Talk:Black Panther (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Draft for Black Panther (film)

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Black Panther at Draft:Black Panther (film) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, god, wow. I put together these print-only references ages ago: edit. Hope the content finally comes home to roost. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

So that was you, good job! Hope so too, Fiege said he planned to release the film sometime in Phase 3. I really like this new namespace BTW.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just poking around this newfangled "Draft" space. Looks like a simpler system! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for those initial edits Erik! Triiiple and I have already started clean up with the Doctor Strange draft, but got a little scared due to the "ancient" nature of the source. And I do like this new namespace as well. It takes away the issue we had with the Ant-Man page in the incubator. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Refs

Not the best option, but here we go: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• [1]: http://www.timburtoncollective.com/articles/misc6.html
• [2]: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/doc/294691594.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Aug+30%2C+1992&author=Carr%2C+Jay&pub=Boston+Globe+%28pre-1997+Fulltext%29&edition=&startpage=&desc=Tolkin+to+sit+in+director%27s+chair (if any nice wikipedia out there as a Boston Globe subscription....)

Logo

Here is the official logo for the film, if someone could edit it in

http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Black-Panther-Official-Movie-Logo.jpg

Images are not allowed outside the main space. Will add once it is moved to the main space. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Dab question

Should this be "Black Panther (2017 film)"? Given the existence of The Black Panther (1977 film) and The Black Panther (1921 film). Just wanted to double-check that the "The" is enough of a dab -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there was a similar situation at The Wolverine (film) and it was determined that "The" was a sufficient disambiguation.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see comments under the Requested Move section in that talk page about "The" being an insufficient dab, hence the addition of "(film)" to that article's title. Was there further discussion about it anywhere? I just want to make sure we have this right before we start using the redirect all around Wiki, and I seem to recall that precise dab was preferred if there was no primary topic. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

People may not know the difference so having the year before film is probably a good thing. Its not like it would be too much extra work would it. It would just ensure that people got to the page that they wanted to get to.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 23:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fandraltastic: Maybe it was the other way around :) TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Haha. So, do you think it should be changed? -Fandraltastic (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Well if I were looking for the 1977 film, I might omit the "The" but if were looking for the 2014 film, I wouldn't necessarily add a "The". So I'm comfortable with current disambiguation but I can see how others might not be.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

So we're going with:

• The Black Panther (1977 film)
• The Black Panther (1921 film)
• Black Panther (film)

Since the other two have dates on them, and this one does not have "The" at the start it should be clear for everyone to see which film is which? Are we sure there are no other Black Panther films?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 12:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I see this as similar to the Doctor Strange draft article and the Dr. Strange (film) article. If anything, we could add a note at the beginning of the article similar to what's on the Doctor Strange draft. Richiekim (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, a hatnote at the top of this article should suffice.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with the hatnote addition. Like Richie said, it is similar to the Doc Strange situation. "Doctor" and "Dr." are enough disambig for it, but the hatnote is a nice curtesy for readers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem with references

I've noticed that a lot of references being used are very old and don't have a website link to verify its authenticity. I'm thinking this is going to be problematic once this article is moved to the mainspace, and that efforts should be made to find actual working links to these sources. Richiekim (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree. As you may be able to tell from the first talk page post, Triiiple and I attempted to do a clean up/clean through back when we moved to draft space. We put our initial efforts over at Dr. Strange, and got that taken care of (it was in similar shape) and just failed to continue here. As we have realistically about 2 years, we have time, but yes, I agree we should address this possibly once the info swell has died down. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a problem, its just that many of the sources are WP:OFFLINE, which is perfectly acceptable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Ava DuVernay says no to Black Panther

Here is the article. I don't have time, but someone can add it. DinoSlider (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dino. Added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Martin Freeman

We have this over at the Civil War page—Feige added that Freeman's character would appear briefly in the film, with the intent to expand on it in future films—and now Empire is saying "A stalwart in the Marvel comic books, Everett Ross is traditionally the US government’s man in Wakanda. It’s a role that obviously brings Freeman into Black Panther’s (Chadwick Boseman) world and makes Freeman a safe bet to be get a broader role in the standalone Black Panther movie." Is there anything there for us to use here, or is it still too early? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Still too early. Although it seems likely, we need explicit verification.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Too early, though a very, very likely possibility. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Michael B. Jordon confirms Lupeta's involvement in film.

Here's the source Npamusic (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

If other editors feel it's enough confirmation, I'll accept it, but it seems rather off the cuff to me. Not too much detail to it. Rusted AutoParts 01:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be okay. Others can weigh in because I can see it going either way. Would value TriiipleThreat's opinion on this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with RAP, there is too much that has to be inferred here. We should wait for explicit confirmation. If true, then sooner or later we'll have a source that leaves no room for interpretation.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I've already added it to "Pre-production". Anyone may remove if necessary. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Lupita Nyong'o is Naika

Confirmed at SDCC. Need a source obviously, but she's confirmed in it.

FYI, heres a live tweet thread. https://mobile.twitter.com/AgentM Rusted AutoParts 00:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Michael B. Jordan as Erik Kilmonger and Danai Gurira as Okoye. Rusted AutoParts 01:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

source to use -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft?

Is there a reason this should still be considered a draft article? I don't see anything wrong with the article existing in the main space, given it has a lot of reliable referencing, discussion among many sources, and presents factual information about the film. I understand the movie does not come out for a while, but there's a lot of material already, so it would be fine to publish it as far as I can see. I'm not involved with editing this article, I just thought it was strange. Calibrador (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Because it hasn't yet started filming, per WP:NFF! Kailash29792 (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Filming date

Just a heads up that On Location Vacations is reporting that filming is set to begin on January 15. - Richiekim (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Move to mainspace checklist

Wow. Can you all believe it? The beginning of our eventful year of MCU related editing is upon us! We are a week out of the supposed date that filming starts (January 15th), and I think if it comes around without some sort of "official" confirmation, we can still make the move, since the article is more than ready per WP:GNG, and we'd be getting a source any day then for the start of filming. As always, here's the checklist I've made of all the things that need to happen once the draft is in the mainspace, and to do that.

