Talk:WandaVision/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Regarding the Series' Budget

Currently, the article's (only?) budget source states that the budget per episode is as high as $25 million dollars, which is fine. But this was over a year ago when only 6 episodes were reported, and there is no indication of if the budget is $150 million, for six hours, or $225 million for nine episodes. Therefore, I don't think we can conclude the show's budget since it can go either way, and we should remove it from the table entirely, until a reliable source stating the season's entire budget is found. Hummerrocket (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

That report was back when it had been reported that each of these would be "6-8 episodes", which inherently was mean to be long form (ie hour-long) episodes, I believe that number equates to the 6 hours of content. Feige has stated that all the series start as 6 hours of content and then get broken out from there, which presumably is after they've been given budgets. I don't feel this is a stretch to make such conclusions, but if others do, then yes we should remove it from the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It is WP:SYNTH at this point because it did not explicitly stated i$150 million for six hours, or $225 million for nine episodes. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:CALC allows for simple calculations, which this would be (if it's six hours or 9 episodes that's used against the budget value per of $25 million). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I am leaning towards just mentioning the amount in development for now and leaving it out of the infobox, as it is just unclear how that information applies to what we know now. If we were going to add it, my suggestion would be to literally say "Up to $25 million per episode" in the infobox because that is what we have from the source. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that is the best idea for the time being. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

New clip

There's a new official clip released by Marvel and Disney where the real names of Norm and Arthur Hart can be seen: Abilash Tandon and Todd Davis. Can we add this? Or is it better to wait a bit? AxGRvS (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

We can wait. Undoubtedly this will be covered in tomorrow's episode and sources will state as such without us having to still frame video to confirm this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's a somewhat helpful article about this at the moment, but undoubtedly all the articles about the episode once it releases will cover this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Episode numbers

Hi, is there a reason we only mention the amount of 4 episodes in the colum? I apologize in advance if that has already been mentioned and I missed it.

--Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

We only list the number of episodes that have been released in the infobox, per the template documentation. This is because there have been cases where the full number of ordered episodes for a series have been listed there but then they were not actually made or released, so we play it safe there. But the full number of episodes can be listed elsewhere in the article with sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Just wondered what it was about. Thanks for the explaination :). Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Jac Schaeffer interview

See what you can add. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Added some parts in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Simple grammatical error: Production - Development

Paragraph three sentence two "The first three episodes are around 30 minutes each while the remaining episode..." - the second occurence of "episode" refers to 6 episodes and so should be plural - "The first three episodes are around 30 minutes each while the remaining episodes..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.175.135 (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed —El Millo (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Ali and Glick / Dennis' name

Hi, I know these are minor roles, but Asif Ali (Norm) played character Jesse Fletcher in the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 1 episode "Beginning of the End" (it is mentioned in the episode article) and Amos Glick (Dennis) played a waiter in the season 7 episode "The New Deal". I added this with a source (for Ali's appearance. On Glick's case, I haven't found a reliable one despite him appearing in the episode, although it is understandable because is a minor role) but it was reverted for not being notable. As I said, I know these are minor roles, but I consider it is something noticeable when an actor plays more than one character in MCU media, and this was clarified when that happened in other articles. I just want to you to consider this.

Another separate point I want to discuss is how to put Glick's character, "Dennis the Mailman". I know he was credited that way, but Mailman is not a proper name so I think it should not be wrote as that. Again, I corrected that several times in this article and the episodes where he appears but it was always reverted, with the only explanation being "Per credits".

I would thank these points were discussed.

I agree that it is generally notable for an actor to portray multiple characters within the MCU, but they barely portrayed actual characters in S.H.I.E.L.D. and Glick barely plays an actual character here so that is why I felt it wasn't really noteworthy. As for "Dennis the Mailman", there isn't really a reason why that couldn't be a name in a TV show, and besides "All names should be referred to as credited" per MOS:TVCAST. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Their appearance in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is not notable, at least not yet. If they turn out to be playing the same character they played in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., then it probably would be notable enough to include it. On the mailman thing, "mailman" isn't a proper noun, and perhaps we should apply the WP:COMMONSENSE in WP:IAR with respect to referring to all names as credited in MOS:TVCAST. It would be too strict to stick to even the capitalization of the credits in a case such as this one. If it turns out that there's a specific reason why the character is credited as "Dennis the Mailman" that has any type of relevance to the story, apart from just a convention to capitalize credited names as if they were titles, then sure. —El Millo (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I can agree with their SHIELD characters being not notable for the article, I just found it curious. On the other side, I agree with El Millo. AxGRvS (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that "mailman" should be lowercase, or reworked to something like "the mailman, Dennis" etc. And for listing him in the infobox credits of first 2 episodes, I'd be okay with just having him as "Dennis" there. Same thing goes for the actors appearing in the commercials. "Commercial Man/Woman/Boy/Girl" shouldn't be capitalized. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

but he is *NOT* "Dennis the mailman" or "the mailman, Dennis", he is "Dennis the Mailman"! it is a full "name" of sorts, cf "Ivan the Terrible" or "Robert the Bruce". i am willing to bet that most refs to him in the show will use the full "Dennis the Mailman", never as simply "Dennis" or "mailman".

besides, i think it's an homage to Dennis the Menace. needs to stay as is. 66.30.47.138 (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Categories

It may come across as a metaphysical question, but does the fiction actually take place in the 1950s, 1960s, et al.?

Depending on the answer—which in turn depends on assessing the extent of the time reality bending of the lead character and the extent of what "setting" (vs. "theme") actually means, I assume—the current categories Category:Television series set in the 1950s; Category:Television series set in the 1960s; Category:Television series set in the 1970s; Category:Television series set in the 1980s Category:Television series set in the 1990s; Category:Television series set in the 2000s; Category:Television series set in the 2020s may be put into question (other than whatever Earth-199999 decade the Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four is set in).--Asqueladd (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

As of 4 episodes in, we are to believe that, yes, within the Westview anomaly, what's happening is set in those decades, so the categories are fine. Should the reasoning why that is happening in the anomaly be explained, I think we can reevaluate. The 2020s cat is fine, because that's where this is occurring in the MCU timeline. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

My feeling is those categories do not apply, since it only appears to be those decades inside the town while is is actually 2023. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. That is a fiction within a fiction and the show doesn't actually take place in those decades. —El Millo (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

All of the episode articles have relevant decade cats, so if we want to remove all of them from here except the 2020s, that would be fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Technically, the WandaVision sitcom we're seeing is what S.W.O.R.D. is watching. So, it's a show within a show; and therefore, the categories wouldn't apply. There might even be a question of whether it's really a sitcom, but we can let that stay since the sitcom is a big part of the show.— Starforce¹³ 02:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead then and remove the other year categories. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Counting installments of the MCU

