic/rhetorical remarks. I believe it should called one thing and you another. I came here to give my vote, not to argue about it. Saimcheeda (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, InfiniteNexus. Your claim that nobody writes it as Expendables 4 is discredited. The way you badger those who oppose to it has been hostile and disruptive, demeaning their views, acting like you are dominating this talk page about your views and only caring about certain policies when something like this shouldn't cause issues with vision impaired users. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It has never been the intention of my comments to be hostile or disruptive to users, but rather to provide counterarguments and encourage discussion; but if anyone felt that way, I do apologize. With that being said, it has not been "discredited" that no sources use "The Expendables 4" — no one has presented a list of linked sources as evidence, and Saimcheeda's unkinked list above is inconsistent with my observations as detailed in the nomination. Lastly, regarding accessibility, I have already stated how visually impaired readers will be still be able to easily find this page through Google Search and redirects, and have also suggested using templates to remedy the issue with screen readers. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: May I request @InfiniteNexus to stop badgering Oppose votes? It's disruptive and doesn't help in consensus building. Thanks. — kashmīrī TALK 12:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is exactly what you're doing, InfiniteNexus. You're been hostel and disruptive towards those who did their oppose votes and you have to stop that. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't fan the flames. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a conscious effort not to reply to every single oppose !vote, only the ones with arguments I find the most problematic. Making rebuttals isn't disruptive or detrimental to consensus-building; it's a normal part of the discussion process which allows both sides to adequately express their viewpoints. I encourage those whose comments I have refuted to respond so we can have a productive discussion (versus simply repeating the same points already stated and rejected above). InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: nobody calls it "Expend-four-bles", just like nobody called it "Fant-four-stic". Sceptre (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don’t really know how this works, just hit Reply, but I just wanted to share my experience. Never heard of this pic before me mate mentioned it today. I looked it up searching “Expendables 4” because that’s what he said. Don’t know what it should be, but some claims of facts about what’s easy to find seem to project upon my own actual experience. Thanks for that! Cheers! 2600:1012:B1A2:3F84:8F:D482:4C14:4D25 (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another thing I hadn't previously considered: Google Search, IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and Box Office Mojo all use Expend4bles. While Wikipedia doesn't necessarily need to be consistent with these sites, it is generally a good idea to do so. Also worth noting is that if one searches for "Expendables 4" on Google Search or Wikipedia, they will still surface the correct pages. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The movie’s name is Expend4bles. We don’t call Star Wars Phantom Menace “Star Wars 1”. Give the reader more credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TropicAxe (talk • contribs) 21:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's clearly a stylization—blindlynx 13:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It should be noted that there is no policy or guideline that supports that the article title has to be pronounceable or that stylization is completely and always inappropriate. We have articles like Deadmau5. In addition to not citing any policy or guideline, opposing editors are ignoring how reliable sources are writing the film's title. As I mentioned above, I looked at Metacritic's 30-something reviews and only saw two using "Expendables 4" while the rest used "Expend4bles". Attention should be paid to the real world and how reliable sources are writing the title. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:TMRULES says those things—blindlynx 14:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Erik: There is a problem with using "Expend4bles", Erik. It is causing problems for those who have vision impairment while using screen readers. That is an issue and you know that. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that you claim this but do not see any evidence to back this. Even the high-quality reliable source The New York Times writes Expend4bles here, along with dozens of other reviews from publications of similar repute. If their house MOS is fine with it, it does not appear significant. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) And it has already been addressed and refuted multiple times, and yet none of the opposers (including you) has offered a counterargument. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just reread MOS:TMRULES and found nothing that says that. The bullet points are:
    • Capitalize them.
    • Don't use made-up plural forms.
    • Don't use all-caps.
    • Use all caps for initialisms.
    • Don't use ™ or ®.
    • Don't use special characters.
    • The use of CamelCase is left to editors' discretion.
    • Don't correct spelling and grammar.
    • Don't capitalize "the".
