This is a talk page to discuss the improvement of Mel Gold. This talk page is currently inactive.
To discuss this article's topic and ask questions, see the Discussions Area.Please remember to remain civil during all disputes.
Sign any comments you make on this page with four tildes (
~~~~).To mark the talk page as active, please add a "1" at the end of the template (
{{Talk page|1}}).Name[]
- The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
- Page name shall remain as "Mel Gold" • MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions 23:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
This character has not been identified Melissa Gold, neither in the film itself nor promotional material. The reference currently given is patently false. Malachi108 (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- I agree this page should not be named Mel Gold, just Mel. - Mister Explicit • Message Wall • Contribs - 21:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Agree to an extent, but Brian Chapek did semi-confirm it. - Bryschec (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Let's write the facts down quickly. The character only appears as "Mel" and is Val's assistant. There’s no in-movie statement or credit giving her a full name or alias like “Melissa Gold” or “Songbird.” The necklace is suggestive and it is intentionally a reference to Songbird in the comics (an easter egg), but in the MCU that is far from definitive evidence and jewelry is not confirmation or semi-confirmation of character identity. Don't get that conflated. Finally, to address Brian Chapek's vague and non-committal interview comment. Teasing an emblem that may or may not hint at a character's future identity is not the same as naming them. Even if the creators might (keyword: might) want her to become Songbird later, I disagree the article's name should treat her as that, at least not until it actually happens. - Mister Explicit • Message Wall • Contribs - 21:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is where I stand as well. - Bryschec (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with what Mister Explicit has said. • MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions 21:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- I also agree with Mister Explicit's explanation here, just wait until it's clear. - Farizhf27 (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- Let's write the facts down quickly. The character only appears as "Mel" and is Val's assistant. There’s no in-movie statement or credit giving her a full name or alias like “Melissa Gold” or “Songbird.” The necklace is suggestive and it is intentionally a reference to Songbird in the comics (an easter egg), but in the MCU that is far from definitive evidence and jewelry is not confirmation or semi-confirmation of character identity. Don't get that conflated. Finally, to address Brian Chapek's vague and non-committal interview comment. Teasing an emblem that may or may not hint at a character's future identity is not the same as naming them. Even if the creators might (keyword: might) want her to become Songbird later, I disagree the article's name should treat her as that, at least not until it actually happens. - Mister Explicit • Message Wall • Contribs - 21:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- In my humble opinion, I believe the pendant, Mel's role, and the comments from both her and Chapek, in my eyes kind of playfully hinting at it is enough to place conjecture. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 21:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Raff mostly because of Chapek's comments. Citing the interview where he states this in the article would also be helpful. - DemKnux (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- Further agreement. This is a Thunderbolts character named Mel who has bird iconography associated with her. Not to mention Chapek's and Viswanathan's comments. Plus, Valentina's soldiers use sonic weapons, Songbird's power. It's fine conjecture. -
Jessica3801 💕💕🏳️⚧️ | Message Wall • Contributions 21:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm going to question the line of reasoning regarding the sonic cannons. I struggle to see how that supports a direct identity link at all. These sonic cannons are well-established tech, first appearing in The Incredible Hulk, and later appearing in other media such as Far From Home and Ms. Marvel. By MCU standards, that is routine equipment. Sonic weapons being used around ("around", I'm using that term very loosely) a character named Mel doesn't logically contribute to confirming that she's Melissa Gold, especially given she’s not even present in the scene where they’re deployed. - Mister Explicit • Message Wall • Contribs - 13:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- Me too. If it was just Mel using the sonic weapons, maybe, but if Val's troops are using it, then it has no bearing. Especially if the sonic weapons happen to the established Stark Sonic Cannons. • MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions 13:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- The sonic weapons were just one thing. The fact that a character named Mel is in a Thunderbolts movie and has bird iconography associated with her is enough. - Jessica3801 💕💕🏳️⚧️ | Message Wall • Contributions 15:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- With no rebuttal on the points raised about the sonic cannons, I think it's safe to say they hold no water in this discussion. Moving forward on the topic of the comments left behind by Chapek and Viswanthan. Chapek's quote only suggests that the character could become someone more recognizable later, not that she currently is, which is the problem I take issue with for the name this