Should we call WandaVision the 24th installment and first television series of the MCU? Or should we keep the count to the films only? Are the Marvel Television shows considered canonical anymore? I ask because the Disney+ shows are considered to be at the same level as the films, considering that they are part of Phase Four. TdanTce (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it is best just to count the films and not try include TV series in the count. Especially when we start getting to multiple seasons... - adamstom97 (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I think 100% it counts as the 24th installment. Marvel, Disney, and Kevin Feige have all been very clear that these shows are just as important and relevant to the MCU now as the films. "Installment" doesn't mean film, it just means that this is the next chapter, which it is in every sense of the word. Would be inaccurate to not count this towards it. MarvelousMusician397 (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this discussion is irrelevant because we stopped using "nth installment" in favor of "nth film". If there are still articles that say "installment", they just need to be updated to say "film" because otherwise, installments become a mess with TV series that could get multiple seasons. — Starforce¹³ 17:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Commercial actors

@Favre1fan93: I appreciate trying to stick to MOS:TVCAST where possible, but I do think there is value in grouping together certain actors to make it easier for the reader to understand since we are using prose rather than an easy-to-read list. I also don't think the commercial actors should really count as part of the proper cast list since they are in their own special category, which is why I think the current format at the episode articles works well where we just include them all at the end of the paragraphs rather than in the same sentence as the other cast members. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm viewing this more so as adjusting things week to week, and then examining after episode 9 airs to see with the prose how the groupings, while retaining TVCAST suggestions, will benefit us. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no worries. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Main cast order

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.

---

Hi, is it possible to reorder the main cast according to each actor place in the credits? I mean, in the following way: Olsen, Bettany, Parris, Rupp (after Parris per episode 2), Melamed, Peters, Park (after Peters per ep. 5), Dennings, and Hahn (credited last in every episode). This was made on the Marvel Netflix shows articles where there were main actors who appeared later but they are put according to their place on the credits. I'm just asking, I don't know if it's a good idea or really doesn't matter. AxGRvS (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The casting section on this page is currently very inaccurate. This discussion has been started countless times but some people are set on following a guideline that says we are only ever allowed to acknowledge one specific source for the main casting list, ignoring the many other sources that clearly say otherwise. I'm hoping people will stop this once the series is over but until then it seems like a lost cause to try to fix it. MarvelousMusician397 (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

MOS:TVCAST exists for exactly this reason, so editors don't come with discussions like this asking for versions of the cast they feel is "correct" or "best". Per that guideline, we follow the order given to use in episode 1, and append any new cast members to the end of the list once they are credited. And for the record, the Marvel Netflix series are formatted in this manner as well, so I don't know where that comment came from. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not what I "feel", this is, like I said in my previous comment, what has been proven by basically every other source except this one specific one we are forced to use. In all other media related to the show, in interviews, in the development of the show, in press, etc etc etc, the main cast is said as being Olsen, Bettany, Hahn, Parris, Park, and Dennings. MarvelousMusician397 (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

We follow the primary source because media coverage doesn't always have everything especially when the studios intentionally keep some casting a secret to avoid spoilers. And the cast changes throughout the series, making most secondary sources obsolete. For example, none of the secondary sources included Peters as a main character. So, MOS:TVCAST exists to avoid these debates.— Starforce¹³ 20:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick 2 cents, Peters could have been just a cameo or him being included in the billings like that could have been a contract thing. (That's all I'll say on the topic for now) Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

There are examples. In Daredevil, Ayelet Zurer, Vondi Curtis-Hall, and Rosario Dawson appear after episode 1 but they are credited according to their place on the credits, before Vincent D'Onofrio. The same with Luke Cage: Erik LaRey Harvey and Dawson appear later but they are credited before Alfre Woodard, who appeared first. The same happens with Wil Traval in Jessica Jones, with Ramon Rodriguez, Sacha Dhawan, and Dawson in Iron Fist, and also with Ebon Moss-Bachrach in The Punisher. That's why I am asking for this. AxGRvS (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

If that's the case, those are the ones that need changing but I won't get into that bc I don't know the reasoning. The cast billing block for WandaVision in particular, is constantly changing from episode to episode, which makes any order debatable, and so it's more important than ever to follow MOS:TVCAST.— Starforce¹³ 16:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see previous discussions on this Talk. There are at least 3 previous discussions about the main cast order. The clear consensus have always been going by MOS:TVCAST, not personal preferences. You are beating a dead horse here. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop claiming people are asking for their "personal preferences" when that is not whats happening. Talk about beating a dead horse. At least try and be professional about this instead of resorting to false claims. This is not just directed at you, it's been incorrectly said multiple times now. MarvelousMusician397 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree with Marvelous here. The cast list in this article is extremely misleading. Two extremely minor characters are being given more preference over main characters just to follow some dumb guidilne. Anubhab030119 (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

These "minor" characters received main on end billing on the credits, that's why they are added. AxGRvS (talk) 15:38, 8 February 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.

Stephen Ford Jimmy Woo spin-off

Is it worthwhile to mention Stephen Ford working on a pitch based off his tweet for a Jimmy Woo X-Files-type spin off? Because this doesn't seem super concrete at this time, I'm leaning towards no, but wanted discuss it here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's too much speculation for wikipedia at this moment. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm also leaning towards no on including this as it seems too early at this time. The article also states Nothing’s set in stone yet and it’s not even confirmed that Ford has landed a proper meeting with Marvel, but from what we can glean from his tweet, he at least seems to have the ear of someone at the studio. So, it doesn't appear official or notable yet. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely something to keep an eye on, the fact that the actors have commented on it is helpful but if nothing comes of it and we don't hear any more about it then I don't think we would have enough to warrant including it. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I thought as much. Thanks all! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

FYI Schaeffer comments on the potential spin-off (not Ford's proposal specifically) here, which I just added to the article as "SchaefferColliderFeb2021". - adamstom97 (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Future episode articles

Now that's we've essentially gone through all the episodes the press have seen and were able to create articles about, how are we feeling about starting new episodes as mainspace articles right upon release? I'm still of the mindset on Fridays, we should begin any article in the draft space, because I am a bit concerned we'll have unique production/commentary bits immediately upon release to justify the article. Anyone else have strong feelings either way on this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it doesn't hurt to start in draftspace, especially if we are going to have less production info from the start. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Part of having this discussion is knowing come Friday some one will immediately start the episode in the mainspace. If we have consensus for this, we can add hidden notes here and try to mitigate the initial creation in the mainspace as much as possible. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Given the teaser released before the Jan 29 episode strongly indicating we might not be advancing a decade, I've none the less started compiling what little remaining info we have for the last 3 decades in my sandbox for us to use one we know when we're getting those episodes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

If episode 5 turns out to be set in the 80s for the sitcom portion, we have enough material that we can start an episode article right in the mainspace. All the material is housed in my sandbox which can be copied to the article. I'll make a hidden note in the episode table pointing here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97, Trailblazer101, and Facu-el Millo: pinging you all just in case you didn't see my comment above to know material is ready to go for an episode 5 article if the sitcom is the 1980s one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Just stating again, if episode 6 is the Halloween/1990s episode, material is again ready in my sandbox to aid an article right upon release. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Ratings

This article has a breakdown of various viewership statistics for the first week of the show's release. There will be nielsen data released at some point as well. There is definitely stuff that can be used in here, but I was wondering where we thought the best place for this would be since it mostly applies to the first two episodes but doesn't differentiate between the two. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

