Talk:WandaVision/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Release date

Just a heads up, in case people come in editing and updating without a source, but WandaVision in 2020 appears to be a possibility? -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I would add since the original source is a video from the Disney+ Official Twitter. YgorD3 (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Disney+ also posted this video on Youtube, confirming the 2020 relases. I am confused. Not a reliable source? YgorD3 (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to 2020 after seeing the new Instagram post on Disney+'s page. Somebody changed it back. How is Disney+'s instagram not a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyshot16 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Christophe Beck to score "WandaVision"

Christophe Beck revealed he is scoring WandaVision: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhVbh4FvHcw. I am hoping we can add this into the show's wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.156.73 (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

WandaVision to shoot additional scenes in July

Per an update post from Tampa Bay Comic-Con, Paul Bettany won't be at the convention because Disney has requested he return to Los Angeles in July for additional filming on "WandaVision": https://www.facebook.com/140906382617199/posts/we-finally-received-word-from-paul-bettanys-representation-and-unfortunately-pau/4053605711347227/.

I also have heard from Lizzie Hill of Murphy's Multiverse that it's likely just for reshoots: https://twitter.com/MsLizzieHill/status/1268328508540903425?s=20.

I'm hoping we can add this information into the show's wiki page under the "filming" section, as I believe this information to be valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.217.179 (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Murphy's Multiverse is not a reliable source. Filming resumption has been added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Release date back to spring 2021?

In THR's report on the Hawkeye directors, they mention WandaVision is a spring 2021 release. Can't tell if that's new info, or going off of the old, original release plan. The Disney+ landing page does say 2020. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Deadline Hollywood said today it "remains on track for a 2020 premiere date". It probably will end up moving but I guess we'll have to wait for Disney/Marvel to say it themselves since outlets are saying two different things. - Brojam (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Right, agreed. This was supposed to come out in December, so there's a lot more lead time for them to get the series ready, than with FWS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

THR has updated their article [1] and it now says "later in 2020". - Brojam (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently the 2021 date was an error. - Richiekim (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Great, so it was just an error. Thanks all! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

WandaVision now said to premeire on Disney+ in "late 2020"

According to a press release about Disney+'s fall slate of content right here (https://dtcimedia.disney.com/news/its-fall-on-disney-plus), they say Marvel Studios' WandaVision will arrive on Disney+ in late 2020. Here'a the quote:

With the first anniversary of Disney+ on November 12, the service will kick off its second year with even more original entertainment premiering in late 2020 including, but not limited to: “Black Beauty,” a contemporary film adaptation of the classic story starring Mackenzie Foy, Iain Glen and Claire Forlani and the voice of Kate Winslet, “Inside Pixar,” a never-before-seen look into Pixar Animation Studios’ creative process, “On Pointe,” an original docu-series about students of the School of American Ballet and “The Nutcracker” performance at Lincoln Center, and “WandaVision,” the upcoming original series from Marvel Studios.

Should that be added into the show's wiki page to say the show is now expected to arrive on Disney+ in late 2020? Or is late 2020 and December 2020 the same thing?

The press release doesn't seem to disregard the December release of the series, just bundling the later releases into the "late 2020" category for ones that don't have a premiere day set yet. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

December is still in the "late" part of 2020, so this hasn't changed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

WandaVision trailer makes 53 million views globally in it's 24-hour debut

Deadline has broken news that the trailer for Marvel Studios' WandaVision has made 53 million views globally in the first 24 hours and outsmoked all Super Bowl 2020 movie spots: https://deadline.com/2020/09/wandavision-trailer-traffic-disney-marvel-post-emmys-1234582487/. I hope we can add this into the show's wiki page in the marketing section.

The info has been added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Poster

A new poster for the series has been released, as seen here. We normally use the logos or title cards for TV series, but given this series' nature as probably just one season as part of the MCU, should we consider using the poster instead? El Millo (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm all for it given its an event miniseries. The poster is more than likely what will be used for its singular run. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking this as well, there is nothing in MOS:TVIMAGE saying that we have to use the logo, and at the moment since we believe this will be a limited series it is more equivalent to an MCU film than a TV show. We can always change back to the logo if a second season is ordered and we split off season articles with the posters there and the logo here. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Marvel is basically promoting their upcoming series as being on the same level as their MCU movies, using Disney+ instead of the theatre being the only major difference. I'm all for using the posters instead of the logo, espeically because the poster is what'll be used everywhere and it helps recognition. --Sricsi (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: on your revert, MOS:TVIMAGE clearly says: For a show's main article, an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title) or a promotional poster used to represent the show itself should be used (my underlining). El Millo (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

General consensus on the TV project is to use the title card for a series' main article, irregardless if it's a regular series or a miniseries. This is my opinion, but I believe the part you quoted @Facu-el Millo: about a poster for a show's main article would be in lieu of the intertitle. As I mentioned in my revert, at least looking from a Marvel/MCU perspective, we use the title card on the Defenders article, and I don't really see the need to deviate here for the Phase 4 series. My thinking was that we'll probably create individual articles for each of these episodes, and the released poster could be used on the first episode's article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I doubt these individual episodes will warrant their own article, and I've never seen the poster of a series or a season used just for the first episode. I'd much rather an episode article had no image at all than an image that doesn't correspond with just the episode. It is true though that I haven't seen any miniseries using the poster instead of the title card either. El Millo (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, most miniseries use the title card, but perhaps there could be another spot for the poster (though I doubt it). Also, I think since the episodes are releasing weekly, there'd be a possibility we could get episode articles for each (much like AoS), unlike the Marvel Netflix series which released all at once, which usually meant there wasn't enough episode-specific content to find. But that's a conversation for another thread. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the poster could be used in the Marketing section to showcase the sitcom weirdness that has been heavily talked about in the commentary? Just throwing that out there. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Unless we have extensive coverage on the poster itself, I doubt it. Still, if that were the case, we would then simply use the poster in the infobox, following the same rationale as the images used in the Phase One and Two articles, as having two non-free images would become unjustified. El Millo (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah true. For now, I think it's fine using the logos until we get the title card. If we don't end up using the poster here at all, it can always be used on a "season 1" article if that is ever needed to be made. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: To your first comment about having it in marketing, yes as Facu said, per WP:NFCC 3a and 8, multiple non-free media is discouraged without specific critical commentary. And to your second point, yes, if by some chance despite this being a limited series, we get a "second" incarnation and decide to make "season" article splits, the poster could be used there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Good to know. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I still think we should use the poster instead of the logo / title card. We don't need to use the title card just because we usually do in TV articles, and this is clearly a unique scenario since this is a limited series being made by a film studio that is intended to be on the same level as its films in terms of budget, actors, continuity, etc. The logo is also on the poster as well. I think we should seriously consider changing this. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I 100% agree. This is a unique situation, there's no need to treat them as any other TV show, and the guideline allows the use of posters with no preference for logos or title cards. El Millo (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. This is a different case than most series and the poster is the best representation for it given the intended film treatment it has. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, we've already used the title card at The Defenders, which would be the most similar MCU series we could compare these too. While I agree with you all that the poster is unique, I still don't see why we should deviate with the consensus of the TV project that series pages (which this is) should use the title card/logo, not a poster. What about Inhumans too? While there was ultimately the possibility that had more seasons, it only had 1 of 8 episodes, and we're using the title card there. Same too with Helstrom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