article currently holds. On the other hand, Viswanthan's comments from the Thunderbolts* press junket as currently cited in the article, strongly suggest she is bound by an NDA, that she can't disclose specifics, and nothing else. Signaling something to the audience doesn't equate to confirmation of identity, and it seems more about winking at the audience than defining who Mel is. While I'm not denying this is indicative of any future plans, this is not confirmation the character is Melissa Gold (yet) and I think presently it fails to meet the burden of proof. Ultimately, neither of these comments are conclusive. I think conflating these deliberately ambiguous remarks with a name as conclusive as Mel Gold in the article name would be a misstep at this stage. The article should reflect what is currently known, not what might be inferred or hoped for. - Mister Explicit • Message Wall • Contribs - 19:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- Signaling that it's her is communicating that it's her though. It's not explicit, but it's also not different than any other case of conjecture. - Jessica3801 💕💕🏳️⚧️ | Message Wall • Contributions 02:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- There’s a key distinction between signaling and stating. Until it's actually confirmed, it's speculation. And speculation shouldn’t determine the article title. I rest my case. - Mister Explicit • Message Wall • Contribs - 13:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- How is this any different from Cyclops though? All we know is that Logan knew an X-Men member named Scott. Sure, it's probably Cyclops, but how is that not speculation beyond this? It's not stated, should we be not assuming that either? This really isn't different from any other case of conjecture we have. And signaling might not be stating, but it is communicating. - Jessica3801 💕💕🏳️⚧️ | Message Wall • Contributions 13:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Excellent point. Case closed, I think. -Bozz77 (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- I don't care about Cyclops, and it doesn't change the lack of clear confirmation. It's just derailing from the main point. - Mister Explicit • Message Wall • Contribs - 15:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's not derailing to demonstrate that precedent shows us doing this exact thing before. It's the same situation, and you haven't demonstrated how this case of conjecture is any different than any other. No one claimed that it was stated, but it was purposefully communicated to us through signaling, which is actually more than can be said for Cyclops, all Logan says is the name "Scott." So why is this any different? - Jessica3801 💕💕🏳️⚧️ | Message Wall • Contributions 15:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's not derailing to demonstrate that precedent shows us doing this exact thing before. It's the same situation, and you haven't demonstrated how this case of conjecture is any different than any other. No one claimed that it was stated, but it was purposefully communicated to us through signaling, which is actually more than can be said for Cyclops, all Logan says is the name "Scott." So why is this any different? -
- I don't care about Cyclops, and it doesn't change the lack of clear confirmation. It's just derailing from the main point. - Mister Explicit • Message Wall • Contribs - 15:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Excellent point. Case closed, I think. -Bozz77 (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- How is this any different from Cyclops though? All we know is that Logan knew an X-Men member named Scott. Sure, it's probably Cyclops, but how is that not speculation beyond this? It's not stated, should we be not assuming that either? This really isn't different from any other case of conjecture we have. And signaling might not be stating, but it is communicating. -
- There’s a key distinction between signaling and stating. Until it's actually confirmed, it's speculation. And speculation shouldn’t determine the article title. I rest my case. - Mister Explicit • Message Wall • Contribs - 13:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Signaling that it's her is communicating that it's her though. It's not explicit, but it's also not different than any other case of conjecture. -
- With no rebuttal on the points raised about the sonic cannons, I think it's safe to say they hold no water in this discussion. Moving forward on the topic of the comments left behind by Chapek and Viswanthan. Chapek's quote only suggests that the character could become someone more recognizable later, not that she currently is, which is the problem I take issue with for the name this article currently holds. On the other hand, Viswanthan's comments from the Thunderbolts* press junket as currently cited in the article, strongly suggest she is bound by an NDA, that she can't disclose specifics, and nothing else. Signaling something to the audience doesn't equate to confirmation of identity, and it seems more about winking at the audience than defining who Mel is. While I'm not denying this is indicative of any future plans, this is not confirmation the character is Melissa Gold (yet) and I think presently it fails to meet the burden of proof. Ultimately, neither of these comments are conclusive. I think conflating these deliberately ambiguous remarks with a name as conclusive as Mel Gold in the article name would be a misstep at this stage. The article should reflect what is currently known, not what might be inferred or hoped for. - Mister Explicit • Message Wall • Contribs - 19:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- The sonic weapons were just one thing. The fact that a character named Mel is in a Thunderbolts movie and has bird iconography associated with her is enough. -
