This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This edit request to WandaVision has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

--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)

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 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)

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)

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)

This edit request to WandaVision has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This edit request to WandaVision has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

This edit request to WandaVision has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)