1. Move to the mainspace! This can happen in two ways: contact an admin to perform the move (which requires the deletion of [the article] in the mainspace). User:Czar has been helpful in the past to moving the draft. OR place {{db-move|1=[draft page]|2=Filming has begun on the film, allowing it to enter the mainspace per [[WP:NFF]].}} at [article]. DO NOT CUT AND PASTE!  Done
   1. I might be able to actually move this and future drafts as I now have Page mover user rights. Though I haven't done any move yet granted per those rights, so I don't want to mess it up. But I'd be happy to try. (But the options above are also acceptable).
   2. If the moving admin does not do this, be sure to remove {{Draft article}} and unhide the categories.  Done
2. Change the template at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films section from {{further}} to {{main}} and update the overview template on the List of films article to state this is filming. Also link to the film at Black Panther (comics)#Live-action.  Done
3. Upload the film logo (which you can grab from here) to File:Black Panther film logo.jpg.  Done
4. Add the article link to all the nav boxes used in the article.  Done
5. If Marvel provides us with a press release indicating filming starting, add any info from that to our respective pages (castings mainly).  Done

I think that's it. Some of the other points I normally include are already taken care of. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97, TriiipleThreat, Richiekim, and Kailash29792: Anyone opposed to the move tomorrow with all the info we have as is? Or does anyone want us to wait until we have firm confirmation filming has begun to move? If everyone's good, I'm going to post on Czar's talk to perform the move, since, even with my user rights, I don't want to mess anything up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to just ping me here if you need a hand czar 06:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Czar. Even though filming may have started, we do not currently have a reliable source stating, so we are going to hold off until then. Weill ping you once again when we do get that source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Much to my own regret, I say we wait till there is confirmation of filming. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to make the move. We know they are filming in January, so we can't be too far off if they don't actually start tomorrow (but I think they will), and we generally don't get actual "proof" for a little while afterwards. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Kailash29792, WP:NFF states confirmation is needed. A little while longer, won't hurt.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Filming for "Black Panther" (due for release in February 2018) started in Atlanta on January 15, 2017 reads the source already added by Favre. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Okay, so filming has definitely started I believe per the following: John Kani (T'Chaka) and his son are both in the film (source). That Huffington Post source says filming started on January 15th, but that info is WP:FRUIT if you follow the chain of info back through the in article links. However, I began looking at Atandwa Kani's social media posts regarding the project. On this one, in the comments, the following exchange happens (can't directly link to comments on Instagram): "asilshairdesigns: Have you started filming yet? I know it's going to be awesome. atandwakani: @asilshairdesigns I have!! Already shot insanely amazing stuff!!" So there it is (I think). I don't know how any of this can help us sort anything in article, but I think it is at least enough to move the article to the mainspace, if everyone feels comfortable with. Or please tell me I'm just being over eager and am grasping at straws here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

This is what we usually use for the move, and I'm happy to do so. For in the article, can we just use the old January refs to say that filming started this month? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Well his account is unverified.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Is that such an issue with photos? Unverified accounts are an issue for sourcing statements because anyone could have written them, but that's not an issue when we can see the people. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

That comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek but photos can be manipulated or taken and applied out of context.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Right, well we know that they planned to start filming by now, and we can see from this and some other sources that they have started filming, we just can't use those in the articles. But we know they are filming and that is something that seems unlikely to be challenged, so I really don't see any harm in moving the article to the mainspace. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I just noticed that we started this draft three years ago today and here we are on the verge of moving it to the mainspace! Congrats to everyone for all their hard work.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to boldly ping Czar to help us perform the move. I agree with Adam that I don't think the start of filming will be challenged, and until a better source comes for an exact date, I say we just use the one we have and say "Principal photography began in January 2017..." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: We are ready for this to move to the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ done. As I said above, I think the spirit of NFF is fulfilled, and that there are plenty of sources for the general notability guideline otherwise. Any argument over NFF would be splitting hairs. Great work, all! czar 17:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Czar! One last thing, which I forgot. Can you either delete or set the expiration parameter for Template:Editnotices/Page/Black Panther (film)? It no longer needs to be visible on the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, done czar 17:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead section

It may be worthwhile to more explicitly indicate more upfront in the lead section that Boseman plays the titular character. There is a lot of information in the first paragraph to reshuffle if others agree to make this revision, so I will leave it to others. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK

If anyone is interested, or has a better hook. Template:Did you know nominations/Black Panther (film). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Martin Freeman

Set photos are emerging now and Freeman has been seen on set. Can we use any of those sources to include him here? Rusted AutoParts 22:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Pinewood or EUE/Screen Gems?

The recently added source by Richie for additional filming locations says that Black Panther is based out of EUE/Screen Gems over Pinewood, because Infinity War is using most/all of Pinewood. That seems to make sense, but the source we have for Pinewood currently is reliable. I only added the EUE info and didn't remove Pinewood, but didn't know if we should, based on the wording in the newer Atlanta magazine source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking if we get a second source corroborating Atlanta magazine, we could change it to: "Black Panther was originally to shoot at Pinewood Atlanta Studios, but due to scheduling conflicts with Avengers: Infinity War which is also shooting at Pinewood at the same time, the film was headquartered at EUE/Screen Gems in Atlanta instead." Richiekim (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless the source explicitly states that is reason for the conflicting accounts then that would be considered WP:OR. Per WP:Conflicting sources, we are to include both until one can be proven to be unreliable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Would it be okay, though, to add EUE to the lead, and swap the order in the "Filming" section? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why not.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll do that, putting EUE first given the more recent source. But will not remove Pinewood at this time until clarification is found. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This source

Is this source usable? They seem to be quoting Marvel yet I couldn't find the press release this source seems to be emulating. Rusted AutoParts 21:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Heres the official press release.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Beat me to it Triiiple! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Shall we use the way they structure the cast as how we structure the cast list in infobox? Rusted AutoParts 21:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I think so. That is until the film poster with billing block is release.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead section redux