But this is more like the films than any of those shows. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

We're not saying that the poster is unique, we're saying the situation is unique. These TV shows are deeply connected to the films, so there's not really much of a precedent. The Defenders was part of a universe of television series, and Inhumans seems to be only "technically" connected to the films. We're not saying we use the poster because it is a miniseries, but because it is as connected to the films as it is. El Millo (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure it's more like the films, but it is still a television series first, which means the guidelines in MOS:TV are what should be looked to. And while MOS:TVIMAGE says a main article can have a title card/logo or a promotional poster, the vast majority of main articles use the title card, and that seems to be current consensus/practice with the project. I don't feel this needs to be an outlier and use the poster. Also to state, when the upcoming Obi-Wan series and Cassian Andor series come out, those are also both more like the Star Wars films, but those should also use the title card. Same with The Mandalorian, even though that is multi-season, when it was first announced and released, the title card was used at that article, not the promotional poster for the first season. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Murphy's Multiverse sources

According to Murphy's Multiverse on May 7th, 2020, "WandaVision" had managed to wrap filming and get into remote post-production just as the pandemic began: https://www.murphysmultiverse.com/happy-wandavision-production-news-and-the-czech-republic-reopens-for-filming/.

I hope we can add this into the film's Wiki page along with the additional information in the article as to how it became possible to wrap up filming.

Also, Murphy's Multiverse has been accurate before as they have correctly scooped Peyton Reed directing an episode of Season 2 of The Mandalorian (https://www.murphysmultiverse.com/what-i-heard-this-weekthe-mandalorian-season-2-gets-a-new-mcu-director/), which later was official: https://twitter.com/MrPeytonReed/status/1257443157639299072?s=20. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.217.179 (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Murphy's Multiverse is not a reliable source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I highly disagree. It has been right a lot of the time, and you have no proof of that claim. BlackWidowMovie0000Editor (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I have never heard of Murphy’s Multiverse until just now. Definitely not a source I’d trust. Rusted AutoParts 21:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Right or not, Murphy's Multiverse is not a reliable source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

WandaVision has wrapped filming, per the costume designer for the show

According to a post from Jess Turner, the costume designer for the series, WandaVision has wrapped filming: https://www.instagram.com/p/CG3KTyTB4cz/?igshid=1vxqobm3dsm16.

More evidence to show that it has was someone commented saying “I love a good “that’s a wrap” sweater” to which Jess replied “hahhahaha same! Girl I still got your dress omg. Let’s hang soon, come to my new place!” Obviously the last part is relevant, but the first part is since her saying “same” means the show has wrapped its additional filming/reshoots/pickups.

I hope we can add this into the show’s wiki page if this passes your shell test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.53.98.184 (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

You are going to need to find a better source to add that because the Instagram account is not from a verified account with a checkmark. — YoungForever^(talk) 06:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Also note that a joke about a "“that’s a wrap” sweater" does not confirm that filming has actually wrapped. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Direct confirmation that “WandaVision” has wrapped filming

An Instagram post from 21 Mile Productions’ member Dylan Klumph implies WandaVision wrapped shooting including its reshoots last week, with evidence in the 4th picture showing the library of Westview (Wanda & Vision’s home from the comics that will be the main location of the series per merchandise for the series here: https://www.amazon.com/Marvel-WandaVision-Westview-Retro-T-Shirt/dp/B08KK1WT39), and reaffirmation that it hits Disney+ in December: https://www.instagram.com/p/CHJAcyQBHWv/?igshid=1hg7914e8j3t5.

I hope this is good enough proof that we can add this information into the Wikipedia page of the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.162.120 (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The Amazon merchandise doesn't prove anything. The Instagram post is not from a verified Instagram account with a checkmark so, it is not a reliable source. Wrapped filming in October has been confirmed by the Deadline Hollywood source under the Filming section already. Unnecessary to add unreliable sources. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Deadline confirmed that Jolene Purdy wrapped her scenes, not that main filming has wrapped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.162.120 (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I got that. I misread the sentence. Anyway, you still need better sources to add that the series have wrapped filming as the ones you provided are not reliable sources. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but, it's all I have. And, I really would like it to be put in there because I would like it to be made clear that filming has wrapped. Even someone I trust who works for Disney said filming wrapped for WandaVision last week. And, they showed me photo proof of it. If that's not enough to prove filming wrapped, I don't know what is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.162.120 (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

We can't take your word for it. We need a reliable source, and no editor's word is a reliable source on its own. Plus, the Instagram link appears to be broken. El Millo (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. The Instagram link was working earlier. The person who posted it probably decided to remove it so, that's why it's broken now. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, apparently, his whole Instagram account is gone and scrubbed clean. Guess the information is true and the Disney snipers were all like “NOPE”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.162.120 (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

IP, you are dealing with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. WP:GUYINBAR applies here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this a better article to use to source the fact that WandaVision has wrapped filming: https://comicbook.com/tv-shows/news/wandavision-done-filming-marvel-studios/? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.162.120 (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2020

--ZSJL (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2020 (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. --Paul ❬talk❭ 12:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Addition of Wiccan and Speed

Wiccan and Speed could appear in WandaVsion since Wanda and Vision now had 2 twins and since it will be based on House of M storyline, Wiccan and Speed could be coming. Many people kept believing it. Kohcohf (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

This is purely speculation and WP:OR on your part. El Millo (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source, please don’t waste our time.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Evan Peters

Evan Peters should be added to the cast list after today's footage, right? Anubhab030119 (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

You still need to provide a reliable source that explicitly saying that he was cast. We do not add rumors/speculations per WP:RUMOR. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

8 episodes instead of 6?