We can probably create an "Audience viewership" section like the Netflix series to state the data. And yeah, the Nielsen data that will come out soon will probably be very useful. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I did just look through the link you provided, and a lot of it seems to be about engagement. While we could use some of that, knowing that Nielsen provides data now, I think it'd be better to wait for that to be released, rather than trying to paint a viewership picture with this information. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's some additional viewership data from Parrot, but again, it's just looking at "demand", not really anything concrete when we know Nielsen ratings should be coming at some point. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok so I have a question about the Nielsen ratings. Per the way it is formatted in Variety's article, they say the Nielsen ratings are for the week of Janurary 11-17, and next to each series it gives the total number of episodes available and the minutes. So come the report that will cover the third episode, will the minute data not be technically accurate for just episode three? Because I'm viewing this as Nielsen tracking minutes watched for any available episode of a series in that week. That's why they have the separate list for the "acquired" shows that are on available to stream. If this is the case, how do we go about reporting the info? Also separately, should we include a viewership section here on the main page? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they report on specific episodes, just total minutes watched, so it isn't straightforward. I am happy to go with a different approach for future episodes if we think that makes sense. We just have to make sure we explain the method being used to be clear what is being measured. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Right, so I guess my point is come the next report, we can't really put the minute views on "Now in Color" as we did for the first two because the data doesn't reflect information just for that episode, unlike this first report which is clearly for the first two episodes, because only two episodes are being measured. That's why I think a section here will be important. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, here's more Parrot data. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Audience viewership

WandaVision has broke numerous records for a television series, particularly from streaming Disney+. This numbers and analytics need to be added, to explain how many people have watched the show, and still updating it until the final episode arrives. Alvrix3104 (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Time frame?

I have not watched this series yet, but this line from the lead sounds wrong from seeing the trailer which makes the series seem to take place in the 1950s: "...[it] takes place after the events of the film Avengers: Endgame (2019)." How is this possible? If it's some sort of spoiler, perhaps it shouldn't be in the lead? RobP (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It's possible. You should watch first. IKhitron (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not really a spoiler given this has been stated in the press since it's official announcement, but yes you should probably watch. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, just a reminder Wikipedia doesn't have a spoiler policy. QueerFilmNerd^talk 03:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Chronologically WandaVision is set after Endgame since the end of Episode 1 is set in present day and Episode 4 (Sword PoV) confirmed it is set 3 weeks so not before Endgame Kohcohf (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Heckner and Dennings

Seeing as both Heckner and Dennings were 'cast' as a role in the circus. Should we add that to their charachter summary or leave it be? Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

No, that's a very insignificant part of the character. And she didn't even stay in that character for long. Only the relevant, character-defining details should go to the cast section. — Starforce¹³ 16:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. We can note in the episode seven article, because that's where it is relevant. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I do agree, just wanted to see what other people were thinking. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

So thank you for your input Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

A misterious broadcast

Hello. Could you tell me, please, if the site [1] is a reliable source. Not for the theory, of cource, but for the spoken broadcast itself. Thanks. IKhitron (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

No, that is an unreliable source, and the bits you wan't to use can be found somewhere, in a source that is actually reliable. —El Millo (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. A pity. That's the problem, there is no reliable source, at least for now, because too few people payed attention to this at all. I know it's true, there was such a text in the subtitles, but I'm not a source, too. IKhitron (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Agnes

I think we should have an article for Agnes, the main neighbor, because I think she's gonna be an integral character after "Episode 7". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minemaster1337 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Agatha has an article Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

WHERE? Minemaster1337 (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Agatha Harkness. QueerFilmNerd^talk 02:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sentence in Epi. 7 section

"It was Agatha who sent Wanda the Pietro imposter and also killed Sparky"

Can this sentence please be changed as it is not understandable.

It should be: "It was Agatha who sent Wanda the imposter posing as Pietro and also killed Sparky" Mighty Asgardian616 (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Version of Peters character

I just swapped out the reference used on the article for the EW recap of episode 5, because it explicitly states how he was "Peter Maximoff" in the X-Men films. However, it also claims that who appeared at the end of the episode is the X-Men film series version, so I think we could readjust his info with this source. Particularly, state something to this affect in the "Cast" section, and not link "Pietro" to the MCU version. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Scratch that last part. Other commentators are not fully convinced on which version it is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It is unclear exactly what is happening, and any of the sources out there at the moment will just be speculating or assuming. That is why I think it is safer to leave it as saying he is playing Pietro in the MCU, who was previously portrayed by ATJ (that tracks from the episode with Darcy saying Pietro has been recast), and adding the casting note that Peters was Peter in the X-Men films. Then we can adjust from there once we get more info. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

In the Disney+'s audio description for the fifth episode, it says "In Westview, Wanda stares at the version of Pietro from "X-Men Phoenix". It confirms that he is the Fox's Quicksilver. - ErnestoCabral2018 (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

If that is actually what it says then I would question the reliability of the description, since "X-Men Phoenix" is not correct. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Audio descriptions use the easiest way to help the audience understand what's going on. So, sometimes they can describe characters or scenes using non-canon terms, and shouldn't be taken as facts. There's no doubt in my mind that this will turn out to be Peter from the X-Men films (although at first he could play Pietro's part because of the spell). But let's wait until it's official.

By the way, it says "from the X-Men movies" not "X-Men Phoenix". — Starforce¹³ 03:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I heard wrong. I listened to the audio again and it does say "Pietro from the X-Men films". - ErnestoCabral2018 (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that the description of the character mentions Schaeffer and Livanos taking advantage of "what's real and what's not, and performance, and casting, and audience, and fandom", it seems the good place to also mentions that Peters already played Pietro in the X-Men franchise, which is just factual information and not implies anything beyond itself. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that someone created an article for the X-Men character, Peter Maximoff, including information from WandaVision. YgorD3 (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I tried sorting that page out the best I could.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Coverage of the character on that page raises issues distinct from coverage on this page. It is a disservice to readers to not even mention the discussion in reliable sources of the implications of the appearance of a potential crossover. BD2412 T 06:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

FYI, this is also being discussed at Talk:Peter Maximoff#Factual accuracy.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

10 episodes are confirmed

From:WandaVision premiered with its first two episodes on January 15, 2021, and will run for nine episodes until March 5. It is the first series in Phase Four of the MCU. The series received praise from critics for its sitcom settings and tropes, dark tonal shifts, and the performances of Olsen and Bettany. To: WandaVision premiered with its first two episodes on January 15, 2021, and will run for ten episodes until March 12. It is the first series in Phase Four of the MCU. The series received praise from critics for its sitcom settings and tropes, dark tonal shifts, and the performances of Olsen and Bettany.