To revisit this, TriiipleThreat, this helped identify Boseman as Black Panther, but why not move that identification more upfront? It seems more worthwhile to put the most identifiable elements of a topic upfront. For example, if a film is directed by Spielberg and distributed by DreamWorks, we're more likely to mention Spielberg first. Something like Edge of Tomorrow, we'd mention Tom Cruise more upfront than the director. A documentary's premise would be more worth emphasizing upfront than whoever produced it. "Produced by Marvel Studios and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" is rather specialist and borderline promotional especially to be so upfront. I don't think we really put much thought into lead sections in general, but I think this would be an improvement for this kind of titular-character film as well as others of that kind (Superman, Batman, etc). Thoughts? Pinging Favre1fan93 as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with the way it is currently worded, but given this is part of the good topic of MCU film article, we try and keep a general consistency with style and formatting across all of the articles, which this is (outside of the added text of "as T'Challa / Black Panther, alongside" between Boseman and Jordan). I will also so say, that although Boseman is the lead role, there has been a lot of third party talk about the caliber of this cast, so I don't think there is an issue keeping the formatting as is. To me, it would be weird to isolate out Boseman, and then have the additional cast a sentence or two later as you are suggesting Erik. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, why would it be weird? I guess it makes sense to me to identify upfront who is playing the titular character. It's odd to have to get through multiple sentences to find that out. While the cast may be prominent, Black Panther is the protagonist of the film. For layperson readers, it is going to be the more immediately identifiable element for which context is more warranted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I think, especially with these comic book movies, that the source material and yes, the studio are more identifiable than the star. Keep in mind this is all personal opinion, but I think the fact that this is a Marvel Studios film, specifically a MCU film, is what people identify the most about it, not Mr. Boseman. We could rearrange third sentence so that he is listed upfront but still I think Ryan Coogler, the director of Creed, should probably take precedent over the star, since he has more creative control over the end result. It also leads to a phrasing issue like Favre mention on what to do with the supporting cast. To me, it just makes more sense to keep the credits organized by type.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you have a good point in stating that this topic is recognizable as a Marvel film. But what about something like "eighteenth film installment" being in front of who plays Black Panther? I feel like that is a rather indiscriminate piece of information for most readers, especially in retrospect when we eventually have like fifty films in the MCU. I just would like to challenge what would best bring a reader into the topic. For example, saying that it takes place after Captain America: Civil War (perhaps with release year mentioned) would be more useful than saying "eighteenth film installment", and the fact that Black Panther first appeared in that and then appears in this film. This is stated later, but more amidst production details than as a general outline. I don't know if there are any real guidelines other than the lead section one encouraging important information, but as a reader, I felt like I was not being introduced well, hence my original post. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It being a MCU film is a more identifiable fact than the star but yes, the star is more identifiable than it being specifically the "eighteenth film installment" of the MCU. I think at this point it just comes down to organization and readability. It is just easier to keep related topics together than to reintroduce similar elements down the line.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't be listing MCU info, then casting, then directing and writing, then more casting, then more MCU stuff... that would just be messy and unhelpful for the opening paragraph of an article. I also just don't see a need to change this up from what we usually do. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Black Panther trailer statistics revealed

According to THR, the Black Panther trailer has racked up 89M views in its first 24 hours: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/black-panther-teaser-trailer-racks-up-89m-views-first-24-hours-1012811. Can we add that to the Black Panther movie page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.14.185.52 (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

 Added - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Bast and Sekmet

Not sure if this should be mentioned here but the Heliopolitan gods Bast and Sekhmet were mention in Captain America: Civil War. [1].--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It's possible there could be more of them in this film, but since it was only a mention in Civil War, I don't see any place we should add the info at this time (here or there). But I didn't even pick up on this when watching Civil War, so definitely something to keep eyes on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize it either until I saw the article, that's why I thought it might be worth a mention. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first mention of a pantheon other than the Asgardians in the MCU. But I dont know how to add it without it feeling shoehorned. Hopefully we get some more info seeing how Bast is so critical to the Black Panther and Wakandan culture.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

If they play a more prominent role in this film, we can hopefully get interview material for their inclusion etc. for the production section once the film has released. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead section

There is no reason to avoid saying who plays the titular character in the lead section. This is a basic fact to give readers and indeed an important one. To make the excuse that it can be found in the article body is entirely dismissive of this key detail. If this omission has happened elsewhere, it needs to be fixed. Do we need to launch an RfC to clear up what should be a simple matter? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Angela Bassett

Angela Bassett's cast description, presumably authored by @Favre1fan93: included a detailed workout regimen, as follows:

[W]orking with her before she began filming and while she was on set, and helped to craft her diet. He created high-intensity interval training circuits for Bassett focused on her lower body, as they are "the fastest and the most effective way to burn fat", which consisted of mountain climbers, jump squats, lunges, push-ups and high knees, in intervals of 30 seconds on, 30 seconds off, up to an hour at a time.

I object to this on two fronts: first, this is simply not notable. Details like this are rarely if ever included on cast descriptions for superhero movies, especially in this detail. They will occasionally include the line "[Actor] put on 20 lbs of muscle for the role", but that's it. This goes into a level of detail that's far beyond what is necessary. The detail about Bassett using a personal trainer is intact, as is the link to the article that goes into further detail. Second, to my eye this is sexist. The only actor given this treatment in the cast list is an older female actor. Much like reporting prior to Star Wars: The Force Awakens spent an inordinate amount of time on Carrie Fisher's weight, this just seems gross to focus so much attention on Bassett's workout. --Nevermore27 (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not see the reason for objection here. Nothing in my eyes is coming across as being sexist and is a condensed version of the more indepth information that was available in the given source. Even if trimmed, readers the types of exercises listed give context to "high-intensity interval training", of which many workout options can be included. So again, I don't see how this is too much detail regarding this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Nervermore that it is probably a bit much. I don't think we really need to go into that much detail on her workout, just that she is doing it. And I know there is no intended sexism/ageism here, but it does stand out that we go into all of those details for her and no one else. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

If we are to reduce it, this what I see it becoming, as it all should not be outright deleted as Nevermore had done: Calliet also served as Bassett's trainer, working with her before she began filming and while she was on set, by creating high-intensity interval training circuits to focus on her lower body; he also helped to craft her diet.[ref]. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the previous version was a little too detailed and would be fine with the trimmed version. Maybe also see if there are similar details that could be provided for the other actors? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Even this is exponentially more detail than is given about any other actor's training for the movie. Just because the information is out there doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. --Nevermore27 (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Calliet also worked with Michael B. Jordan, and we can add more detail for that. Such details aren't unprecedented, in my experience. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

When it's the only detail included in a character description, it stands out. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't be holding back information just because you feel it stands out since it is the only thing. If the film has released already, I can see that. But we are still crafting the article as we approach the release date and information is revealed to us. My trimmed version is a more than adequate compromise to your original issue with how you felt the content was presented without outright deleting it, as two other editors besides myself have also indicated should not be the case. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

As the OP states, this is far from my only objection. But regardless, the trimmed version is a good compromise, with one edit I would like to propose. Calliet also served as Bassett's trainer, working with her before she began filming and while she was on set, by creating high-intensity interval training circuits to focus on her lower body; he also helped to craft her diet.[ref] Nevermore27 (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll implement your edit (with a small c/e). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Nabiyah Be's role