    I also found a sentence that perhaps no one had noticed before: When a name is almost never written except in a particular stylized form, use that form on Wikipedia: Deadmau5, 3M, 2 Fast 2 Furious. If that sounds familiar, it's because that's what we're dealing with with Expend4bles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the "almost never" exception is applicable in this case as there are many cases cited where it is spelled Expendables 4. The glyph "4" is effectively a font replacement for the letter "a" and special fonts are special characters we are told not to use. If the numeral "4" were just a replacement for the word "four" it would be permitted. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, can your or any of the opposers provide linked evidence showing that many sources use "The Expendables 4" and not "Expend4bles"? Furthermore, MOS:TMRULES doesn't make a distinction between how numbers are pronounced, contrary to what some have claimed. For example, Deadmau5 is pronounced "dead-mouse" and M3GAN is pronounced "Megan". InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated at M3GAN move discussion that is an acronym used by the character as justification for that contested move and how that acronym is pronounced in the story. Se7en is at Seven (1995 film) as a stylization. Deadmou5 is at that location as that is basically the only way that proper professional name of a real person is spelled as noted in TMRULES and listed as a rare exception because of that. Also we give a lot more weight to self identity of real people as not honoring that could be considered offensive to them. This is a movie title with a stylizing quirk replacing an A with a similar looking 4. It is not the only way it is spelled in reliable sources to justify using that stylization as the article title. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated above, Expend4bles is not a stylization in the sense that the official, trademarked name differs from the logo being used in marketing materials, unlike Se7en and Fant4stic and Scre4m. Here is the MPAA's rating certificate database; you can perform the searches yourself to see the difference. Secondly, I'll repeat my request for the opposers to provide a list with links to articles that widely use "The Expendables 4" and not "Expend4bles". Otherwise, the claim is unsubstantiated. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per TMRULES we are not obligated to use the official styling of a trademark. As for a list of links, check the list of references in this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with Geraldo. This kind of policy shouldn't be obligated when it comes for correct title names, including for people who have vision impairment. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources in the article that use "The Expendables 4" were published before "Expend4bles" became the official title. After the name change, sources widely stopped using "The Expendables 4" and switched to "Expend4bles". See WP:NAMECHANGES. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:COMMONNAME also says "In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article". "Expend4ble" isn't a natural-language word. "Expendables 4" is a natural-language expression that accurately indicates the subject of the article. In the reference list there are sources that use "Expandables 4" after the release of the film. They may not be the majority of current sources but they are not uncommon and it is clear that "Expendables 4" means this topic. It seems to be a manual of style issue for publications, some going with the official spelling, others writing it as how it is pronounced. This discussion here is appropriate to hash out how it should be titled on enwiki. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Natural language" in this context means language that is not constructed, artificial, machine, or formal. See [29]. Expend4bles is in English, a natural language. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Expend4bles" is not an English word, it is a constructed word that has the meaning and the spoken form "Expandables 4". Not obvious to those not familiar with 1337 speak. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a linguist, but nowhere on the article constructed language does it suggest that words like "Expend4bles" are considered constructed. It seems to be a term referring to entire languages (not just single words) created artifically for a special purpose, as an experiment, or for a fictional alien/fantasy world. What I'm trying to get here is that there is no COMMONNAME violation; in fact, this follows exactly what COMMONNAME says: Wikipedia [...] generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). Not "the name most people pronounce when speaking aloud". InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is basically part of 1337 speak which I consider a constructed language. Shouldn't be used when there is an English language translation available we could use for the title. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose / wait and see. It does seem like most sources are using “Expend4bles”. However, I wonder how many of these sources are truly independent. We are still in the heavy-marketing phase of this movie. Critics are often beholden to the studios for access, strongly incentivising them to parrot what they read in the press kit. I don’t think we necessarily need to play the marketing department’s game here. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It’s not a mere stylization or marketing tact. It’s what they called the movie. Like ID4 did with “Independence Day” TropicAxe (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