This was confirmed by disney with the reveal trailer of the 8th episode: https://twitter.com/disneyplus/status/1365300587928166408 87.123.204.98 (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It's still 9 episodes, confirmed just this week by Feige himself. The Disney+ tweet could be counting today's episode as one of the "two" or they could be referring to the special on March 12 about the making of WandaVision. — Starforce¹³ 21:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Where is your proof for that? Kevin Feige apparently also confirmed that the last 3 episodes would be 1 hour long. Did not happen so where is your proof?IchGlaubeDoch (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

"Hour long" and "half hour long" usually translates to about 22 minutes and 42 minutes because of how TV structure works. Saying "two more episodes" is ambiguous because sometimes it includes the current and sometimes it doesn't. We have plenty of reliable sources in the article confirming the episode count. Disney+ themselves released their March release schedule which shows March 5 as the WandaVision finale. This is a moot discussion. — Starforce¹³ 23:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there will be two episodes next week, 41-42 minutes each. This is because one of the sources mentioned that the total length is exactly 6 hours, and it was 4.37 until now. Let's wait and see, but we can't add something about all off this now, we haven't enough information. IKhitron (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Obviously leaks on Reddit aren't official sources, but it's more likely that there will be one 50-minute episode next week than two 40-minute episodes. Any idea of a tenth episode is either just misinterpreting official tweets ("two more episodes" included the eighth, presumed unwatched because it had only just been released), or wild fan theories. Jimthree60 (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Spoiler in Cast list

"Bettany portrays both the original Vision, who, after being killed in Avengers: Infinity War (2018), is reassembled and reactivated by S.W.O.R.D. (Sentient Weapon Observation Response Division), as well as a new version recreated by Wanda within her alternate reality." Is this not a bit of a spoiler for anyone who has not started the series? Azursmile (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It is, but there's no policy against including spoilers on wikipedia. Jimthree60 (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but isn't it good form to avoid them outside of the Plot? It's reasonable to assume someone might browse the cast list before watching the show, or maybe after a couple of episodes. Also, what's the benefit of calling out in the cast list that there are two distinct Visions, flashbacks, etc when they are played by the same actor? Azursmile (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the point of the cast list to list the all the roles that the main actors are playing? In an encyclopedia that's meant to record facts I'm not sure what better choice there is. Some variation of this discussion occurs on every thread documenting a still-broadcasting show, or newly-released movie, or whatever. The answer is always the same: it's not wikipedia's job to maintain the mystery of the show. Jimthree60 (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

On dutch wikipedia, we added a spoilerwarning. I don't know if it's usual on the English wikipedia to do that. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILER. DonQuixote (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the link. Wasn't aware English Wikipedia stopped using it. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2021

In: “ WandaVision premiered with its first two episodes on January 15, 2021, and will run for nine episodes until March 5. It is the first series in Phase Four of the MCU. The series received praise from critics for its sitcom settings and tropes, dark tonal shifts, and the performances of Olsen and Bettany.” change “the performances of Olsen and Bettany” to “the performance of Olsen, Bettany, and Hahn”. B101899 (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That line is sourced to a Rotten Tomatoes critical consensus a little way down the article: "Part loving homage to TV history, part off-kilter mystery, WandaVision is a wonderfully weird and strikingly bold step into the small screen for the MCU—and a perfect showcase for Elizabeth Olsen and Paul Bettany". If you find a reliable source describing praise of Hahn's performance as a notable element of critics' reception of the series, feel free to re-open this request (change "answered=yes" to "answered=no"). Volteer1 (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Mid credits

Why is the mid credit scene from episode 8 mentioned here, while the same from episode 7 isn't? Anubhab030119 (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe there's hard reason. It's just that unlike ep8, it might be impossible to describe what's happening in the ep7 mid-credits scene in an accurate but precise short sentence that keeps the episode plot within the 100-200 word limit.— Starforce¹³ 20:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Because of its relevance to the plot. It's not important whether it's a mid-credits scene or if it happens before the credits roll, only if it's relevant to the overall plot. —El Millo (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Young Wanda actress

I added Sophia Gaidarova as the actress portraying young Wanda alongside Michaela Russell, but my edit was reverted because Gaidarova was not portraying the actual Wanda. Can somebody explain me when or where was this confirmed? AxGRvS (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The flashbacks in ep 6 were more of Fake Pietro trying to convince Wanda that he remembers their childhood, but then Wanda says that's not how she remembers it. So, it's hard to tell if those were really the real young Wanda - especially if we got to see the real young Wanda from about the same age in ep 8. Does that makes sense? — Starforce¹³ 20:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

No E8 revealed that it was indeed the Stark Industries Bomb that destroyed her and (real) Pietro's home. That was referenced in Age of Ultron when the real Pietro (played by AT-J) mentioned the event to Ultron and implied that was the reason they volunteered for HYDRA. Mighty Asgardian616 (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2021

The Rotten Tomatoes’s score of the episode 7 is wrong. It’s actually 88% and not 83. 160.155.18.138 (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - Rotten Tomatoes score comes from Rotten Tomatoes. You can't possibly have better Rotten Tomatoes data than Rotten Tomatoes themselves.— Starforce¹³ 20:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Kate Forbes (EvanoraHarkness)

Since she appeared in 2 episodes at least according to the credits. Should we include her in the guest role section? Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Yup, she should be added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Foreshadowing

Is this useful? Though Olsen says in it, "I mean if she could have two fake babies and everyone tell her that they don't really exist, and then her just go nuts—that would be unbelievable, but I don't think they're gonna do that." Kailash29792 (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Not really. That's just wishful thinking on Olsen's part. And this series is borrowing elements from House of M and other comics, so it was bound to have similarities to any comments she made. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Debra Jo Rupp

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.

---

why is she 3d billed in this show? aside from the pilot, she's barely in it! and she's a lesser star than parris park or dennings, so it's not like she's being elevated for that reason.

what she more instrumental to the original story, and got edited out or something? 66.30.47.138 (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Because of her billing in the credits. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:TVCAST. We follow on screen credits as the episodes progress, not a "bulk" overview of the series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

However the way both melamed and rupp are in the article is a confusing way for people. They are mentioned in a way it looks like they play a big part in the series. While Melamed only appereared one episode and Rupp was more recurring (in episode 7 she was there a split second). Neither are main charachters but are mentioned as such because they received main-billing. But no source says they are main charachters... and they are not included in any promotional material. There's a difference between being a main charachter abd getting main billing. Some shows give guest stars/recurring stars main billing if they are played by noteable actors like Fred and Debra. If their charachters were portrayed by C-list actors like the ones playing the mailman and phil jones, they wouldn't have received that kind of billing. I vouch to change it in the main article but keep it like that in the episode articles. Ps, if the loki series will use the same form of billing as WandaVision and Richard E.Grant makes an appearance for one episode, there's a huge chance he will receive the same kind of billing as rupp and Melamed. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh for fuck sakes we explained this to your thoroughly already, they are main cast billed because that’s how they are billed in the episode. We don’t need a source or promotional material, the episodes exist and clearly show them there. It’s a WP:COMMONSENSE thing at that point. Rusted AutoParts 16:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from using foul language. And "If their charachters were portrayed by C-list actors like the ones playing the mailman and phil jones, they wouldn't have received that kind of billing." Quite some shows give guest-stars/recurring stars main-billing when they are played by noteable actors. For instance when Kylie Minogue apperead on doctor who, she was a guest star but received main billing. It's common sense to see that Melamed and Rupp were not main characters. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