Just wanted to point out that the initial tweet from Be stating she was Tilda Johnson has been deleted (per here). Given the second season of Luke Cage also has a character named Tilda Johnson, the deletion of the tweet could mean a few things: Be won't actually be playing Tilda Johnson; Be will be playing Tilda Johnson, but won't be named onscreen (much like Tina Minoru in Doctor Strange); Be is playing the character, but wasn't supposed to reveal the character name. Anyway, I just wanted to see, given this, if we should remove the character name for now. The info on Be is also stated on Luke Cage (TV series), Luke Cage (season 2) and List of Luke Cage characters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Name Change Request

Can someone please change the name Black Panther (film) to Black Panther (2018 film)? AllosaurWarfare (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Why? It’s the only film called Black Panther. Rusted AutoParts 00:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Toys R Us

This link from Toys R Us contains bios for various Black Panther characters, including Killmonger's real name (Erik Stevens). Is Toys R Us a reliable source? - Richiekim (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

For what we'd want to use it for, no it wouldn't be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

But a third party source citing Toys R Us such as ComingSoon.net would be okay. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Marketing section

This sections seems overly long, I know we have to take an analytical approach here but is there anyway we can trim it down? Perhaps paraphrase some of the quotes.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree Triiiple. I know we want to be comprehensive and focus on the analysis and commentary, but that was just too much. There isn't anything about this film's marketing to justify that section frankly. I have given it a big cut down and c/e. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

On set reports

Looks like the press embargo is over and on set articles are up. They have some new info on characters like Shuri, Nakia and Ross. This article from Collider is a good place to start. - Richiekim (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Include Black Panther Challenge in article?

Should the Black Panther Challenge be added in the release section of this article? Seems to have gotten a lot of media attention [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] . - Brojam (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it can be added. I'll try looking over the sources tomorrow to write something up if no one else gets to it first. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Wesley Snipes

The Hollywood Reporter has an article on Wesley Snipes' attempt at making a Black Panther film that could definitely be useful for the Development section of this article. - Richiekim (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this should be briefly summarized in the development section.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead section review

The lead section needs to be rewritten to move away from the mediocre approach that has been standardized across numerous comic book film articles. The more important information needs to be put upfront. These are the issues with the section:

• The actor who plays the titular character is not identified until after less important details about the corporate entities involved and what number the film is.
• The corporate entities being so upfront brushes against WP:PROMO #5, especially with the fact that this is being repeated ad nauseum across similar film articles like press releases instead of encyclopedic articles. Marvel Studios has a proper place in the production-related paragraph, and Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures can be mentioned in the release-related paragraph, due to expand shortly.
• Screenplay credits can be relegated to the production-related paragraph as well. No offense to Joe Robert Cole, but there is not as much emphasis about his involvement as with other elements. This is a general problem with film articles anyway, where editors feel compelled to put screenwriters, regardless of emphasis in reliable sourcing, so upfront in the lead section, even ahead of more noteworthy elements and figures. (The directing credit can be kept upfront, based on the relative emphasis placed on Coogler's role.)
• Identifying this as "the eighteenth film" is borderline meaningless. It should instead mention that it comes after Thor: Ragnarok (both in terms of story and release) and that it is the second appearance of Black Panther following his first appearance in Captain America: Civil War. (Yes, this is mentioned later, but it is too buried in production details when it needs to be background for the stand-alone film.)

I know that Deathawk has their own qualms about the production-related paragraph in the lead section. Generally speaking, I don't mind the stating of years to show how long it took for this film to finally be produced. There are a lot of ways one can summarize the production, and we do need to emphasize the more important aspects of it. I do agree that specifying "additional cast members" coming on board is unnecessary. In addition, a couple of unnecessary or inconclusive details may be the mention of Paramount and Mark Bailey, neither who are involved with the final product. There is no indication of switching from them to the new distributor and screenwriters, respectively. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Erik, that may be your opinion, but we don't edit based on opinions. You have just listed information that you personally don't think is as important as it is being presented, but we need to be objective here. The most important players in a film are the director, writers, and producer, not the actors, even if they tend to be the widely popular ones. And it is just a fact with these films that their connection to the MCU is one of the most significant aspects of them as far as sources and the public are concerned, and these films being made by Marvel Studios is more widely notable than who is writing or directing them. I do not advocate this structure for all articles, but it is entirely appropriate for these ones. Also, we should not be mentioning other films like Ragnarok in the first paragraph of the lead, as if they are one of the most important parts of the article, when they have nothing to do with this specific film. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not see much of an issue with the first paragraph. I agree with Adamstorm that calling it "the eighteenth film" in the series is important, just as we would do for any entry in a long running series.