According to the Disney Latino website, WandaVision will air an episode every Friday from Jan 15 to March 5. So that means there will be 8 episodes instead of 6, right? - Richiekim (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Murphy's Multiverse has reached the same conclusion. Seems to be to early to include though. El Millo (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Disney Latino is an official source, so the article needs to change to reflect it. --2603:9000:CC02:4E00:5457:8747:E2D2:AF3 (talk) 07:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I had not read the original article properly. The "episode every Friday" plus the two dates seems to be clear enough for us to change it from six episodes to eight. El Millo (talk) 07:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

So...why is no one changing it? --2603:9000:CC02:4E00:ACE6:AB34:3791:EE6A (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Since this contradicts what we have been told for so long, surely we should wait for better confirmation? - adamstom97 (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not knocking a foreign Disney site, but I also wonder how accurate that info is, because foreign Disney sites have been incorrect in the past. Also, as Adam said, we've had 6 episodes for the longest time, and I don't think we've gotten any other info contradicting that. For example, while not the greatest confirmation, it does appear each episode is covering a single decade from the 1950s to now, and Marvel released 6 total posters for those decades, possibly one for each episode. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Considering that this is an official foreign Disney site, I feel it does hold some validity, though I am somewhat skeptical because all other indications from the cast and crew, and from the marketing posters, have indicated "six hours" (per Olsen), six episodes (per DiscussingFilm's report on Shakman), and six decades (per the posters). Granted, not to go WP:OR, the last two episodes could not be following the rest of the series's decades format, but it does beg questions as to if it now is 8 episodes or if this is incorrect. I'm willing to go either way on this for those reasons, as the 6 episodes does seem to have more weight given to it, while the 8 episodes has been floating around for some time and the count could have changed, but nothing else has come out to inflict this change with 100% confidence on my end. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Since the show is emulating sitcoms with its 30 minute runtime, it is possible that some episodes may run half an hour, while others may run an hour. The Mandalorian has variable episode lengths too. - Richiekim (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

How about we make it to "6-8" with both sources until more clarification either way comes out? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm all for using 6-8 for the episodes for now. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be fine until we get another source clarifying the number of episodes. - Richiekim (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I've adjusted the episode count instances to 6-8 for this article and the listings. It could be either one of these, as we don't know if the first season running until March 5 means there are eight episodes for sure or if there is a two-week break somewhere. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a fine decision, using '6-8 episodes', but just to note: the website that gives the March 5 enddate also says we'll get a new episode every Friday. So, if you accept that March 5 date, you also accept that there will be at least 8 episodes. So, no 'two-week break somewhere' according to that source. Still, I agree with the reasoning above that this is fine until we get another source that clarifies. UnderIrae (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, a break doesn't seem likely, my mistake. Episodes airing every Friday until March 5 does seem to indicate eight episodes, but as it hasn't been confirmed and contradicts what we've known for two years, it's best to play it safe for now until we can be confident in it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Slight addendum to what I said before, I think it would actually be most accurate to say 6 or 8 episodes, because no where has it said it would be 7. "6-8" implies 7 is a possibility. I'm going to make this small change, and for our tables at the TV series list and Phase Four, I'm going to remove the end date since we don't know what it actually is until we know how many episodes there are. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The new article on WandaVision in SFX (January 2021) also explicitly states the show is a 'six-episode series'. For what it's worth. UnderIrae (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it does appear that Disney Latino is indeed wrong. I move to go back to listing it as six episodes. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted back to the six episode count. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Request to update the show's budget number as WandaVision is confirmed as NINE episodes long, meaning it cost $225 million to make, if The Hollywood Reporter's 2019 article on Disney+ saying each episode of an MCU D+ show costing $25 million is true

Well, folks, it's official and Disney has spoken. Marvel Studios' WandaVision will be 9 episodes long (https://comicbook.com/marvel/news/wandavision-nine-episodes-season-premiere-9-marvel/). That means the show cost $225 million to make, since The Hollywood Reporter's 2019 article on Disney+ saying each episode of an MCU D+ show costing $25 million to make (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/bob-iger-bets-company-hollywood-s-future-streaming-1247663) is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.162.120 (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm hoping we can edit the number of the budget of WandaVision on it's wiki page from "$150 million" to "$225 million", since it's no longer six episodes and now nine episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.162.120 (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2021

I request that the budget number for WandaVision be changed from $150 million to $225 million since THR said each episode of an MCU show cost $25 million to make: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/bob-iger-bets-company-hollywood-s-future-streaming-1247663. And, since WandaVision is no longer six episodes and is now confirmed as a 9-episode series, it means it cost $225 million to make as 9 x 25 = 225. MarvelDisney20 (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Change has been made. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Grey DeLisle

Just wanted to start a discussion about this. Per her tweet, she says "My voice is in this". That does not tell us much of anything. Knowing she's a voice over actress, it is highly plausible that she did some background recording/ADR work, or was what would be considered an "additional voice", as is common in many films to have voice actors provide the lines/sounds of background elements. Or on the flip side, it could be something like Tom Kenny in Ant-Man. But at this moment, we don't know the context her voice is appearing in, and if it is an "additional voice" situation, that isn't notable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, we don't know the context her voice is appearing in so, we should leave it out until there is more info with a reliable source or when the series premiere to determine if her voice is notable enough to even be included. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Also now that we know there are unique songs by Lopez and Anderson-Lopez, she could be a singer too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, for all we know, she could just be part of the official soundtrack. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Cast

Some casts mentioned in IMDb isn't mentioned on this page. Is IMDb not a reliable source? https://m.imdb.com/title/tt9140560/fullcredits/cast?ref_=m_tt_cl_sc Anubhab030119 (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source, please see WP:IMDB. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know friend. Anubhab030119 (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

WandaVision to premiere with two episodes on January 15th

Per The Verge's Julia Alexander, WandaVision is said to premiere with two half-hour episodes on Disney+ on January 15th: https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/8/22220516/wandavision-premiere-date-two-episodes-weekly-release-mandalorian-disney-plus.

Hoping we can add this into the show's wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarvelDisney20 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Please read the article before coming to the talk. This is already noted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Episode Runtime

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but the show's runtime is not clearly mentioned anywhere. I read somewhere that they were going to be 30 minutes each. Does anyone have any confirmation? Anubhab030119 (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Runtime is added to the infobox once and episode has released per template documentation. We have from the actors that they filmed "six hours" of content, but do not have anything else in the prose specifically about runtime. There is generally no need for runtime to be mentioned unless there is something extremely notable about it being (or not being) a certain length. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Episode 3 specific review material

Starting a section to put some of the reviews for the series that has episode 3 specific comments that can be used for that potential article:

• The A.V. Club
• THR for Brady Bunch/Mary Tyler Moore Show comparison
• Variety for Brady Bunch/Technicolor, and Parris' performance
• EW

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2021

Change the tense from past to present. (WandaVision is an upcoming American --> WandaVision is an American) 1.125.107.154 (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

 Already done It looks like another editor has made this change. Thank you! TimSmit (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Recommendation