We been through this several times already. You are clearly beating a dead horse. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I waited like we decided until after the final episode was released so we have all the info like what was requested. Also: For instance when Kylie Minogue apperead on doctor who, she was a guest star but received main billingScenarioschrijver20 (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You really don’t seem to understand how this works. Or you’re just being purposefully obtuse. It doesn’t matter how long they were in an episode or if they were only in one or three out of nine, they were billed in the main cast. They are main cast. Benjamin Bratt was in like 4 minutes of Doctor Strange and wasn’t previously announced until the poster, yet he’s credited in the billing block and considered main cast. Do we yank him from that section because of this? No. Rusted AutoParts 16:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

”I waited like we decided until after the final episode was released so we have all the info like what was requested” I don’t recollect most of the participants agreeing to revisit this. Like I said then “On March 5 nothing will change because Rupp and Melamed are credited as main cast so they’ll star on the main cast”. It’s a dead issue, and one that will not be reopened. Rusted AutoParts 17:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Movie and tv are different. In the history of television there has never been a tv show that had a main charachter for just one episode. Also if the Harts were played by C-list actors like phil and the mailman they would never have received that kind of billing. I'm just saying we need to understand the difference between main billing and being a main character. The way it is there now it's like the harts are important charachters who play a big role throughout the serie. Also: For instance when Kylie Minogue apperead on doctor who, she was a guest star but received main billing. Also a few people said march 5. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

“ In the history of television there has never been a tv show that had a main charachter for just one episode” is objectively wrong. Amber Benson was only credited as main cast for one episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The Crown quite often has historical figures appear for one episode and credit their actor as main. They’re separated simply because of the big cast it has, WandaVision is only 9 episodes and did it just twice so that separation is not warranted Literally last year Big Sky credited Ryan Philippe for just the one episode. Also movies and tv are very much the same in this instance since you’re making suck a fuss about how much they were in the show. Rusted AutoParts 17:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

To amber benson I have a response from another user in this discussion: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_television#Starring Also with the crown I've seen the episode and those historical figures like Churchill were played by noteable actors. Noteable actors tend to receive main billing even if they aren't main characters. Doctor Who does that as well. Big Sky hasn't fully released yet and the guy apperead in a few eps and he's a noteable actor. And no, movies and tv aren't very much the same in this instance, a movie is one feature while a tv show has several features. Also a quote from Favre's talkpage regarding wandavision cast:"Come the final episode's release, another discussion can be started if we as editors need to reevaluate how actors appeared in the credits" 17:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scenarioschrijver20 (talk • contribs)

You really misinterpreted the scenario to that editor in my opinion because you are injecting your POV throughout. Doctor Who doesn’t count in This scenario since their main cast is too massive to even list on their main page. Churchill in the crown was an actual main character in the shows first season. I’m talking about when Michael C. Hall played JFK. And again no they are the same because the fuss is over how long they are in the respective show or movie. I’m closing this discussion because you’re clearly just refusing to get the point and I am disinterested in going around in circles again. Rusted AutoParts 17:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Still the editor on that talk page gave some helpful info. I binged so much shows due to lockdown I must have forgotten about Churchill being a main charachter. Apologies. Doctor Who sure does count in this discussion. Also the JFK actor was a noteable actor. The only thing I'm trying to explain is that there's a difference between being a MAIN CHARACHTER and being MAIN BILLED. And that with this article we should try and keep that in mind. Melamed and Rupp were as much a main character as phil and the mailman. 17:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scenarioschrijver20 (talk • contribs)

This show is about Wanda, Vision, Monica, Agnes, Jimmy, Darcy, Hayward etc. The first 5 or 6 were brought on the stage flin the comic-con. Whatever this article says doesn't change the fact that Debra and Fred are practically guest stars. Anubhab030119 (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to read MOS:TVCAST? It clearly states "main" cast members are determined by the series producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count). In every episode Debra Jo Rupp has appeared she's been credited in the main on end credits. That means the producers determined she's main cast. Now, unless you're secretly a producer on the show, you have no say in this and neither do we. —El Millo (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Haha, this rusted guy must think he is so "powerful" because he can revert other people to inflict his own nonsense. Carry on with your childish insecurities mate. Anubhab030119 (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Plain incivility and personal attacks, always a good way of winning arguments. —El Millo (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that at best Debra was recurring and Fred a guest. And that there's a difference between being a MAIN CHARACHTER and being MAIN BILLED. Debra and Fred both being noteable actors got them the main-billing. If Mr hart would have been played by Amos Glick and Mrs hart by Victoria Blade, they wouldn't have received main billing. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Here comes another "expert". Anubhab030119 (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

And no, I haven't bothered to read some pointless article on a pointless website. Those rules are for you guys to bark about, doggy. Go fetch. Anubhab030119 (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this behavior necessary? I understand you can get frustrated. But this behavior is well, not handy to put it kindly. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Scenarioschrijver20 If this helps, there is no sub-section in the article saying "Main Characters". The cast list is intended to list the actors who received billing in the episodes in which they appeared. Number of episodes does not matter. Curious that you want Debra Jo Rupp to be removed when she appeared in more episodes than Evan Peters. This is contradictory. Again, episode account does not decide that. Let's just follow the official credits of the show. YgorD3 (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't want removal. I want a move. That's all I said. Rupp did I appear in more eps but was practically a minor charachter while Peters wasn't. Also it's not only for Rupp. But also Melamed. The guy was there in the first ep and never showed up again. And like I tried to explain the harts were not main charachters but were portrayed by noteable actors thats why they received that kind of billing. The harts were as much a main charachter as Phil, Herb, Norm and the mailman. (If the loki show will use the same form of billing, Richard E grant who has been confirmed for an episode will also receive main billing while just being a guest star) Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Also after it's been referred to a lot I checked the article of the crown. And an actor who has been mentioned as being main billed there is not among the main colum and not the infobox. But is amongst a lot of actors in a colum called featured for a actors who played a noteable role and most probably also received main billing. Maybe an idea to incorporate something like that here as well? Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 21:54, 6 March 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.