Where I have a problem though is in the second paragraph, where like many other Marvel films, the details of the production sections are inappropriately parroted into the lead. While it's true that key points should be summarized there, what's going on here isn't a traditional summary at all. Listing out when the film was announced, when writers were hired, when the leads were hired and when other actors were announced to of joined, is not summary material. Instead the summary should lay out a general time frame of when things started to happen, but leave the more specific elements for the production section. --Deathawk (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Specifics can and should be given in a summary. The point is that we are only giving key specifics, plus some less specific info to tie it together, giving us a short paragraph that covers the majority of the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The thing is that this is contray to how most articles are worded in the lead, while they do give some specifics, they only give the most basic, the problem with the majority of these MCU articles is that the lead condenses down all the info, inappropriately. Look at Forrest Gump and Toy Story for example the leades properly summarize the most important aspect of the production but do not list every milestone like the MCU ones do. --Deathawk (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I see no problem here. The only difference is that the production sections of the article's that you listed are far less comprehensive than this one and MCU articles in general and in turn the lead sections are less informative as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I am also in agreement with Adam and Triiiple. I also don't see the point that this lead is "too specific". We are giving the general stepping stones following the development process of the film. I agree with Triiiple regarding using Forrest Gump and Toy Story to compare against these leads. It's apples to oranges. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I just don't think the material is summarized properly. Now when I say that I do not mean that everything there isn't in summary form, but I feel like an excessive number of details are summarized. It feels like someone went through the article and took all the production developments, wrote a summary for each of them and then placed all those summaries in the opening paragraph, when what we should be doing is scanning the article for the most important details and then putting those elements in the lead.. For instance there isn't really a reason why we need to know that casting for other roles started in May 2016. Readers understand that casting most likely happened between the casting of the main character and filming starting, where if they want further details they can go to the production section. --Deathawk (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Can the editors who work very closely to these topics and are deeply familiar with it please step back for a moment? We have to remember to write Wikipedia articles so that a reader not familiar with this film can be properly introduced to the topic, on each page. For example, this identifies who is playing Black Panther right away. We also need to indicate that it is Marvel's first black superhero film since that is a first that has been stated by sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I don't have a problem with placing Boseman in the opening sentence or mentioning this is BP's first standalone film. But we don't need to call out his second MCU appearance, especially since his first is already mentioned in the second paragraph. Also we don't need to call out the films directly preceding and following it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Erik: I'm going to have to agree with you on this one. Not even specifically with your proposed lead changes (though I tend to agree with those too), but with the irritating adherence to a consistency across all of these articles with no wiggle room. As a small test to see the reaction, I removed the ampersand between McFeely and Markus on here on the Production of Avengers: Infinity War and the untitled Avengers sequel article. I was reverted as, per Adamstom.97, "& means something specific in terms of writing credits." I know this, as I'm sure many of us in the film project do. However, the people who don't know this information are pretty much everyone who reads these articles. No one knows that an ampersand indicates direct collaboration, while "and" indicates separate work. If someone were to see "Ant-Man is written by Edgar Wright & Joe Cornish and Adam McKay & Paul Rudd" they'd think we've lost our minds. It's not currently written that way, but it has been, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it return to that. Yet since, at some point, someone(s) involved with MCU films decided that ampersands should be used for "clarity", I can't make an edit that adheres to basic grammar without being reverted within hours. I hate to bring up WP:OWN, but I'm going to. I think this enforcement of uniformity is kissing the edge of it, and gets considerably closer to fully crossing that line with every discussion about these films. This isn't a personal thing, I like all of you folk, but it is an editorial issue that I don't think has been addressed directly enough. Sock (tock talk) 20:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I know you mean well Sock, but it is very unfair to accuse us of WP:OWN for doing something that has been discussed previously and agreed upon through consensus. You thinking that you should be able to make "an edit that adheres to basic grammar without being reverted" even though it goes against established consensus that you are aware of is closer to OWNy behaviour than me reverting an edit because it had already been discussed. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I need to take some steps back, I'm sorry. I've been getting unnecessarily riled over things lately and I'm not sure why. I take back the OWN comment completely. I should also note that I was not aware that the "&" writing was established consensus (edit: there's a chance I did at a time, but I've been pretty inactive for awhile now and many of the discussions here from the last few years have mushed together), that was me making a safe assumption after the edit was swiftly reverted that I must have poked something I didn't know about. Again, I sincerely apologize for the tone I keep taking, it's not in line with my usual behaviour on here at all. I stick by the fact that there's a noticeable disconnect between those actively involved with this project (yourself, Favre, TriiipleThreat, etc) and those more separated from it (myself, Erik, Deathawk, etc). I don't mean to break us into opposing teams or anything, this obviously isn't a fight over "who's right", just seems worth noting. I feel like we need to broaden this discussion a bit more, since most of us here seem to be stuck in our respective opinions.

Also I really can't apologize for that OWN comment enough, that was out of line. Sock (tock talk) 14:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

While I personally do not agree with Sock, it should be noted that this marks the third distinct complaint about the lead. Realisticly that should not happen, at least not in the succession order that it does. I'm not saying that any side is right, but there appears to be a distinct disagreement going on here about MCU lead sections. --Deathawk (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I will attempt to explain my revert of Erik's changes and I am trying my very best to view this as someone removed from large contributions to this and the other MCU articles. Looking at Erik's edit, I will say I am not completely against noting Boseman in the opening sentence, though I don't see the need when we will need to mention it again one-two sentences (depending on ultimate structure/formatting) later. I also do not see the benefit to removing the Marvel Studios and Walt Disney Pictures info from the opening line and moving it to the locations Erik did. After that, I agree with Triiiple that the other stats Erik added regarding the number film in the MCU series are either excessive (the placement with films before and after it) or covered later in the lead info (second appearance of the character). Yes this is part of a larger MCU narrative, but Black Panther is not necessarily connected to Thor: Ragnarok or Infinity War so why make the mention? To some other points, specifically those from Sock. I do agree with you regarding the '&' removal, and as of late, wording updates have been done to better convey when writers are a team (see the lead of Spider-Man: Homecoming). Also, a reminder that these articles are all part of a Good Topic. And per WP:GT? "Recommendations" bullet #2, The structure of the articles is similar, with the same section titles and order where possible. I feel that, while yes there has been a desire to keep lead information and formatting similar, it has been crafted in a way thus far that allows wiggle room across each article, but the same underlying structure. I welcome the discussion to see how we can improve the leads for these articles, if we are inherently misleading, confusing, or not getting info accurately and concisely to readers, or a slight rearrangement of info, but I feel that is currently being done accurately. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I also agree that we try to have wiggle room, but a lot of these changes are not necessarily for the best. I know it may seem like there is some stuff that should be the most important information, but not everything can be. For instance, I am on the same page as Favre when it comes to Boseman. Ignoring the fact that he just isn't the most important thing about this film, it doesn't make sense to mention him multiple times in the lead when we don't have to since we are trying to write a concise summary of the article. That is why we try to have logical groupings of things together.

As is made very clear by the majority response to these films in the public, the most significant thing about MCU films is the fact that they are in the MCU, and that is why mention of Marvel Studios and the MCU is given priority. If it was just a footnote ('oh hey, this also happens to be set in the same universe as the Avengers!') then placing this info further down would be fine, but that is just not the case. Still, that doesn't mean we should be mentioning other MCU films in the lead just for the sake of it. The most logical film to mention is Civil War, since that is where Boseman was introduced, and we do that, but if fans wan't to know where this film comes in the order of the MCU then they can just follow the link to the list of films. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, as I've stated, the opening is more akin to a press release than an encyclopedic article. It makes sense to identify the MCU, but the importance placed on mentioning Marvel Studios and Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures is astonishing. Furthermore, in articles about films that are part of trilogies, we would surely identify the predecessors and successors. Since this is the nineteenth film, context is being denied. Also, there is no mention of Black Panther appearing earlier in the MCU. Try to be a reader that has not seen any Marvel movies. If they read this, it seems like this is an isolated story in the fictional universe. Context needs to be established. USA Today here identifies Boseman upfront and says the character first appeared in Captain America: Civil War. That periodical is providing better context than this encyclopedia. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a point of correction, his appearance in Captain America: Civil War is mentioned in the lead. Carry on.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected, being largely concerned with the opening paragraph, but that detail should be earlier. Mentioning that is more relevant and contextual than calling it "the nineteenth film". This is based on MOS:BEGIN, "It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." There can be context in regard to the MCU and the character itself. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Once again I have to point out that you cannot have all the information first, some things are just going to have to come later than the first sentence. It is logical to mention Boseman's contract for the previous film where we do, and mentioning it twice would be overkill - unnecessary undue weight. And I completely disagree with the mentioning of Marvel and Disney being "astonishing". You may feel that nobody would ever want to know that unless they were reading a press release, but again I would note that past experience clearly shows that this being a Marvel/Disney movie is more widely noteworthy than who directed it. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Black representation