- Me too. If it was just Mel using the sonic weapons, maybe, but if Val's troops are using it, then it has no bearing. Especially if the sonic weapons happen to the established Stark Sonic Cannons. • MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions 13:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm going to question the line of reasoning regarding the sonic cannons. I struggle to see how that supports a direct identity link at all. These sonic cannons are well-established tech, first appearing in The Incredible Hulk, and later appearing in other media such as Far From Home and Ms. Marvel. By MCU standards, that is routine equipment. Sonic weapons being used around ("around", I'm using that term very loosely) a character named Mel doesn't logically contribute to confirming that she's Melissa Gold, especially given she’s not even present in the scene where they’re deployed. - Mister Explicit • Message Wall • Contribs - 13:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- Further agreement. This is a Thunderbolts character named Mel who has bird iconography associated with her. Not to mention Chapek's and Viswanathan's comments. Plus, Valentina's soldiers use sonic weapons, Songbird's power. It's fine conjecture. -
- Since there is a version of Songbird exists in LEGO Marvel's Avengers, should there be a character hub for Songbird? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouse070504 (message wall • contribs)
- If conjecture is decided to be correct. But this question is not really a relevant question to this specific discussion. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 01:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Raff mostly because of Chapek's comments. Citing the interview where he states this in the article would also be helpful. - DemKnux (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- Just to provide a new piece of evidence towards supporting the conjecture, Geraldine Viswanathan stated on the offical marvel podcast: "And so it was really cool getting to collaborate on mostly the jewelry and sort of like plant little easter eggs and kind of like signal some very subtle things to the audience through the jewelry." Again, we already know the jewelry is a hint towards the character, but clearly from the production standpoint, they weren't just making a fun reference, it's meant to indicate who her character really is and will/may become. -Bozz77 (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Even in that case, information concerning potential' development in future storylines (that may or may not materialize) should be confined to Notes and Trivia sections. Malachi108 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Except in that quote Viswanathan pretty specifically says that they were signaling things to the audience about her. That's not saying that she could be Mel Gold, that's saying that they specifically wanted the audience to connect Mel to Songbird. - Jessica3801 💕💕🏳️⚧️ | Message Wall • Contributions 15:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Except in that quote Viswanathan pretty specifically says that they were signaling things to the audience about her. That's not saying that she could be Mel Gold, that's saying that they specifically wanted the audience to connect Mel to Songbird. -
- Even in that case, information concerning potential' development in future storylines (that may or may not materialize) should be confined to Notes and Trivia sections. Malachi108 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- I strongly believe we should base this from what we have seen from the movie. Her name is only Mel. They didn't show her work ID, name tag, or anything. Her name in the credits roll was only Mel. Any comments about her being fully-named Melissa Gold or the necklace connecting to Songbird (which is an easter egg shoutout to the comics) should only be added in the Trivia and Behind The Scenes section of her page. The talks surrounding her being Songbird in the MCU are just plans... plans that are yet to be confirmed in the MCU by a film or TV series. We're creating Mel's bio page on this website so we should just stick to facts as seen on the film where she appeared in, which is Thunderbolts* —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePinoyMCUFan (message wall • contribs)
- Reading all the messages above, I personally believe we should retain the page name as Mel. If she becomes Songbird down the line, we can change the page name then. However, having the page as "Mel Gold" now based on hints may cause us to run into citogenesis issues again. I think the safest play here is having the page just be "Mel" until we learn more officially. • MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions 06:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Vote
Due to the mixed opinions, we will be opening a vote. There are two options which is to use conjecture to place Mel as Melissa Joan Gold or to remove the conjecture and only use Mel until official and indisputable evidence. Prior to voting, please read the Conjecture Policy if you need to. Thanks - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 01:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting eligibility requires site editors to have a certain level of productivity in order to participate in votes affecting the wiki and its community. Users who do not meet the eligibilty requirements will have any votes they cast stricken from the record by Staff members. Votes by any users whose accounts are younger than three (3) months or have not been on our wiki for more than three (3) months, have fewer than seventy-five (75) valid edits (as defined below, or who are using sockpuppet accounts will not be counted.