Cast: Tidy up recurring section

I don't know why it was ever left like this, but now that the series is over can we please fix the mess of the recurring/guest characters section? Every other TV show article has this section done as a properly formatted list instead of a jumbled paragraph as we currently have. MarvelousMusician397 (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ that was just added to the top of the talk page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Read it. Read the archived discussions where you say we can discuss again after the series is over, which it now is. Don't understand the need to use prose as opposed to a bulleted list, since you already have separated the prose into recurring and guests anyways. If you want to use the same logic as to why this article can't use a bulleted list, then it should not be allowed to decide who is recurring and guest stars either if that's not how Marvel is crediting them. MarvelousMusician397 (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Per the FAQ, we format the list per the MCU films. The criteria for inclusion id per MOS:TVCAST. Most TV series also do not credit actors as recurring/guest, that is always just a way to makr sure we are only including noteworthy actors. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Objection to "Previously On" redirect

The Episode 8 description indicates "Previously On" is a redirect to the WandaVision page. Since that phrase is used in (in terms of practicality) countless television shows, it seems improper to co-opt it for any one show, whether or not it's the episode title. I'd sooner see "Previously On" point to either a disambig with specific instances or the indicated Recap page with a link to a disambig, and add "Previously On (WandaVision)" as the redirect to here. Morfusmax (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are case sensitive. There's already a Previously on redirect, which is different from the title Previously On redirect. DonQuixote (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

What seems to be more of a pain is that the redirect has removed the episode page article altogether. I assume it will need to be restored with "Previously On (WandaVision Episode)" as the main title at some point, but that hasn't happened yet. Jimthree60 (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Article will be Previously On, and is currently being created in the draft space at Draft:Previously On. Editors are welcome to contribute there until it is ready for the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft has moved. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

it really makes no sense that "Previously On" redirects to this show, instead of redirecting to "Previously on"157.131.250.246 (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

You can't have double redirects, and the other article is titled Recap sequence. So keeping the episode at Previously On is correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Music split

Ulises1126 I have reverted your edits as they are an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK and split of the music content. I do not see the need for an article that is essentially solely the track lists and individual infoboxes (which are definitely unnecessary), when each episode article is housing the info perfectly fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Favre, we are better served having the applicable content at each episode article and then having an overview of it here. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Episode 6 decade

I think because other sites call episode 6 the 90s episode, we should as well. I'm aware some sites abd reviewers call it a 00's episode. But it would be weird if they just skipped a decade. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

or at least keep the late 90's because that would make more sense. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Also counting in the statement made by the theme-song writers, saying that they found the 90s the hardest to write for. Due to the fact they were in college at that time, and doing a quick 1+1, you could say they were in college in the 90s.

The series can do whatever they want with the narrative and deviate from the established "one episode, one decade" most of the episodes followed.. All major reviews for episode six have stated the episode has skipped the 90s era sitcoms and was full on 2000s era sitcoms, namely Malcom in the Middle. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I can understand. But if you count the episode and take the statement of the theme song writers. It's clear there is a 90s episode. And given that Malcolm released in the very early 00's, I think the halloween episode is clear to be at least late 90's/early 00's. Episode 5 clearly had some full house references which was on until mid 90's. So to claim that episode 6 was late 90's doesn't seem that far fetched. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The Dick van Dyke show was a major inspiration for the 50s episode, while that actually aired in the 60s. The Parent Trap reference in the show makes it pretty clear that this one is late 90s/early 00s themed. Also, of course, as stated above, Lopez & Anderson-Lopez state this is the 90s episode. Seems odd to go against that, just because Malcolm in the Middle is the main sitcom reference. UnderIrae (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's fair to at least claim a late 90's/early 00's for episode 6. Episode 7 will probably be the 00's episode. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I can agree that maybe episode 6 can be late 90's/early 00's. But if we are speculating this then, wouldn't it make sense for episode 7 to also follow this with 2000's to early 2010. P.greenlink (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I think Episode 6 is late 90's/early 00's and then episode 7 late 00's/early 2010's. We would then match several other sites, the posters and the theme-song writers Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The movie marquee includes The Incredibles, which was released in 2004. Also, Malcom in the Middle premiered in January 9, 2000. - Richiekim (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Incredibles could have been a small mix-up. And the other movie listed is the parent trap which came out in 1998. Tommy or Billy can't remember which one, wears a minecraft beanie, which released between 2007-2010. And like I said, it's been confirmed there's a 90's episode by the people who wrote the theme-songs. I don't think episode 6 was early 90's but it was at least late 90's/early 00's. Also I've found an article which explains the detail mistakes: https://screenrant.com/weandavision-timeline-break-rule-1990s-incredibles-malcolm-middle/ and for those intrested, the link to the interview with the theme song writers confirming a 90's episode: https://screenrant.com/wandavision-show-theme-song-1990s/ Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The Incredibles is not a mix up. There's nothing to indicate that either. Like Favre1fan93 said, the show 'can do whatever they want with the narrative and deviate from the established "one episode, one decade" most of the episodes followed.' Except that it doesn't support his point, but rather that this is a late 90s/early 00s episode.UnderIrae (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I will not go into discussion whether or not the incredibles was a mix-up or not. But counting in that the marque showed a movie released in 2004 and one in 1998. I think claiming late 90's/early 00's isn't wrong. And that's all I was getting at. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as we need consensus, 90's has been confirmed by both the theme song writers and Paul Bettany. But due to the references in the episode but also taking the show's storyline in mind, I still think it is not a full 90's but a late 90's/early 00's. (I do have suspision that in the bts special, there's a big chance they will confirm the episode decades) Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Revisiting all decades

I think we need to revisit all the decades for the series and make sure we are being consistent here. I think it is clear that the production considers episodes 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 to be set in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s, even if the influences and homages in each episode do not necessarily line up with that. For instance, we know the first episodes is a 1950s sitcom but it is primarily influenced by the 1960s series The Dick Van Dyke Show. The sixth episode is obviously influenced by Malcolm in the Middle, but we know that the production considers it to be a 1990s sitcom, and the theme song for the seventh episode is literally called "W-V 2000". I think we have gotten quite mixed up in people's opinions of the allusions, including editors here and reviewers/commentators. My proposal is that we treat the "type/setting of sitcom" and the influences as different things. So in the opening lead paragraph, infobox, plot summary, and development section of each episode we use the decade that we know the production used, and then in the second lead paragraph and writing sections we can give all of the influences that we currently have and just tweak the wording depending on if the influences line up exactly with the production decade or not. That way we are being consistent across all the episodes while still providing everything we know about each one. This will hopefully be a good compromise for those who have been unable to agree on the current format as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It would improve readability. Right now it's just a mess trying to include every influence in the decade.— Starforce¹³ 02:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree as well. —El Millo (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, scratch this proposal as this article with Shakman about the title sequences confirms the sitcom setting for each episode: 101 is the 1950s, 102 is the 1960s, 103 is the 1970s, 105 is the 1980s and early 1990s, 106 is the late 1990s and early 2000s, and 107 is the mid-to-late 2000s. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The article that you linked to your response claims that Episode 7 Breaking the Fourth Wall is set in the 2010s and not the 2000s. Also, it has been explicitly stated by numerous sources that the majority of the inspiration for Episode 7 came from the sitcom Modern family. Modern Family was not on in the Mid 2000s at all. Modern Family aired it's first episode at the very end of the Late 2000s and continued throughout the 2010s into the 2020s. Other Sitcoms such as The Office and Happy Endings are also mentioned but most sources make it clear that Modern Family is the primary inspiration. Being that the majority of Episode 7's influences are from Modern Family, it seems like Episode 7 would be more representative of the 2010s rather than the 2000s. 2601:5C4:4300:4A00:9524:8E18:CF4A:62A8 (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Name of Evan Peeters' character isn't "Ralph Bhoner"

For all the characters listed on this page, we're using their name as given in the series, not the name they are given within the in-universe sitcoms. Evan Peeters' character "Ralph Bhoner" is however the name of this character within the sitcoms, not within the MCUs real world. We should probably clearify this somehow. --YannickFran (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It's the opposite of that. His name within the sitcoms is Pietro Maximoff, the actual character's name is Ralph Bohner. —El Millo (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Wandavision Soundtrack infoboxes in the music section of each episode.