I advise the editors developing this article to create a distinct section about black (including female) representation when coverage from reliable sources come out. This is indicative of that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I think this can loop in with the Black Panther challenge, as noted in the section above. About to try to do a write up of this all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Black Panther: The Album

I suggest splitting the music section into its own page titled Black Panther: The Album. This upcoming album seems to be getting a lot of attention due to the involvement of TDE. The songs released so far, "All The Stars" with Kendrick Lamar & SZA and "King's Dead" with Lamar, Jay Rock, Future, and James Blake, have received a lot of attention as well. The tracklist released today includes other high-profile hip hop artists such as Travis Scott and The Weeknd. GodsPlaaaaan (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Once a full track listing is officially realeased, a seperate Black Panther soundtrack article will be created. It should cover both Ludwing Goransson’s score and Kendrick Lamar’s soundtrack, similar to the articles for the Guardians of the Galaxy films soundtracks. - Richiekim (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Tracklist has been officially released. I'll start working up a draft. GodsPlaaaaan (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The article name should be under Black Panther (soundtrack), since it should cover both the score and the curated album. - Richiekim (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Black Panther now predicted to end it's domestic run with $400M

Box Office Pro is now predicting a $400M domestic final gross for Black Panther: http://pro.boxoffice.com/long-range-forecast-ready-player-one-easter-releases/

Hope we can add this into the page for the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.141.98 (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Golden Jaguar

I noticed not too long ago an editor added this moniker for Killmonger on this page. Upon watching further trailers online, I noticed that one trailer is indeed called this. Doesn't that confirm that the character will have that alias? I would think so.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Adamstom.97 - why else would they call the trailer that.....especially when it features the suit dominantly...?--206.81.136.61 (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Vote brigading

Unless the film becomes a victim of that, this source could be useful. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

[10][11] Others as well, in case it occurs. - Brojam (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

And CNN:[12]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Black Panther now projected to open at $133M (all-time February opening weekend record)

Box Office Pro now predicts Black Panther to open to $133M in its 3-day opening weekend and $371M final domestic cume: http://pro.boxoffice.com/long-range-forecast-pacific-rim-uprising-sherlock-gnomes-midnight-sun/

Should Article Have Negative Review Comments From Rotten Tomatoes.

Ladies and gentlemen, during the movie please remember to turn off all cell phones, flash photography, and burning crosses
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I Think Yes Because Of Neutral Point Of View. 143.112.144.129 (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC) What negative reviews are you talking about? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC) You See Out Of 75 Reviews There Is One Negative And You Can Read It Here: https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/movies/movie-reviews/black-panther-first-review-it-is-expected-to-stand-for-something-bigger-than-itself-the-strain-is-visible-36573275.html 143.112.144.129 (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC) In general yes, but in this we have to be weary of giving minority viewpoints WP:UNDUE weight, especially since we are talking about a single reviewer.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC) O. K. Understand. I Wait For Further Negative Reviews If Any. 143.112.144.129 (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC) Also, if possible, we should use any reviews against the consensus (in this case negative ones) from critics listed as "Top critics" on Rotten Tomatoes, or any from Metacritic. As of my comment here, the 1 on RT and linked above is not a Top critic reviewer and Metacritic does not have any "mixed" or "negative" reviews. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC) Given the high praise of the film...and to keep the article neutral, I think it would be appropriate to point out in the critical reception section that Rotten Tomatoes, among other sites, banned any unfavorable review of the film until well after the movie was released and the accusations of racism against critics that wrote a poor review for any reason--including the Irish journalist that gave it a poor review (the first after then ban on Rotten Tomatoes was lifted) for lack of action in a super hero movie. If wikipedia is going to site how acclaimed the film is, it is only fair to point out how reviews that cast the film in a bad light were banned by a lot of sites. 2601:246:4202:3ED2:3C1E:AE15:89D5:CF36 (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC) No, I don't think so. At this point, negative reviews are fringe opinions, and banning reviews written before a movie was released is, I think, a good idea to avoid people gaming the system and attempting to push false narratives. Which is what I think you're trying to do.--Jorm (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Given the high praise of the film...and to keep the article neutral, -- our standard of neutrality would not mean creating artificial "balance" for fringe views. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC) But it wasn't simply banning reviews. Reviews were allowed. The action was specifically banning only the bad reviews, the good reviews were still allowed. One of the reasons the film was so highly praised was specifically because negative reviews were blocked on MANY sites until recently. If it were simply banning ALL reviews and NOT just the bad ones, they fine, the high praise without the clarification that ONLY good reviews were allowed on many sites and specifically review aggregation websites is disingenuous given that the public was censored from any criticism of said film until well after its release. 2601:246:4202:3ED2:45F:7EBF:BF12:650A (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC) There was a concerted effort by the alt-right to bring down the film's Rotten Tomatoes score and audience ratings. That's trolling, not legitimate reviewing, and RT did the right thing is preventing itself from being abused. Of the existing negative reviews, from what I see at RT, they're all from non-notable websites except for Armond White in National Review, and White is widely known and written about in multiple RS publications as a fringe contrarian.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC) And that would make sense...if it actually happened, but it didn't. there was a rumor of it, and then attacks on, as I said, the first journalist to give it a bad review, in Ireland, because it lacked action for a super hero movie or that it wasn't just the ALT right, it was ALL reviews including those from respected news sources...and, in any case none of that matters. What matters is that you can't legitimately say it has universal high praise, without pointing out that the negative praise was universally censored. BECAUSE of the censorship it is going to have universally high praise simply because that is the only review that is made public. That is the same as endorsing censorship, or at least the product of it. 2601:246:4202:3ED2:45F:7EBF:BF12:650A (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Nobody censors professional film reviewers who have credibility. Denying attention to racist trolls is not censorship, it is wisdom. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC) This thread needs to be hatted. OP is just another alt-right troll; this is a waste of everyone's time.--Jorm (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Box office before movie is released?