@BD2412: Thank you for closing this discussion. As you read above, it has been suggested that should the closer find no consensus, this page should be moved back to Expend4bles due to the inappropriateness of Kashmiri and 162 etc.'s move. The previous RM was closed procedurally after six hours and three !votes, and occurred under completely different circumstances — before Expend4bles even became the official title. Furthermore, the title had already been stable for four months, thus falling under the second bullet point of WP:RM. Do you agree with this assessment? InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@InfiniteNexus: My reading of the history of the article is that it was originally moved to mainspace as The Expendables 4, and was thereafter moved back and forth without discussion several times. The previous WP:RM discussion higher up on this page resulted in a clear absence of consensus for this move, so there can not have been a legitimate move to the Expend4bles title thereafter without discussion and formation of a new consensus. BD2412 T 01:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not only did the previous RM become moot (as in, the arguments put forth in that discussion are no longer true), but the new title also had WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS as it was not moved back for four months. Furthermore, as I noted above, the previous RM was closed procedurally. Its close therefore holds no weight, and the outcome should be disregarded. What matters is that per point two of WP:RM, this page should not have been moved unilaterally from a stable title. That is a position supported by several !voters above. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not policy on the matter. Per WP:BOLDMOVE, "Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply: ... There has been no discussion (especially no recent discussion) about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move". BD2412 T 03:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: WP:BOLDMOVE exists on the same page as WP:RM, so I am not sure why the latter would be disregarded as "not policy" while the former would be taken as gospel. As you noted, Wikipedia:Requested moves is neither a policy nor a guideline, which means it carries no weight. On the other hand, WP:BOLD is a guideline, WP:CCC is a policy, and WP:IAR is a policy. As I have explained, the page was boldly moved because the rationale of the previous RM no longer applied, and the fact was that the film had been literally renamed. The page then remained at its stable title for four months before it was unilaterally reverted.
While we are on the topic of the weight of PAGs, I would like to formally ask you to reconsider your close. As noted by multiple users in the discussion, the opposers to the RM did not cite a single policy to justify using an incorrect title (I will once again stress that this title is factually incorrect), only citing the guideline MOS:ACCESS, which does not even directly support their argument that article titles must somehow be pronounceable. On the other hand, supporters have cited the policy WP:COMMONNAME (use the name most commonly used in reliable sources), the guideline MOS:TMRULES (the use of "stylizations" is permitted if they are used near-universally by sources), the policy WP:CRITERIA (use the name that is most recognizable to readers), and the policy WP:NAMECHANGES (we can use a subject's new name if sources also follow suit). Precedent also supports the use of "stylized" names so long as they are legitimate, official, and commonly used, for example M3GAN, Deadmau5, and 2 Fast 2 Furious. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of the countervailing policy considerations. If I were naming this article, I would name it Expend4bles. However, my role in this process is merely to evaluate whether there is consensus for a move (there is not), and barring that, what constitutes the closest thing to a consensus-based status quo ante. Neither of the possible titles is impermissible, and except for one 24-hour back-and-forth, the article was titled The Expendables 4 for over a year and a half (including a failed RM proposal). I can see no way to deem Expend4bles as a stable title in light of the substantially more stable preceding title. BD2412 T 00:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Expend4bles was the title from June 2023 to September 2023. An editor unilaterally moved the article from Expend4bles to The Expendables 4, and it couldn't be moved back easily (not everyone knows how to do that convoluted round-robin approach), and the RM discussion started from there to put it back. Like I mentioned in the discussion, if there is no consensus, it should default to what has been stable for a while, which was Expend4bles for a few months until that editor made their unilateral move. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: Please confirm that you understand that this article was actually titled Expend4bles for the last three months (June through September). If your close was based on the assumption that this article was only The Expendables 4 the whole time, the close should be reevaluated. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I have noted, the article was titled "The Expendables 4" for a substantially longer period of time, and based on the previous title dispute should not have been renamed from that title without discussion and consensus. I have sought an independent review of this determination from an appropriate noticeboard. BD2412 T 15:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have formally challenged the move at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 October#The Expendables 4. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You said, "Neither of the possible titles is impermissible, and except for one 24-hour back-and-forth, the article was titled The Expendables 4 for over a year and a half (including a failed RM proposal)." You seem to be avoiding admitting your mistake in this claim, that Expend4bles was only used during a 24-hour back-and-forth and not beyond that. Now you're shifting the goalposts to claim about a general balance of time the titles were used, ignoring any other factors. Come on now. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mistake not being admitted was the move made in June without pursuing a consensus-seeking process, despite the previous controversy. Was this done because consensus was expected to be against the move? BD2412 T 19:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was the opposite. I assumed the move would be uncontroversial and straightforward, just as how literally every other film article is moved without discussion whenever it receives a new title. As I have reiterated several times, the previous RM is irrelevant — in fact, I endorse that discussion's outcome and would have !voted "oppose" at the time. It is puzzling that some people are objecting to this move because of ... screen reader concerns? So we should cater to a small subset of readers (and I mean no offense to the visually impaired, but the fact is that this concern does not apply to most of our readers) rather than benefit the majority of readers by using the most logical and commonly recognizable name? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have reiterated something several times, whether your opinion is in the minority or majority, that still suggests that something is no longer uncontroversial because others have offered a dissenting opinion. Whether something was a procedural close or not, there were still dissenting opinions back then as well before the procedural close. Even if everyone opposed is wrong and you are right, the existence of opposition itself is the very definition of controversial. A good faith move for sure, just not uncontroversial. In my personal opinion, even new information or developments would make it difficult for me to say it eliminates all WP:PCM points in this particular case, but that is again my own approach. A difficult close as well no matter the outcome, and kudos for stepping up to do so, even if sent to MR. Even an endorse or overturn determination looks to be a difficult close, and kudos to whomever tries to take that on as well. Even if overturned, remember that is the result of a community decision, and not a personal one. -2pou (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, stop evading, and own up to your mistake of not understanding what article titles existed and when. You can discuss the June move in a separate sub-thread. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The proper place to discuss the closer's actions is at the move review cited above. Continuing this discussion here serves no purpose. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik: If you look a few sections up the page, there is a previous move discussion on this subject which dictates the existence of a controversy with respect to any further moves. That aside, I have explained myself thoroughly. I am not "evading" anything, so please cease this ill-thought line of attack. BD2412 T 18:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it only me who feels that this whole discussion serves no purpose? I'm tempted to collapse it. — kashmīrī TALK 18:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I gather, it's just two people dragging this out because they can't take no for an answer. Saimcheeda (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead sentence