I think that the music section for the soundtrack should make use of infoboxes. Some of you may found it unnecessary but I thinks its important to add some additional information to the soundtrack, which I thinks is very important. If you allow me, I won’t have any problem to add the info boxes. Ulises1126 (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

As I stated in my reverts and on your talk page, given the episode articles are not about the soundtracks, adding infoboxes are unnecessary on a few fronts. First, all of the info in them are duplicated in the prose section, so the infobox is not providing the reader with any additional info that isn't already stated (and again, since they are only sections on each article, they don't need individual infoboxes for them). Second, there is definitely no need for the images, which fail WP:NFCC policies as they provide no contextual significance for readers since the albums duplicate the episode posters (and in the instances where they don't, the albums still are not needed to be shown). Taking both of these into account, the infoboxes are unnecessary additions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Music section technicality edit

In the "Music" section where it says "The first two notes of the motif are a major octave, and the last two are a tritone,..." should be changed to something like "The motif consists of an octave, followed by a tritone,...". Octaves in music theory do not have major/minor qualities, and technically the tritone does not happen as the "last two" notes, but rather the 2nd and 3rd notes of the 4-note motif (the last two being a minor second). In the referenced interview the term "full major" is just talking about the overall perception of the song. 98.248.67.46 (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

octave UP, octave DOWN, tritone UP, tritone DOWN, etc? are we talking C₄-C₅-F#₅-G₅ or the like? or C₅-C₄-F#₄-G₄? (not exactly sure how to write w/o key, i.e. I₅-IV#₅-V₅ etc. perhaps someone who DOES could add it?)

and IS it even obvious? i listened to to all the themes on a loop and still failed to hear any common these. i DID heard the "big ben chimes" in several places, however; i assumed they were talking about that as the "4 notes" until reading the description here. 66.30.47.138 (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

WHY was she third?!

i do not wish to rehash the "closed" discussion; nor did i even attempt to above before several others MISREAD the quesion, SWORE at me (!), and unilaterally closed the discussion; i am just curious if anyone knows why debra jo rupp was BILLED third in the first place.

NOT why she is listed HERE as such -- i am in full agreement, we follow the CREDITS. just why she was in that position in the FIRST place, given such a minor appearance. she is not notable; to say that she "and fred" were elevated like major stars giving cameos is crazy -- she is not half as famous as parris, park, or dennings even!

is she important in some OTHER way? funding the project? dating the producer?

i cannot find any logical reason she was given special billing. i hope some of the great minds here might know. 66.30.47.138 (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Why she was billed is probably something to do contractually, and perhaps because she is also a prominent television actress in her own right. We probably will never know why since it's very uncommon for anyone involved with a production to discuss billing (though the trade/TV-centric sites sometimes run stories on this). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

how would she -- or her agent -- even have the LEVERAGE for this?

i dunno how "prominent" she is; she played 6th-wheel or so in her sitcom; park and dennings were both top-billed in their own. and park, at least, has been in several movies (as has parris, of course). rupp i haven't seen once since T7S went off the air! 66.30.47.138 (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Why are you still going on about this? We have all provided answers for you before, this talk page isn’t a place for you to come and vent about something so stupid. Rusted AutoParts 13:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Rupp is credited after Parris in most episodes, except the finale. Dennings is billed as "with" ; this type of credit actually makes you sound like a big star. The same for Hahn, who receives last billing under "and". I doubt that the two disagree with the credits, it's actually favorable for them. YgorD3 (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Writing section restructure

Hey Adamstom.97 I like the work you did. I'm just looking it over and feeling if we might need to fine tune it a bit more. My main concern is the information about grief, particularly how the series is structured to follow the stages of grief, is not in the "Structure" subsection. But it also works where you have it in the "Character" subsection, so maybe we need to rethink headings? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely happy for other heading options. I was thinking it made sense to have all the grief stuff together, but also happy for other suggestions as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I definitely agree with that, it's just the grief stuff straddles both character info and the structure info in the current set up. I'll try and take a look over it all soon, see if I can come up with another option to consider. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Missing Nomination at the MTV Movie & TV Awards

You're missing a nomination for the 2021 MTV Movie & TV Awards in Best Musical Moment for the song Agatha All Along . Movieknower59 (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done —El Millo (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia need to come up with better rules man

I mean the fact that two barely even recurring characters get third and fourth billing because they appeared in the first episode in which there were barely any characters besides the two leads, i just think we need to come up with better mother truckin rules tbh, usually it isn't THIS bad but there should be some exceptions when it comes to stuff like this, deep down no one thinks this actually makes sense. 92.24.146.242 (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You can always start an WP:RFC. DonQuixote (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean "original broadcast credits" see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style under cast order, doesn't specify the individual names credits as being more valid so maybe I think in this case we can work around if enough people agree. 92.24.146.242 (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Direct set up

I have not very often come across the term "direct set up" when describing the relationship between a film/series and the next film in terms of storyline. Plus, it damns with faint praise by implying that WandaVision does nothing more than set up the Doctor Strange film. I think a rephrasing would make the article clearer. Airbornemihir (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. Airbornemihir (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Airbornemihir: I've reverted your change, because this terminology "direct set up", is reliably sourced per here, in which that article states: WandaVision, Feige notes, will directly set up the 2022 film Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. It's also the wording used in the Writing subsection "Characters and universe". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Perception info

@Favre1fan93: I also thought about the fact that we have put title sequence information in the design section for other TV articles, but I do think VFX is the correct spot for this paragraph. It has a little bit of design discussion in it, but it is mostly an explanation from the VFX company about their decisions for making the sequence, plus it includes other work that they did on the show. We also would usually put this info in the VFX section of a film article which I think makes sense to emulate here. I don't necessarily think we need to change this for old TV articles, but I do think it is right to put it in VFX here. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm reading much of that info as design, rather than VFX. I would say on film article we usually put the info in "Post-production" sections, not necessarily VFX, and I'd argue since it's less practical/CGI elements, "Design" seems like the better spot for it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "less practical/CGI elements", the whole paragraph is definitely talking about CGI. The other thing I would add is that we usually put design information that is directly about VFX (i.e. the design of a digital character, object, or effect) in the VFX section and leave the design section for the pre-filming design like costumes and stuff. But I won't fight over this. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I meant more to the fact that creating/designing the title cards throughout the series seems a bit different to me than doing the "visual" effects such as the practical ones in episode 1 or creating Vision through CGI. I guess I'm approaching it as to what the end result is. We can see if any one else would like to chime in on their thoughts of placement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

If it's about title cards and credits, then it should be included in Design instead of Visual effects. The appareance of titles and animated intro sequences aren't what is generally thought of as visual effects, even though they may technically be VFX given that they're done in CGI. Discussing intros and titles is closer to discussing logo designs than discussing CGI-characters or practical effects. —El Millo (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm fine with that then. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

"Featuring" vs "Based on" in the opening sentence

There's a discussion involving this and many other MCU film articles at Talk:Loki (TV series)#"Featuring" vs "Based on" in the opening sentence that may be of interest of watchers of this page. —El Millo (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Website

Currently the infobox has two website links: one to directly watch the series on Disney+, and one for the show's entry on Disney's official website. At the bottom of the article we have another link that says "Official website" which points to Marvel.com, plus a second link to directly watch the series on Disney+. I'm sure this is an issue at other articles as well, but I thought I would start here to try clear up the confusion before taking the conversation anywhere else it was needed.