Jac Schaeffer should not be the first element mentioned in the opening sentence per WP:LEAD. Very few people who read the article will bat an eye over her relevance. We don't put directors and showrunners in the opening sentence by pure default. Such figures need to be weighed against the other elements. In this case, the series is known for the other elements -- being on Disney+, being about the two comic book characters, being tied to the MCU. The order of that can be argued, but Schaeffer is very distant in relevance to these and should be relegated to a later sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it is pretty standard to list the creator of a TV series straight up front, and I don't think we should give less weight to someone because readers won't know who she is until they read the article, it is the point of the article to show readers new information and appropriate weighing so they can learn. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It's only "pretty standard" because most articles are not in compliance with WP:LEAD. See the first-paragraph and opening-sentence guidelines. The emphasis is clearly on the most noteworthy elements. It would also violate WP:UNDUE ("...prominence of placement...") in putting undue emphasis on Schaeffer over other elements. Schaeffer is rarely ever headlined compared to elements like Marvel Cinematic Universe. She can go later. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

How is the creator of the series not relevant? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Jac is the creator. She should be noted in the lead. It's not a question of "can" she be moved, but "should" she? Schaeffer is the creator of the series, so she should be mentioned with the creation line. Throughout the article, her significance is noted. Moving her info below would detract her info from readers. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

She is not as relevant as the more important elements, so she should be relegated. By making her the first element after the title, her importance is being unduly amplified over the series's connection to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Disney+, and the comic book characters. See the following WP:LEAD passages:

"The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is." Layperson readers are going to be much more familiar with the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Disney+, and the comic book characters than Schaeffer herself.

"If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." Same as above.

"For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence." It gives an example of a German mathematician in a note, "This example not only tells the reader that the subject was a mathematician, it also indicates her field of expertise and work she did outside of it. The years of her birth and death provide time context. The reader who goes no further in this article already knows when she lived, what work she did, and why she is notable." In this case, a reader who goes no further has no understanding of Schaeffer (who is not a household name) and does not get informed of the series's connection to the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

"The opening sentence should provide links to the broader or more elementary topics that are important to the article's topic or place it into the context where it is notable... Do not, however, add contextual links that don't relate directly to the topic's definition or reason for notability." The series is not innovated by Schaeffer. The context, especially the characters and the MCU, predate her. The elementary topics are what I've mentioned above.

Per the above, Schaeffer can be named after the more noteworthy elements, not before. This was a problem with superhero film articles too, where the titular character and/or the actor who portrayed them were not mentioned until later. These articles' openings need to be reorganized depending on the context of the topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I just realized you don't even name the starring actors, the face of the series, in the first paragraph at all. Wow. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Erik: How do you suggest it be written? —El Millo (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the simplest change in direct regard to Schaeffer. For a contextual comparison, look at The New York Times writing about the series here and how far down Schaeffer is mentioned. As for the other elements, I think they are generally more equal, so the order doesn't matter. I think Olsen and Bettany could be mentioned in the first paragraph, though. Like the NYT article indicates, these two are the face of the series. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that putting Schaeffer first before all else would be a bit of undue weight in comparison to how reliable sources are treating the subject, and that seems like a good change to me. Let's see what the others have to say on it. Regarding Olsen and Bettany, I think there's barely any difference between them being at the end of the first paragraph and at the beginning of the second one, and it seems better to name all the cast in the same sentence, plus the size of the paragraphs looks good as it is now. —El Millo (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I actually feel the opposite on both points Facu-el Millo. Jac Schaeffer should still be mentioned as the creator, and if Erik's change was implemented and we thus put "creator and head writer" in that last sentence, then we're essentially saying "created by/creator" unnecessarily twice. I don't think any major preference or weight is being given to her appearing in the first sentence, when it logically makes sense for her to be in that positioning. I do somewhat agree about the cast placement, and could see that moving to the first sentence before the current final sentence of that paragraph. Though I do agree being at the end of the first or the start of the second isn't much of a difference. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

We can't put everything in the first sentence, and we can't put everything in the second sentence either. It absolutely makes sense to have the creator of the series in the first sentence, and it is clearly not undue weight if you look at the article and how much we discuss her work on the series. As for the cast, I agree there isn't much different between having them at the end of the first paragraph or the beginning of the second, though I think having them at the start of the second gives them a bit more prominence and helps avoid further confusion since we are talking about two different versions of the characters. It's a bit of an either/or, and I don't feel like there is a strong need to change it. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead summary of negative criticisms

In response to Adamstom.97's reverts, let's get a consensus on how to summarize the more negative criticisms in the lead. The current iteration of "the non-sitcom storyline was criticized by some as not being as original" simply doesn't correlate with the reception section, where only a passing mention of "narrative stakes" in relation to the wider MCU could possibly be associated with the "non-sitcom storyline". My suggestion is "some reviews were more critical of its reliance on pastiche", as pretty much every quotation in the paragraph is about the over-use of sitcom conventions. U-Mos (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I've just had another read through the section and if we are being literal then none of the criticisms are repeated, so I am open to discussing a better way of summarizing the info. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The negative criticism are best left in the critical section in the body of the page; they're not substantial enough to define the as-yet-unfinished series to merit inclusion in the lead. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we should wait until all of the episodes are released in order to get a full representative view of criticism and put it in the lead. Almost all of the reviews and criticism right now are solely based on the first three episodes, which may not represent a full miniseries viewpoint. Individual episode criticisms are better left for their own articles. Hummerrocket (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Debra and Fred

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

---

Debra and Fred are both mentioned in the colum used for main characters. However they were guest stars. And before people will use the argument: Guest stars can appear in main on end billing.

Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above. We are using the on-end billing for actors in the infobox and bulleted in the cast list at the moment and its best not rush to harsh conclusions after only seeing 2 episodes. We're tracking actors and appearances above too and can reevaluate this criteria once we've seen more episodes and when the series concludes. But for now, all the actors who are credited in the on-end billing appear in the article as such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but to use the main on end billing is utter nonsense. A lot of shows mention guest stars who had a big role in the episode there. I think we should just stick with main characters and not use every guest role who happens to have a big role in like one episode. I vouch to remove debra and fred until it's proven they have a main charachter role. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we should use the cast list at the official website as a billing block of sorts, including only Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Bettany, Kat Dennings, Kathryn Hahn, Randall Park and Teyonah Parris. —El Millo (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I would vouch to do what @el millo proposes. To use the official cast list for the columm. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not related to having a "big role" in one episode. Debra also appears in the second episode and, unlike the first episode, she had like 8 seconds of screentime in the second episode, and she is still credited in the on-end billing. I agree with Favre1fan93 that it is better to wait for more episodes before making changes. YgorD3 (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's better to follow the official website instead of the opinion of some guy. And it is related to having a big role.

Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to mention:

• The official website doesn't mention them as main cast.
• They are not featured in any promotion posters and ads.
• Fred is not even in ep2
• Debra is only seen for about 8 secs in ep2
• Where is the source saying they are main charachters? Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Facu-el Millo and Scenarioschrijver20 and don't understand how anyone can argue that the official Marvel website for the show is inaccurate. Who they say is the main cast is the main cast. It is not for you to decide what your opinion and thoughts are when it is here in front of you that you are incorrect. MarvelousMusician397 (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

No one is saying Marvel's website is inaccurate, and no one is saying we should just use "the opinion of some guy". TV credits on Wikipedia are always based on on-screen crediting, and both these actor are listed in the main credits for the first episode. As others have noted, we can reassess how we are doing this later on when more episodes have been released, but for now we need to follow the Wikipedia standard and use the on-screen credits. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Using your same logic and explanation I'd like to point out a couple of things. In the formal credits at the end of each episode, Kathryn Hahn and Teyonnah Parris are both listed before Debra or Fred, with Fred not being listed in any capacity in the second episode. Also, in the page regarding Wikipedia's TV credit standards, it also says "Please keep in mind that though "main" cast members are determined by the series producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count)." In the case of Wandavision, Marvel's official website should be taken as the word of the producers of the show before anything else. As another user pointed out: Olsen, Bettany, Hahn, and Parris are also the only characters to have received any specific promotional materials. MarvelousMusician397 (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I never heard of that standard which is even more nonsense. If you need a good reliable source, I can't think of anything better than the official Marvel website for the show. Also, have you ever heard of a show that has main characters (as you claim their roles are) that aren't featured in any promotion posters and ads? So, provide a source proving I'm wrong.

--Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

These comments are bordering on incivility, calling everything "nonsense" from the beginning. If you want to convince the other editors that you're right, treating them poorly will surely not help. —El Millo (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's better from the word I would actually have used. And it's an opinion, I'm not treating them poorly, I'm just showing my feelings towards certain standards which shouldn't influence my role in the discussion. So, to everyone who feels offended by me using: nonsense, I am very sorry and I did not mean to offend anyone. --Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It’s been a recent practice where actors may receive main cast crediting for the specific episode they’re in (The Crown, The Mandalorian, Netflix Marvel shows). It is not incorrect to include Rupp and Melamed because they received main cast billing. Doesn’t matter if they weren’t on posters. Rusted AutoParts 23:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It is very incorrect to include guest stars. The columm is only meant for main charachters. Main characters appear in promotion material. Rupp and Melamed didn't because they aren't main characters. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Also I want to point out that @MarvelousMusician397 is making an excellent point. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You're just making that all up and are completing ignoring actual Wikipedia standards and guidelines. Please stop edit warring and being uncivil. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the source you have that they are guest stars? We have an end credits where, amongst the names of Olsen, Bettany, Hahn, Parris, etc, are Rupp and Melamed. How aren't they main cast in that regard, if they weren't they'd be in the secondary cast section of the credits alongside Ali, Caulfield, etc. The marketing is irrelevant in this regard, they absolutely do not to have their own poster. Rusted AutoParts 00:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

All the other shows I've seen pages for on Wikipedia use that colum for main characters so it was a safe bet to assume this page did it as well. I'm not being uncivil. And kindly read the argument made by: @MarvelousMusician397 Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

What source do you have they are main characters? Main on end billing can happen with guest stars but doesn't automatically mean they are main characters. The marketing is quite relevant in this discussion, in the history of television there has never been a show that didn't put main characters in it's promotional material. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact they are in the main cast section of their episodes. It becomes WP:COMMONSENSE at that point. You're insisting that, despite their names appearing in that very specific section, due to not having posters or the studio previously announcing them that this is disqualified. Incorrect. We aren't owed the studio's hand at all, if they decide to withhold main cast until the episode airs it's their choice. So show me why they don't qualify despite this. The poster argument has been debunked, the studio argument has been debunked. What else have you got? Rusted AutoParts 01:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

In this case, it's not about main characters, but about who received main billing. It really doesn't matter who received a poster or not. Dennings and Park are supossed to have main roles despite not having any poster, so what's the point? AxGRvS (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

In the page regarding Wikipedia's TV credit standards, it also says "Please keep in mind that though "main" cast members are determined by the series producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count)." In the case of Wandavision, Marvel's official website should be taken as the word of the producers of the show before anything else.

And Dennings and Woo have been confirmed by the studio to be main charachters. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I repeat, it's not about main characters, but about who received main billing in the episodes. AxGRvS (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

determined by the series producers means as they appear in the episode credits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You know what, I'm done. Wait until March 5 and see that I'm right ;) Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

On March 5 nothing will change because Rupp and Melamed were credited as main cast so they will be in the main cast sections of the article. Rusted AutoParts 01:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yup exactly. Would just like to state, as soon as episode 1 comes out (and then the subsequent episodes of a series), that supersedes any pre-release press release or info. While those can still be used to aid us in decisions, many times, especially in the past few years, press releases can not include certain actors that the series wish to make a "surprise" or whatever, or put out info that doesn't fully equate itself to what the episode credits actually are. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hypothetically speaking:

Say I make a show and that show gets an Wikipedia page.

Now, I put an guest-star in one episode but won't show him for the remainder of the show. However for the one episode he was in, I gave him main on-end billing.

Where would you put this actors name? Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Main cast because they were credited as such. Why is this so hard to grasp? Rusted AutoParts 19:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Main cast consist of actors who played a significant role in a tv show for multiple episodes. Recurring cast are actors who appear not every episode but appear more than once in the same role. Guest-role is an actor who played a role in just one episode but could still have been a significant role in certain episode and therefor appear on the main on-end billing.

How is this so hard to grasp? Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Main cast is names listed in the main cast section of the credits. It doesn't matter how many episodes they show up in. A new trend has emerged, like I said before, that actors can jus the credited for the episodes they're in as opposed to a blanket credit for the whole show despite not being in all episodes. At this point it feels like this is intentional obtuseness and therefore not productive. Rusted AutoParts 21:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. An example is Cloak & Dagger (season 1): Jaime Zevallos appears in 3 of 10 episodes and he is still credited as part of the main cast, while Noëlle Renée Bercy appears in 8/10 episodes with a bigger role, but she is not credited as main. The number of episodes has nothing to do. YgorD3 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Main cast is defined by the amount of episodes one person is in. They don't always have to appear so as credited. So far looking at the roles of Melamed and Rupp, Melamed was a guest star and Rupp a recurring role.

Learn your tv terms ;) Also just out of curiosity, does wikipedia have guidelines for these kinds of things? Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Also lets look at another show NCIS, Brian Dietzen started of as a recurring role and it wasn't until season 10 that he became a main cast member and thus was credited like that. Same goes for Donna Reasonover, she started of as a recurring role but the following season became a main cast member and thus was credited like one.