[edit]

The current formatting of the lead sentence does not comply with the Manual of Style. The first sentence should begin: "The Expendables 4 (stylized as Expend4bles)...". MOS:TMSTYLE clearly says: "it is conventional to give the normal English spelling in the lead section, followed by a note, such as "(stylized as ...)" (or "(stylised as ...)" depending on the article's variety of English), with the stylized version (which may include simple stylization, like capitalization changes, decorative characters, or superscripting, but not colorization, attempts to emulate font choices, or other elaborate effects),[c] then resume using an alternative that follows the usual rules of spelling and punctuation, for the remainder of the article. In other articles that mention the subject, use only the normal English spelling, not the stylization." Rreagan007 (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a stylization, it is the official name and thus complies with our lead guidelines:
  • MOS:FIRST: When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including plural forms (particularly if they are unusual or confusing) or synonyms.
  • MOS:FILMLEAD: the opening sentence should identify the film title
  • WP:OFFICIALNAME: Where an undisputed official name exists: It should always be provided early in an article's introduction, bolded at its first mention and, where appropriate, italicized.
It is not uncommon for film titles to do this if the article title is different than the official title, for example Frozen II (which uses the stylized title) and Rogue One (which uses a softened version of the title). To be clear, there is zero doubt that this is the official name, regardless of whether the article itself is titled Expend4bles or The Expendables 4. This is a different scenario than Scream 4 and Fantastic Four (2015 film), whose stylized titles are pure stylizations for marketing purposes. InfiniteNexus (talk)
If the "4" is meant to be read and pronounced as an "A" then it is most definitely a stylization. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of titles of works, "stylization" means a title that was altered specifically in promotional materials. In other words, the work is actually titled ABC, but on the poster/cover/art it is rendered as ABC. Think of it as a d/b/a, but for creative works rather than organizations. For films, we can usually determine the official title by looking at the billing block. In this case, the official title of the work is really ABC, not ABC. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how I would define a "stylization" and that doesn't seem to be how our guidelines view something as a stylization. Even if "Expend4bles" is the official title, it is still a stylization. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase The Expendables 4, stylized as Expend4bles is factually inaccurate, because it implies The Expendables 4 is the title of the film when in fact it is not. Expend4bles, also known as The Expendables 4 is factually accurate, because a small number of third-party sources do use The Expendables 4 as an alternative title. Furthermore, "stylization" usually refers to special characters used in place of a letter, for example "Я" instead of "R" in Toys "R" Us, "★" instead of an apostrophe in Macy's, and "𝕏" instead of "X" in the platform formerly known as Twitter. An "unstylized" version of Expend4bles would therefore technically be Expendables, not The Expendables 4, and obviously that wouldn't work for the lead. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t get it? Wasn’t there more votes for the change? What am I missing, brahs? TropicAxe (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What vote? If you are talking about the RM, that was about where the article should be titled, which is independent of the article's body and lead. And secondly, Wikipedia is not a democracy, so the majority rule doesn't matter. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there was clearly more support for the change. Seemed like a nobrainer to me. I don’t understand the controversy here.TropicAxe (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What support? Where? This is the only discussion about the lead. The previous RM was about the article title, not the lead; WP:AT and MOS:LEAD are two separate matters. Also, even if there were "more support", that would be irrelevant because Wikipedia is not a democracy. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expend4bles (2023) only made $35M according to Box Office Mojo