I don't think we should be linking to the Disney+ page twice, and if we only have one link I don't think it should be in the infobox's website parameter since that seems like an incorrect characterisation. If we are going to have both the Disney page and the Marvel.com page then we should probably decide which one is the "official website". My feeling is that the Marvel.com page is the actual official website with all the details and news articles that you would expect to be able to find for the show. The Disney page doesn't really contribute anything of use and I don't think we need to link to it. I suggest that we move the Marvel.com link to the website parameter in the infobox, remove the "production website" parameter completely, and in the external links section we just need the link to directly watch the series on Disney+ as well as the IMDb link. Thoughts? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense. The "production website" has very little information, all of it already included in the Marvel.com link. If by |website=, the parameter is referring to the official website, then the Marvel.com one should go there, which would leave the Disney+ link for the External links section. —El Millo (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree. I feel that the Disney+ series has enough information for the series. The Disney+ website is perfect for it so I consider the change unnecessary. Besides Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad have the two links, one for the websote and the other for the website. I don't see the problem of having the disney plus links. Ulises1126 (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? And remember, just because another article has it doesn't mean this one should per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

New additions - further splits necessary for size?

Adamstom.97 you did a wonderful job adding in all the information you did. One of my concerns when I knew you were going to was what that would do for the article size. After your production additions, we are at 77kb "readable prose" (which actually might be more as it doesn't count the cast section), which means we are in the "probably should split" recommendation of WP:SIZESPLIT. Because we probably aren't getting a second season which would help with this (moving to a season 1 article), perhaps we can put some info at the episode articles? I'm looking mainly at the Visual effects section, but maybe some in Costumes, Filming, and Editing. And we could do a straight removal split of some stuff, or split and then reduced the info here to be more general. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

(I'm also just getting to the episode additions Adam did, so I definitely think this can be possible to avoid duplication and reduce the size here.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Favre, I did already put everything at the episode articles that I thought was appropriate, but there is also some intentional duplication here because I tried to make sure that we still had a bit of an overview of everything on this page. Happy to discuss certain areas that could be further reduced here but I think it will need to be small bits here and there where possible (including other sections that you didn't mention). Once you have looked at all my episode article additions you should be able to see what I mean and might have some suggestions for where we can cut down further here. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I have a couple ideas for ways we can get the size down, I will try to write up what I am thinking in the next few days. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I was hoping to go through this article myself to see what could possibly be removed and saved for the episodes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I will say that as long as we are under 100kb and we think that we have moved everything to the episode articles that we can then we are probably fine. By that I mean we shouldn't necessarily remove content from here just because we are in the "probably should split" category. I've just started having another read through and so far have only found small things that could go either way, in my opinion, but you may see something that you feel should definitely go somewhere else. Other options that we do have include splitting off a different article (I haven't been able to come with what that could be though) and also just doing a full c/e to try be more concise and maybe remove extra detail like some of the trailer commentary or other reception stuff (I have plans to do some work on reception that might be able to help here). - adamstom97 (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I do still want to give the production section a look over, and I feel like I might be able to reduce it some more than it sounds like you're seeing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm breaking out the production sections I think could split some content or have a bigger c/e done in my sandbox here. I'm currently through "Editing" and will get to "Visual effects" next. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Some of the stuff you have pulled out is already at the episode articles, like the Perception info. Are you going to do Filming or are you happy with it? There is probably room there to cut down a bit on the techniques/sitcom stuff as well. For visual effects, most of the Vision and Hex info is general stuff that applies to the whole series. I then went back after I had done VFX for all the episode articles and summarised the bits that I thought were relevant for the series as a whole. You should be able to see where I have done that but happy to explain my thought process for anything. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Just saw that you did a small c/e for Filming, I think we can take it further and have added an alternate proposal to your sandbox. The only thing I took out that I think should be moved is the line about the style of her car which I think should go with the production design/set info. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I have added c/e proposals for Editing and VFX as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I figured most of what I put under the split headings was already at the episode articles, it was just a clear way for me to show you and others what I felt should be removed. The Buick info is really odd in general, though useful, but agree with moving it to design! I'll hopefully get my thoughts on the VFX section soon. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Also I think whatever we eventually land on for c/e and cut downs, we should include a hatnote in the production section stating something like "Additional production information and episode-specific content can be found at each episode's article." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

How about a see also or further info hatnote linking to the #Production section of certain episode articles? IronManCap (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I think a custom one with simply {{Hatnote}}, just indicating the episode articles have more info. With 9 total, that seems like a lot of links/WP:SEAOFBLUE. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I would be happy with that, there are already clear links to the episode articles anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Adamstom.97, all, how do you want to proceed? Should we simply insert the proposed section reductions as you or I stated? And for ones where we both put info, I'm sure yours probably reduced in a better sense, know more of what you put at the episode articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made the reductions from your sandbox and added a couple bits to episode articles that were not there already. That gets us down to 72kb of readable prose which is definitely an improvement. If we are happy with the hatnote then I think we go ahead with that as well. After that we may want to have another think about options, but I do still want to do some reception work first. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Where can you see that info? I can only find the page length in bytes. —El Millo (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: I believe it's with the Wikipedia:Prosesize script, because I see the 72kb when I run that as well. If you don't have it, instructions are on that page to install. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It'll then appear on the left side of the site under your "Tools" as "Page size". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! —El Millo (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Adamstom.97 I'll add the hatnote in, and will probably take just a general c/e pass soon. I want to try to get rid of the constant "This person said/stated" that start a lot of sentences. See if there is info that doesn't actually need to know who said it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Miniseries Poster/Cast

So other miniseries like The Queen's Gambit, Chernobyl, and Tiger King use the poster as the main image instead of just the logo. Wouldn't it make sense to do the same for this? Especially since there's no Season 1 article to actually place the poster. It just feels off to me that the official poster doesn't make it anywhere on the site.

Also, I know there's pre-established guidelines about the cast list, but some miniseries like The Defenders use the official credit order regardless of first episode appearance. The main cast has a set order (aside from the alternating leads), they just leave out the ones that aren't in that specific episode.

Same conversation applies to The Falcon and the Winter Soldier of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickh105 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

there is a reached consensus i believe. – ChannelSpider (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Correct, Facu-el Millo gave an in-depth explanation for this on his talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)