Hi, @TropicAces:. I do see that The Numbers claims that there is box office for the movie before it has been released, which seems self-contradictory. Box Office Mojo has nothing about this, and The Numbers doesn't explain why it's making that claim. Given that it's the only source claiming this, it seems WP:FRINGE. Because of that and The Numbers' unexplained contradiction, I am respectfully removing it and hope per WP:BRD we can discuss. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Tenebrae The Numbers often publishes Foriegn figures before the likes of Box Office Mojo, however if you go to BOM they have some numbers under the “Foriegn” tab. The film isn’t out in the US until next week however did begin an international rollout yesterday, this the available numbers. TropicAces (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

The film hasn't released yet internationally. The first release date is in the UK and other countries on Feb 13. So where is this box office info coming from? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@TropicAces: Thanks for the info on that Bob Office Mojo tab. [13]. The information there is also confusing: It says the movie has made $7,534 in South Korea as of 2/4/18 ... yet it also says the movie isn't being released until 2/14/18. So the information there is self-contradictory. I'll dig into it and see if I can find anything about the film being released in South Korea already — though the figure of $7,534 is less than a single showing in a good-sized theater would make. Very curious. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe they sold tickets to the public for the red carpet premiere?? That's not normally done, but who knows. There's a February 4 article about the Asian press junket and the Seoul red carpet premiere, but nothing about selling tickets to the public, at https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/black-panther-team-kick-global-press-tour-south-korea-not-just-a-popcorn-movie-1081651. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Black Panther to open to $170 million plus, per Variety

Variety is now saying Black Panther will open to $172M in its 4-day opening weekend: http://variety.com/2018/film/news/box-office-black-panther-opening-weekend-tracking-1202696018/. Hope we can add this into the movie's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.141.98 (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Black Panther now predicted to open with $181.5 million in it's four day opening weekend

Box Office Pro is now saying Black Panther will open with $181.5 million in it's 4-day opening weekend: http://pro.boxoffice.com/weekend-forecast-black-panther-marvel-shred-records-early-man-samson/. Hope we can add this into the movie's wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.141.98 (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2018

Add "Zuri's name means admirable or goodness in Swahili." under "Forest Whitaker as Zuri:" Katekuehl (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done As WP:TRIVIA. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Grammar, spelling and character names...

This article needs lots of grammar and spelling errors corrected, as well as fixing a few characters listed or named incorrectly.

Such as...? Please state requests as an "Please change X to Y" format. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2018

The Lexus commercial had $4.3 million views on social media. We don't use dollar signs to measure number of views. We should write the full name of the country ("Czech Republic", not "Czech Rep"). 174.238.4.75 (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Good catches!--Jorm (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Plot

This is the exact same plot that someone wrote on reddit or somewhere. Not that I'm questioning its accuracy, but could it maybe be modified to be written a little more professional? 68.150.5.99 (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean delete it, I meant improve it. (Or is is inaccurate?) 68.150.5.99 (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Where is the plot? It came out in the United Kingdom today so surely the plot should be on here.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.224.8 (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Okey-doke. Seen it twice now. On it. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Whoops! Someone beat me to it! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Just wanna say: I don't recall working with User:Chris McFeely before, but he did an excellent plot synopsis ... better, I think, than I would have written from scratch. My compliments to him. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't do 'em much for Wikipedia itself, but synopses are my wiki stock in trade! :) - Chris McFeely (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Marketing section 2

As a reader, it was confusing to have release-related information tucked away above "Marketing" especially when the following section ("Reception") and its sub-sections seemed to indicate coming after the marketing. WP:FILMMARKETING does not at all endorse this approach. A "Marketing" sub-section can be within a "Release" section provided that it comes before a sub-section like "Theatrical run" or "Box office". We didn't state that explicitly because we didn't think people would actually put release information before marketing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

As I responded to this similar query on my talk page (User talk:Favre1fan93#Marketing), FILMMARKETING, as worded, does actually state this as an acceptable format. We didn't state that explicitly because we didn't think people would actually put release information before marketing. User's aren't supposed to read between the lines for implied meaning. Also, as I again said on my talk page regarding this, the MOS is a guideline. There shouldn't be hard and fast "this is how things should be" wording, or expectations. Yes, we aren't moving the Marketing section to the beginning of the article as the second level 2 heading, but it isn't "incorrect" or confusing as it was either. Additionally, this interpretation is the WP:STATUSQUO of the article, being like that since April 2017, so that version is being restored while the discussion takes place. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

There's also a discussion happening regarding this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Marketing. So I guess in the interest in keeping every piece of info together regarding this, if any additional users wish to comment on this, please do so at the MOS:FILM talk. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

2016

@Tophet: I assume you meant to write "the year is NOT explicitly stated, but it is inferred" in your last edit summary. If its not explicitly stated then we should not claim that it is set in 2016 without additional references as it would go beyond WP:CALC. That too is also based on the assumption that Civil War is set in 2016 just because it was released that year. And if so, what if took place in December? Then Black Panther might be set in 2017. See where I'm going? Without it being explicitly stated, we cant assume anything. Present day, is general enough for our purposes. It need not mean this year.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, the main plot of Spider-Man: Homecoming is set in late 2017 (like Sep-Nov for the homecoming dance time/start of the school year), which is 6 months after Civil War, so that film is in early 2017 (presumably). Which would then make "Present" for this film early 2017 as well. But all of this is mute, because like Triiiple said, we'd need a source explicitly stating this info. "Present" is fine, and alternatively, "A week after the events of Civil War" because that is stated in the film by the news reporter (but that is too minute info to state). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The timeline of the MCU films was completely screwed up by Homecoming. The "universe" was messed up by the film-TV-streaming inconsistencies years earlier, but Homecoming very explicitly contradicted the whole chronology established in the previous films. Not sure how to address this, and the closest I have to a reliable secondary source for this is this, but FWIW I really don't think it's worth Wikipedia fretting over internal chronology; unless it's absolutely necessary, we should just avoid all mention of it. Same basic principle as Talk:Thor: Ragnarok#"Battle of Sokovia"? -- it doesn't make sense, but it's minor enough that we can just leave it out entirely -- and also minor enough that casual fans who are reading our articles are as likely to blame us for "our" error, especially when we don't cite secondary sources as this article's plot summary currently doesn't. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2018

editor is not claudia castello its debbie berman 174.227.133.184 (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: Here is a source that calls Berman an editor. And I know that IMDb is not a reliable source, but it lists Berman and Shawver as the editors, and Castello as an "additional editor." Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Per the billing block of the poster and the press kit for the film, editors are Shawver and Berman. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