And just another thing, appearing only in one episode is by definition a guest role, so at least Melamed should be removed from the colum. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Have you seen the whole show already? We don't know whether he only appears in one episode. With the information we have, we can't possibly know that he won't appear in other episodes. So far, he's appeared in half the episodes, so it's clearly flawed to make these decisions now based on appearances, since only two out of nine episodes have been released. On NCIS, they were, as you say it, credited as such, and that's why they are main or recurring, not based on how many episodes they appear in. —El Millo (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I know these things, I got a gut feeling about them. If Melamed would have been part of the main cast, it would already have been revealed. Where´s the reveal? In my opinion, if Melamed and Rupp don't appear in the other episodes. At least Melamed should be removed from the columm. Rupp is technically recurring so I can give you that one. --Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You aren’t giving us anything, you can keep throwing your original research at us, it doesn’t change what we see: Rupp and Melamed were credited as Main Cast. They get listed amongst the main cast. At the bare minimum a case can be made to style it the same way The Crown does where in the main cast section it notes people billed as main cast that only featured in one episode but seeing as this show is only going to be one lone season I don’t see the point or the fussiness over these two names being included. Rusted AutoParts 23:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

They were guest-roles. At least Melamed, Rupp is like I said a recurring. It's just plain incorrect, the starring function is used for main cast which for this show is: Olsen, Bettany, Woo, Dennings, Hahn and Parris. Mentioning guest-roles there can work as confusing for people trying to look up information about shows. They will think Rupp and Melamed played a significant role throughout the series. Also you haven't answered my question, what's the wikipedia guideline for this?

I'm willing to agree to disagree but if you are so stubborn that you want guest roles in the starring part then as soon as the last episode is out include the amount of episodes as to not confuse people. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Also I remember a similliar discussion I had back in 2018 on the captain Marvel talk page regarding Jude Law's role in it. Everyone told me I was wrong, no matter which source I gave. Then when the film was released, it turned out I had been right all that time. So, when I say I know these kinds of things, trust me on it. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

No. Rusted AutoParts 23:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Childish behaviour.... Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Says the editor bludgeoning the discussion by repeating themselves over and over with “trust me on this” original research and an overall sense of arrogance that they’re right about something that’s frankly objectively wrong. Rusted AutoParts 23:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm with Favre, Adam, and Rusted AutoParts on this. There seems to be no evidence to withdraw the series' own credits placing Debra and Fred in the main credits, as not all of the episodes have released yet. Even then, they're in the main billing, so we follow that. Discussions not helpful to this topic aren't welcome here, and are much appreciated to stop or be taken to a user's talk page, but I suggest the former to prevent personal attacks and to maintain good faith and politeness on this. It's really not much to debate about. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Rusted I'm only repeating myself because you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

With the I know these things, I got a gut feeling about them, you removed any credibility you could have. We don't do things here based on trust and "gut feelings", we do it based on evidence and reliable sources. —El Millo (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Scenario, we got what you’re saying from the get go. We’ve told you why you’re incorrect from the get go. Now you’re just repeating yourself probably hoping to insist your way into being used. Rusted AutoParts 01:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

As noted above, the opportunity to reassess Debra and Fred will present itself when the third episode airs. -- GimmeChoco44 (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Ideal vs idyllic

This articles uses the word “ideal” to describe the suburban life. I believe idyllic would be a better descriptor (I.e. an idyllic life) because it a) allows for something to go wrong - as things seem to be going b) ascribes less judgement to whether or not 20th century American suburban life is actually the ideal way to live. Skyfall3665 (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Changed. The EW source also uses this, so it's supported by the reference. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Recurring roles.

The page says that Jolene Purdy(1 episode) has a recurring role in the show, while Asif Ali's Norm(2 episodes) is simply mentioned to be a resident of Westview. If Jolene is mentioned as recurring(I know there was a article mentioning her role to be recurring), then Asif should get the same treatment, right? Anubhab030119 (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, exactly how many episodes does a person need to appear in inside a season for his/her role to considered recurring instead of guest? Anubhab030119 (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Lastly, I don't intend to open a can of worms by talking about Debra and Fred's mention in the Main cast, but they could atleast be placed below Kathryn Hann and Monica Rambeau, right? Right now anyone would see this list and think they are the biggest supporting characters following the two leads. Anubhab030119 (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Purdy is sourced as recurring and will stay as such until that's confirmed either way by the episodes she appears in. Per the conversation above, 4 or more episodes constitutes recurring. Please read MOS:TVCAST for how starring actors are credited. It follows the credits of the first episode (for this series and at this time the main on-end billing), with any actors appearing in the billing after episode 1 appended to the end. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks for explaining all the stuff man. Anubhab030119 (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Minor casts

Why is Dennis the Mailman included in the cast, while Dr. Nielsen and his wife not? All of them appeared in just one episode. The Doctor had more screentime and a bigger role than the mailman. So what's up with this unnecessary indiscrimination? Anubhab030119 (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• discrimination Anubhab030119 (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Dennis appears in 2 episodes. YgorD3 (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I think maybe we should make a clearer list split into like: Westview residents, SWORD etc. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2021

I think that the characters section in the article should be split into main and recurring sections, since characters in both those capacities have been confirmed (Vision and Wanda in main and Beverly in recurring). SirLou (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please make the changes yourself in your user sandbox and re-open the edit request once done. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 14:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Recurring cast definition and episode articles

Hi all. We're really close to the series releasing so I wanted to go over a few things I think would be good to have consensus on before episodes start releasing. First, the cast section and recurring characters. Obviously until an episode releases, we won't know how this will play out (if it will be Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. style of all main cast at the start of the episode with guest stars, and co-stars at the end, or Mandalorian style where we everything's at the end and we have unconventional "Co-star" credits), but given we have 6 episodes in the season, I think we should start defining recurring (whatever that is) at 3 episode appearances. We can obviously reevaluate once its all said and done, but I feel that's a good starting place.

