Jump to content

Talk:WandaVision

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Favre1fan93 (talk | contribs) at 18:34, 4 December 2023 (→Good Topic: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dick Van Dyke show details

In the Writing §, under "Sitcom influences", it is claimed "... the first episode pays homage to The Dick Van Dyke Show, which ran from the late 1950s to the early 1960s, and was meant to have a general 1950s time period."

The source on this point is unreliable as to airdates, as the original pilot dates from 1960, while the show itself began airing in 1961.

The source, while incorrect about show run dates, does NOT claim that either The Dick Van Dyke Show or WandaVision is meant to represent the 1950s. To claim this is Original Research. Chaswmsday (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first episode is set in the 50s, and the first two episodes were inspired by the Dick Van Dyke Show, so the content isn't entirely inaccurate, but it's already included elsewhere. —El Millo (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the wording and source to hopefully address these concerns. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC about what to refer to Wanda Maximoff as

WANDA
In this discussion, editors discussed whether to refer to the fictional character Wanda Maximoff by her surname ("Maximoff") or by her given name ("Wanda"). Editors in support of calling her by her first name provided a series of arguments, saying that is the most common name by which the character is referred, that the Wikipedia-wide manual of style states that given names may be used to refer to individuals who share the surname of another individual mentioned in the same article, and that occasional exceptions may apply to any general guidance relating to the use of surnames to refer to characters. Opposition to the use of the given name focused substantially on a local consensus among MCU task force participants, and procedurally argued that there was insufficient discussion before the RfC for an RfC to be held. The majority of participants supported the use of "Wanda" in this article, the results of discussions are not determined by voting, but are instead ascertained by examining the arguments in light of relevant policies and guidelines. And, through that lens, this discussion obtained consensus to refer to Wanda Maximoff as "Wanda", rather than as "Maximoff". (non-admin closure) — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Should Wanda Maximoff be referred to as Wanda or Mazimoff? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wanda For real people, policy is very clear to refer to them by their last name opposed to their first name in the majority of situations. However, that policy has never supposed to apply to fictional characters. Sure, we can use it when there isn't a clear common name, but that isn't the case here. The character is referred to as just Wanda all the time and is extremely referred to as just Maximoff. The name of the show is literally WandaVision. The WP:COMMONNAME is extremely clearly Wanda over Maximoff. There is simply no reason to keep referring to her as Maximoff instead. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close The RfC initiator has made zero attempts to discuss this matter beforehand, as mandated by WP:RFCBEFORE. Secondly, there is existing WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to use last names on MCU articles when referring to characters for consistency, as documented at WP:MCU#Miscellaneous. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a handful of editors watching this article still, so presuming a regular discussion would not receive responses does not hold up. It is bad form to go against the local consensus at WP:MCU#Miscellaneous. The MCU character articles have not been as closely watched for following the local consensus of the MCU taskforce. and that article refers to other characters such as Rogers and Stark by their surnames, so it should be consistent in that approach, as is the case with other MCU articles, and should follow this article's approach as an extension of that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no, no. The Wanda character article uses Wanda because Pietro has the same last name and is extensively discussed on that page. This is done in accordance with policy, and WP:MCU#Miscellaneous touches on that as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wanda per MOS:SAMESURNAME and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_task_force#Miscellaneous, since Pietro Maximoff is also referenced on this page and because she is consistently called Wanda, almost never Maximoff, in-universe. I'm baffled by the argument above that the MCU Task Force consensus would support using her last name - she hits both the criteria that it says would require a first name (possible confusion with her brother, and her last name is rarely used in-universe, presumably for that same reason.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I think we should be more open to not always using last names. We can still have that general rule of using last names by default, but when it starts to become clear a character is primarily referred to by something other than their last name, we should treat it accordingly. It seems that Wanda is one of those characters, just as Ned and MJ from the Spider-Man trilogy are, for whom we've already implemented this. This, however, does not mean we should be checking whether each character has a common name other than their last name every time a new one appears, just that we should do it when it becomes obvious. Otherwise, it would be too much. —El Millo (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It might become troublesome if this list continues to grow... InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, as more and more characters appear in the films, yes, the list will likely grow with time, but that's reasonable and expected. What we wouldn't want to happen is for wandering editors to just start creating RfCs left and right about any character they think "actually" has had their first name used 51 times and their last name "only" used 49 times. I think the consensus we established still prevents that from happening and this change from "Maximoff" to "Wanda" is still within that consensus. —El Millo (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wanda because she is not a real person and is much more frequently called "Wanda" rather than "Mazimoff". Also there's a bonus point for disambiguating with Pietro Mazimoff (aka Quicksilver). CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wanda, WP:COMMONNAME... Merko (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wanda, per previous comments, "Wanda" is more commonly used AND the character needs to be differentiated from her brother who has the same last name. JoseJan89 (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

The Vision

In the info about Vision, it was written that Bettany plays an original version. Can you define the term original? I do not think it means created for the show since White Vision also appears in the comics. JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We state the original character which refers to the character described in the first sentence of his description. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not get it JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is referring to the original version of the Vision, who died in Infinity War and has now been rebuilt as White Vision. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Topic

The accolades article is getting close to becoming a FL, which should make WandaVision eligible to become a GT. The topic would include this article, the episodes, and the accolades for sure. Should that be all, or should any of these also be included?

  1. Agatha All Along
  2. Marvel Cinematic Universe
  3. List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series
  4. List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors (Marvel Studios) (including this because I know the former films GT included the actors article)

I have the basics set up in my in my sandbox to prep for the nomination, not that I have to be the one to nominate since others were more involved overall with getting the articles to GA. The blurb, or whatever it's called, probably needs touched up since I just copied parts of the lead from this article for the most part, so anyone can feel free to edit that to clean it up. ZooBlazer 23:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agatha All Along, yes. The MCU articles, no. There might be merit to having the Wanda and Vision character articles in this, but that's hard to say since they are franchise characters and not solely related to this series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was originally thinking the character articles may be needed, but I noticed GTs for things like the Supernatural seasons don't include their main characters even though they have wiki articles, but I'm not sure if seasons of a show is the same as a whole miniseries in the GT process. ZooBlazer 17:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My argument though say with your Supernatural example, their character articles apply to that series only. Wanda and Vision's apply to the entire MCU, not just their WandaVision appearances. So I'd lean towards we probably don't need to include them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. I think MCU characters would probably be best as the main articles of a GT/FT. Like Iron Man and Thor, who both have multiple movies, plus Iron Man has an article for his armor and Thor has one for his weapons. Vision may be good to save until after Vision Quest releases (obviously both articles would need to eventually be GAs) then include this article for a smaller GT. ZooBlazer 06:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are now a FL, so we can probably now go through the GT process. I know @adamstom97 and @Favre1fan93 were heavily involved in getting the articles to GAs, so you guys should have first choice of nominating or not. I'm willing to do it if neither of you want to. ZooBlazer 00:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A reviewer will likely bring up the lack of an image. Since WandaVision images can't be used due to being non-free, File:Elizabeth Olsen & Paul Bettany (48469160767).jpg is probably the best option, at least that I've come across. ZooBlazer 18:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily know if images are needed. They can be helpful, but if it's an image for an image's sake, maybe not. But yes, that one is good to use if it is needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:WandaVision&oldid=1188328526"