- In order to be eligible to vote, a user account must be at least three (3) months old and must have made at least seventy-five (75) constructive edits. Edits to userpages, talk pages or sandboxes do not count, nor do automated edits or edits that have been reverted or undone.
- A user who is blocked is also not allowed to cast votes for the entire duration of their block.
For Mel Gold (Conjecture)
- I believe the evidence clearly points towards Mel to be an adaptation of Songbird. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 01:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with keeping conjecture. - DemKnux (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- I am also placing my vote here as I believe we have enough to say she is an adaptation of Songbird. -
Fish Master 41 | Message Wall • Contributions 02:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC) - Viswanathan very clearly stated that they wanted us to associate her with Mel Gold. It would be a mistake to then not do that here. And even without Viswanathan's statement, this is truly not different from any other case of conjecture on our wiki. - Jessica3801 💕💕🏳️⚧️ | Message Wall • Contributions 04:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- No different than any other conjecture imo -
E-Scope | Message Wall • Contribs - 20:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC) - I agree with the above sentiments.
Pr0tato210 | Message Wall • Contributions 02:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC) - I think the implication is clear that she is Mel Gold. The letter of conjecture policy dictates we call her Mel Gold, even though Marvel isn't ready to call her that just yet, hiding the ball on purpose for a later reveal. Maybe the policy can be changed to account for characters the company doesn't want to officially reveal just yet. This is just a symptom of how our conjecture policy currently functions. Criszz (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- This one. DrewVeenstra (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Mel (No Conjecture)
- I vote that her name on the Wiki be "Mel" and not "Mel Gold" • MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions 01:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm placing my vote here. I do not believe there is enough to warrant a conjecture for Mel "Gold," as her future is (from a speculative view) determinant on writers for any future media, and they have more say as to what comes true or not in future media in the MCU regardless of actor/actress' statements. The jewelry should be treated as trivia like ThePinoyMCUFan suggested. -Andy36314 (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- We use conjecture too much around here. All the film explicitly tells us is Mel, I should not need to know anything that might connect her to the comics to recognise that the "Mel Gold" page is for her. Besides, the comic character is "Melissa Gold". "Mel Gold" is too strange and forced. MalchonC (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Per my comments above. Malachi108 (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Voting in favor of "Mel". I trust my earlier comments have sufficiently explained the basis for my stance. Mister Explicit • Message Wall • Contribs - 01:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Pretty much on the fence right now, but I'm going to vote for no conjecture. - Bryschec (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- This one Wiateressa (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Results
There are eight (8) votes in support of retaining the "Mel(issa Joan) Gold" conjecture, and seven (7) votes cast for "Mel" with no conjecture. As voting period is meant to only last seven (7) days, the validity of Wiateressa's vote comes to mind. While they did post it on the seventh day, the Talk Page was eligible to be closed sixteen hours earlier. However, given that it was not closed and the vote was placed on the seventh and final day, I will count it. Regardless, Mel Gold has the majority vote, and therefore the page name will be retained. • MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions 23:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.