Second, episode articles. Are we looking to make articles for each one? My indication is probably yes, but my personal feeling is that it will take at least 24 hours after release for us to get meaningful info to craft them beyond their plot and reviews (there's currently a whole discussion in the TV project about episode articles and this, and what makes them notable). Just wanted to hear everyone's thoughts on this, because I personally feel anything for articles should probably start in the draftspace to be built out, but if meaningful content is coming fairly quickly that might not be worth it. And if we want individual articles, I think we have a lot of info already for the first ep, given we know about its filming in black and white and in front of a studio audience, that we could make a draft at Draft:Episode 1 (WandaVision) (that name for the time being) to get something started so we have a framework in place come January 15. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm on board for determining any recurring cast or "co-stars" by episode 3, with guest stars for any guest appearances. I think we should aim for having each episode get an article as this is the first Marvel Studios television series for the MCU, so they may become notable, as long as we can build enough with each of the 6 eps. Work on each episode in draftspace to prep them before enough notability is available is also helpful. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we should start with 3 episodes for recurring and adjust from there. Since we already have info on the first episode I think it makes sense to plan on that getting an episode, and then we can if it makes sense as new episodes come out. Since this will be weekly releases it seems likely that we will have enough critical response content for each episode, so it will just be seeing what production info we actually have. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The only thing that I have doubts about is whether we do every episode in draftspace first and wait for them to be in reasonable shape or whether we just start in mainspace. El Millo (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Well as I mentioned, we can definitely start a draft article for episode one so we are in a good spot with it come January 15. But yeah, that was my feeling too about the others. Because undoubtedly (as has been seen with the Mandalorian) as soon as episodes drop at midnight PST, editors are going to try to create the articles, which at that moment, they definitely should not be an article. As Adamstom.97 and I did a bit with AoS season 7, we crafted each episode in the userspace and it took at maximum 24 hours after the episode aired for use to move it the mainspace because we had gotten the production info to fill out the article. I feel that will be the same case here, about 24 hours to get something, so yeah, is it even worth it to worry about drafts? I know all of us here will be working to get that info into any potential articles once it starts getting revealed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it will be easier starting in userspace instead of in draftspace. It's quicker and easier to move from there to mainspace, right? El Millo (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It may be a better idea to set up drafts rather than userspace if we think there is going to be a similar amount of interest to what The Mandalorian has, since then we can direct people to the draft until it is ready for the mainspace in instances where it may take a day or two for it to be set up. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with using drafts if at all. I will start one for the first episode like I said. After that, I think we'll just have to see what happens, but it seems we are on the same page that if there isn't enough info to populate the article, it probably shouldn't be in the mainspace until it can be expanded. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok so I've started the article for episode 1 at Draft:Episode 1 (WandaVision). I was also thinking that if each episode solely covers a different decade, we can use the 1950s poster for the article (and the other ones for the subsequent ones). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, if we get to additional episode article, then we should create a navbox and show-specific category. Just wanted to put that on the radar too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

It's been confirmed we're getting 2 episodes next week, so I definitely think any article creation needs to hold off at least for 12-24 hours after midnight PST for us to see if what's in the current Episode 1 draft all applies or some applies to episode 2 (or if we even have enough production info currently to warrant an episode 2 article right out the gate). Adamstom.97 and Alex 21 given where you both are in the world, I'm assuming Disney+ original drops might be at a better time? If so and you are able, would either of you be able to monitor mainspace article creations, or try to get redirects done first? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we should hold out until we have sorted out what info we have on each episode before doing anything in the mainspace. And yeah, I can help keep an eye on things when the episodes first premiere as it will be a much more manageable time here (assuming that this show is released the same way as The Mandalorian). - adamstom97 (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Adamstom.97 Thanks! As far as I'm aware, it should be the same time as Mandalorian releases (12:01 am Pacific time). And just to state once again for any editor seeing the hidden notes and/or trying to create the articles right away, the editors who participated here agree at least for the first episodes an article should exist, we just need to make sure we know what content is appropriate where given we've started a draft. And remember we are in no rush. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I also would like to throw it out there depending on how closely the first 2 episodes are related, that a joint article be possibly considered, though I think this is doubtful. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Since we are holding off on episode articles at first, we should be able to see how the drafts are turning out to decide if they need to be combined. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. Just wanted to throw it out in the world as an option, given press saw the first three, and with the first two releasing together, there might be some connected-ness between them. And as I said, I could be completely wrong on that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Updates for cast listing and draft

So slightly unexpected approach to the cast, rather than having series regulars and guest actors the series seems to be crediting actors as if this was a movie, with just one full cast list for each episode and then a "main" billing during the credit sequence. For now I have removed the "Recurring" and "Guest" headers and converted the cast list to the format we would use for a film until we can discuss this further. I have also added the cast to the episode articles but we definitely need to discuss how to handle that. I just took out the main billed actors from the lists since they are named in the lead of those articles, but not sure if that is the best approach. What are our thoughts on this (once others have seen the episodes of course)? - adamstom97 (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes surprised by this myself. I'm going to make a section below tracking everything (main billing plus the order in the cast list). I think we should go with a "film cast" approach as you've done, and then in the prose, just put "recurring" actors at the top and guests after? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I think that makes the most sense based on what the crediting is. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I dont understand the reasoning for the format of the cast list. As you said yourself, the "main" billing is what occurs during the credit sequence. Any additional names given during the extended credits listings should be considered recurring (or guest, based off their episode count by series end which I see you have already started to keep track of). Not sure why this means we can't have the proper formatting for a TV series?? MarvelousMusician397 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@MarvelousMusician397: The credits are essentially the same as what Marvel Studios does for their films, not your "standard" television series, with distinct main cast, guest cast, and co-starring cast. All we have are the main on-end billing (which can be equated to a film's billing block) and then a straight cast list, again feature generally seen for a film. As such, that is how the cast section has been reformatted to be like, given it will be harder make a "traditional" television cast section. We can still track how many episodes actors who aren't in the billing appear in, so we can state in the prose paragraph that they are recurring. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The series doesn't use series regular or guest star billing so we can't just use those words because we do for other TV shows. Instead the series just has one big cast, but it highlights certain actors in the main credits which is how Marvel's films do credits as well. So it is just logical to format the cast list in the same way as we do at film articles, which is bullet points for the actors who receive main billing in the credits and the a collection of other actors in prose below. We will still note who has recurring roles across multiple episodes, but we shouldn't have headings for "Recurring" and "Guest" when the series itself doesn't do that. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I think too once all 9 episodes are out, we can reassess and see what other actors appear in the on-end billing, but it is worth noting too that the press brief lists only Olsen, Bettany, Parris, Hahn, Park, and Dennings as the "main cast". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Does the main cast on the press brief always line up with poster billing for the films? If so then that could be a valid alternative for here as well since we know that the main credits billing on the films does not always line up with actual billing. We would need to decide how we want to handle the episode articles as well though. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Potentially for the poster, but not the main on-end, which usually has more actors there than on the poster. Again, just stating after we see more episodes if we need other pieces of information, the press brief is there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Also separately, I believe episode 1 is at or close to being able to move to the mainspace. I'm still working on adding reviews, which will help. Episode 2 I believe still needs some work, particularly in the production section to see what we're going to do with all that's there. I'm going to boldly move episode 1 now, but will keep episode 2 in the draft space a little longer. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Summary of how the cast is presented (upon the start of the series)

Actors who have appeared in the end credits main on-end billing are bulleted in the cast list and appear in the lead and infobox. This is because Marvel Studios is treating their Disney+ series as if they were feature films and thus have credits as if each episode were its own film. The actors in the main on-end billings can be equated to what would be considered traditional main/starring cast of a "normal" television series, and are formatting similarly to that of MCU films (billed actors bulleted, others in prose below). For other actors in the series, they have been added to the prose after appearing in 2 or more episodes in the series, with additional tracking seen in the breakdown below to further determine if an actor is recurring or not (which is 4 or more appearances or being reliably sourced as such until episode counts determine that). Once all episodes have been released, further discussions can be had if this formatting has to change, but it's possible it may not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editors