[edit]

The numbers in the infobox are wrong and are linking to the first movie. According to the correct listed movie, the numbers are as follows:

All Releases

DOMESTIC (47.2%)

$16,710,153

INTERNATIONAL (52.8%)

$18,656,161

WORLDWIDE

$35,366,314

I hope we can update to this. - 2A01:799:1B9B:C300:B997:D7D7:5112:F8F2 (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old stats, don't include China which accounts for most of international revenue (over $21m).[30] — kashmīrī TALK 00:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look, the IP said "Expend4bles" rather than "The Expendables 4" ... because it's the literal title ... InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Expendable 4 - Sly’s stunt double

[edit]

Sly’s stunt double is - Jonathan Cohen. Is it possible to add this info? You can see photos on his instagram @Johnnyworeblack. Don’t understand why there is no credit?! 2A00:23C7:60E5:701:7C58:F18D:8830:7880 (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 January 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. As background, past discussion ended in no consensus, "without prejudice to renomination should sources further develop in the future favoring such a move", following debate about stylization and how often the name is written as Expend4bles. Now, editors in this RM, taking into consideration significant additional coverage since the last RM, had sufficient basis in evidence and policy to form a consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Expendables 4 → Expend4bles – Months later, in the wake of the Razzie nominations, it's been most regularly referred to as Expend4bles by multiple sources: Variety, Entertainment Weekly, Deadline Hollywood, The Hollywood Reporter, and the Razzies themselves (among others). I think this further solidifies that it's within WP:COMMONNAME. IAmNMFlores (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Billing Block

[edit]

I would like to gain a consensus to move Sylvester Stallone to the bottom of the billing block in the infobox. There are two MAJOR reasons as to why.

1. Stallone's limited screen time. He's only there for the first 5 minutes and the last 5 minutes.

2. He is listed last on every other piece of marketing as well as the film itself.

With these reasons, there is absolutely ZERO reason as to why he should be listed second and not last in the billing block. Loservilleas (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been informed on multiple occasions that the infobox guidelines state that we should use the poster billing if available [31],[32],[33]. You have also been warned against attempting to circumvent this via talk page discussion [34].
Should you wish to have a discussion on changing those guidelines, the correct place to do it is at the infobox talk page.
"He is listed last on every other piece of marketing"
Incorrect. For example, he is listed second in the press release for the home video launch. Barry Wom (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stallone's limited screentime despite his prominent billing is something that has been widely criticized, as noted in the article. This is itself is an important reason to retain the official billing. We still haven't changed the order on Superman (1978 film) after 50 years, and we never will. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Expend4bles&oldid=1219956748"