External links

Favre1fan93 is violating MOS:FILM#External links in removing Rotten Tomatoes and Box Office Mojo links even though the guideline says for both, "Some external links may benefit readers in a way that the Wikipedia article cannot accommodate. For example, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic can provide listings of more reviews than sampled in the article body. They can be included as external links instead of links to individual reviews. Other useful external links include the Internet Movie Database, which provides community interaction, and Box Office Mojo, which provides box office statistics that may be too indiscriminate for the article." This is especially relevant in an article that has over 200 references. We should not expect a reader to sift through that to find these unique resources that provide more information (full list of reviews, box office data) than a Wikipedia article can provide. This is what the guideline is for. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

VerifiedCactus had noticed this was missing and had re-added it here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Date Edit in "Critical Response" section.

1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: "As of February 18, 2017, ..." Believe this should be 2018 instead of 2017. Katmcg (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)katmcg

 Done Thank you.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2018

Extended content

Black Panther Directed by Ryan Coogler Written by Ryan Coogler Joe Robert Cole Based on Black Panther by Stan Lee Jack Kirby Produced by Kevin Feige Starring Chadwick Boseman Michael B. Jordan Lupita Nyong'o Danai Gurira Martin Freeman Daniel Kaluuya Letitia Wright Winston Duke Angela Bassett Forest Whitaker Andy Serkis Cinematography Rachel Morrison Edited by Michael P. Shawver Claudia Castello Music by Ludwig Göransson Production company Marvel Studios Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Release dates January 29, 2018 (2018-01-29) (Dolby Theatre) February 16, 2018 (2018-02-16) (United States) Running time 134 minutes Country United States Language English Xhosa Budget $200 million Box office $548.9 million

Porg010 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2018

I would like to edit becaude you made mistakes in paragraph 3 31.185.240.146 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sock (tock talk) 18:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Critical reception

Does the bit about "RelishMix" really belong in the "Critical reception" section? I don't find it to be helpful with regards to the reception it received. Maybe it could be included in a separate section called "public reaction" or something like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Optimistic Owl (talk • contribs) 09:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

That is audience engagement/reception similar to comScore reaction. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Black representation / analysis / critical views

The section is very long and could really use some copy-editing for brevity. Perhaps paraphrasing some the quotes and/or condensing some of the sources that seem be making the same point would work.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, though I have been just ignoring it for now and planning to do a c/e with hindsight later (as tends to happen with the box office info). - adamstom97 (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Adam too. I think once all info has been added there for the most part, it will be easier to look in hindsight to c/e and combine some things. The intention is of course not to keep it as it is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, what should this heading be titled, and what level? Depending on what it is titled (such as what it is now "Black representation and analysis") I think it should be level 3 under reception. But if that wording changes, maybe it should be a level 2 heading, but I do feel most of what is in there now is reception/reaction to the film, so I can see it as being under the current level 2 "Reception" section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I am happy for it to stay as "Black representation and analysis" under the Reception section. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for external help to make an edit to the cast section

In the cast section the females in the movie are described in reference to T'Challa or other men (mostly T'Challa). I suggest describing their merits and positions first rather than how they're related to the men in the movie. Fleshyfilangees (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

T'Challa is the protagonist. Every character should relate to him in some way. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

How characters relate to each is extremely relevant and it’s not just the women; Killmonger is discribed as wanting to overthrow T’Challa, W’Kabi is discribed as T’Challa best friend, Klaue is discribed as being allied with Killmonger, and N’Jobu is discribed as T’Chaka’s brother and Killmonger‘s father.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

should Sterling K. Brown be in Billing?

Similar to Anthony Mackie in Ant-Man, I feel Sterling K. Brown, although uncredited, plays an important part in the film and should maybe be included in the infobox/lede? I’m typically a poster billing block purist but thought it was worth a discussion here... TropicAces (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

We should stay away from POV based decisions on inclusion/exclusion and try to remain neutral.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat I’m fine with and agree with that, but out of curiosity what makes the Ant-Man page an exception to the rule? TropicAces (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

Is it? I hadn’t noticed.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It appears they decided to go with the screen credits on that film, which I’m fine with since it’s a neutral decision. Is this the same case here?—TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall the billing block part of the credits, but he appears between Winston Duke and Angela Bassett in the crawl. - DinoSlider (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a topic I’ve found myself curious in, in regards to the extent of who gets infobox billing. I remember starting a similar debate in regards to The Martian and Donald Glover, in which he was credited prominently in the trailer but was not included in the poster billing block. Unless they achieved a consensus to include him or someone at some point readded him without discussion, it seems Glover was included at the bottom of the infobox billing block. Perhaps this could be the same case for Brown, and retroactively Mackie? Rusted AutoParts 16:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

the role was secretive and they kept him off billing blocks for a reason (full context here: http://www.thisisinsider.com/sterling-k-brown-black-panther-role-was-secret-2018-2) but I think now that the film is out and it’s clear he plays an important part in the plot (and he’s a prominent name) it’s worth discussing adding him, a la Mackie and Glover. Or not. I’m fine either way haha... TropicAces (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

I would like to add that, if comparing to Mackie in Ant-Man, Brown was known to be in the film pretty much from the start of filming along with the character name. Granted, we didn't know who the character was, but it was known that he was involved with the film. Versus Mackie, who was not known to be in the film until right up to the release of the film. To that regard, Marvel could have put Brown in the billing for the trailers/posters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is quite the same as the Mackie situation—there, we didn't know he was in the film, so it made sense for Marvel to not mention him previously. But I agree with Favre in that we have known that Brown was in this film for a long time, so if Marvel considered him to be worthy of billing they likely would have already. They have given people billing without revealing their role before, like Benjamin Bratt in Doctor Strange (we didn't really know what he was doing in the film until it came out, but knew that he had received billing long before that). While N'Jobu is a significant character in the film, his screentime is similar to that of other characters who do not have billing like T'Chaka. In the end, not everyone can get billing even if they have an important role in the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2018

this movie is literally fucked up lion king xdxd Ah108046 (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The talk page for discussing improvements to the article, not for random opinions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)