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

---

You know what, I give up. You guys are unreasonable and plain idiotic. Most of your decisions are contradictory to each other, proving how much of a hypocrite you guys are. So keep doing your nonsensical stuff in this useless website. Wikipedia editors, wikipedia guidelines, and wikipedia in general SUCKS. Anubhab030119 (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

What are you referring to specifically? —El Millo (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This talk page isn’t for you to whinge and cry. Say something constructive or to gage a consensus or don’t say anything. Rusted AutoParts 21:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

3 characters have appeared only once thus far: Fred Melamed's Arthur Hart, Amos Glick's Dennis the Mailman, and Randy Oglesby's Dr. Stan Nielsen. However, due to some stupid "guidelines", some stubborn people have decided that Fred would be right up there in the main cast, Amos would be in a guest appearance, and Randy will not be included. When someone else added Amos to the guest star list, nobody batted an eyelid. As soon as I added Randy to the guest star list(who obviously has had a bigger role than Amos thus far), people started to put up weird and simply stupid excuses as though why he should not be included. "He was only in one episode. We should wait." If you indeed wanted to WAIT, then why the hell include Amos? What's the bloody difference? The only difference is that Amos was added by some "veteran" editor, while Randy was added by me, a newcomer, something that hurts the ego of these editors as they think only they are entitled to make these edits. Also, these people keep saying that the entire series is presented as half-hour comedies. When I pointed out that you can't say that till all the episodes have aired because the latter episodes will not be comedies(according to the main cast's interview on youtube), they came up with another lame-ass excuse that only the first few episodes matter to a show's genre. I mean come on: When they say something, it's supposed to considered as bible? Even when they are plain wrong? These editors are some of the dumbest and meanest people I've ever seen. Anubhab030119 (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S: Dennis the Mailman appeared in two episodes. However, what sane person rates two incredibly small cameos over one considerably larger apperance? I know they will say that there is some stupid-ass wiki guideline that they are sticking to. But I prefer having a common sense instead of following blindly. Anubhab030119 (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

No one is forcing you to edit here, if you feel so strongly that Wikipedia editors, wikipedia guidelines, and wikipedia in general SUCKS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Nothing he's saying / questioning is wrong. The decisions being made here and the "guidelines" being followed are often contradicting each other. Perfect example being what Anubhab said about how Randy Oglesby doesn't belong in the guest appearance list, but several other characters with the same amount of appearances supposedly do belong there. Anyone care to try and explain this reasoning?? This also could all be easily solved by allowing this page to be written in the STANDARD layout for a television series. For all that people are saying about guidelines, this page is diverting from them right from the beginning by insisting on following the layout for a movie instead of a TV series. MarvelousMusician397 (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

If by layout for a movie you're referring to the cast list not being divided in main, recurring and guest, instead being bullet points and then a paragraph, that's due to the credits of the TV series, which are more similar to a film than to a standard TV show. Using this format was decided given that there isn't a clear distinction between main, recurring and guest appearances in the credits, and it's difficult to determine which is which by ourselves if most episodes haven't been released yet. I do agree that those characters should be included, if the appearance is notable —and it seems it is, at least for the amount of screen time and dialogue Dr. Nielsen has in the third episode— and we have a reliable source, then there is no reason not to include it. However, there's plenty Anubhab030119 that is wrong, disregarding guidelines and throwing a tantrum because they got reverted a couple times with a somewhat ambiguous or perhaps even flawed reasoning. If they can't handle a couple disagreements and don't want to operate with and within Wikipedia guidelines, then Wikipedia isn't the place for them, especially since this is a relatively calm corner of the encyclopedia. —El Millo (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Since I have been involved in this matter, I'm weighing in here. There are two key pillars of Wikipedia that matter and have bearing here. The first is that all who edit here should assume good faith on the part of those with whom they interact. The nature of the complaints raised to open this topic in tone and substance violates that policy pretty clearly. Secondly, Wikipedia's "voice", when it has one, is based on standards of neutrality and reliable sourcing. The fact of the matter is that, regardless of what has been seen in the series thus far, executives of the MCU have defined the series as a comedy, and have clearly designated differentiations between cast members that are starring, recurring, and only making guest apperances. Additionally, with the series currently airing and the sources subject to fluctuate, any reasonable person should support noting what the currently-available sources say, then making appropriate adjustments through consensus when the reliable sourcing in the future lend merit to such actions. It seems to me that, rather than trying to assume good faith and work within the relevant guidelines, the substance and tone of this topic has been set up as a way for one (or more) editors to complain about content that is consistent with policy instead of being presented in a manner that they'd find acceptable. That's not how Wikipedia works. So, an open challenge to all who disagree with the content as it currntly stands. Find one, just one, source anywhere that contains a statement from Feigie, or anyone that has worked on this series, that notes that the genre of this series is not a comedy, as originally asserted. And find another, any one, that contains similar evidence indicating that original casting plans and ordering of those starring, recurring, or appearing as guests is different from what was originally planned, announced, and accordingly mentioned here. If such sources can be verified as reliable by Wikipedia standards, and if the consensus concurs that resulting changes are necessary, then they can be made as considered appropriate and consistent. But choosing instead to use the talk page to criticize and censure editors that are acting in accordance with policy as defined by Wikipedia is not assuming good faith, and in fact, violates another policy where editors are instructed to talk about issues, not make personal commentary or statements of judgement about the character and motivations of other editors. If you want to discuss and fix the issue, let's do that by finding sources that would support the changes that you'd like to make here. If all this topic is set up for is for one or more editors to spew hateful and vituperative vitriol about those of us who are just trying to act consistent with policy and sourcing, this is not the place for that, and such attitudes, and the preferred version of content that has not been verified by reliable sources, should rightly be taken elsewhere. Let me make it clear that I am doing my level best to assume good faith on the part of those who raised the objections in this manner in this case. If any of you who have so objected are willing to step away from personally attacking others here and turning attention to finding reliable sources that meet Wikipedia's standards sufficient to merit the desired changes, let's get that done. If not, then IMHO, there's really no need to continue to this discussion further. 'Nuff said. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I have a proposition, seeing as most discussions are regarding the cast and the way of mentioning them. I propose we stop all discussions regarding cast until the last episode is out and so we have all the info. That way we can try to reach consensus on the way of mentioning people without attacking people due to (in my opinion) understandable frustration. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This is something people noted in the previous, *closed* discussion above about this exact same problem. This is why I deleted this discussion but since you restored it it's clear you want to keep allowing this topic to be repeated over and over. Rusted AutoParts 22:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep, but deleting discussions is a way of censorship which I don't think belongs on wikipedia. I restored it because I respect democracy. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You added it back to keep the topic going, nothing more. You have no designs of seeing the arguments already put forth and changing your mind given your incorrect statement on your userpage, so what's the point other than to argue it to death? This is basically a filibuster and it is not appreciated in the slightest. Rusted AutoParts 00:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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