Talk:WandaVision

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WandaVision article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 30 days

WandaVision has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

WandaVision is the main article in the WandaVision series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 30, 2021	Good article nominee	Listed
January 14, 2024	Good topic candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 8, 2021.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Marvel Cinematic Universe television series WandaVision was structured to follow the five stages of grief by starting with denial and ending with acceptance?

Current status: Good article

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q: Why is the cast section formatted as it is? Specifically, why are there no subsections (Main, Recurring, and Guest) like other TV series articles, and why are Debra Jo Rupp and Fred Melamed in the main bulleted list?
- A: Marvel Studios is approaching their Disney+ series as if they are feature films (see
  WP:FILMCAST. Any actor who appears in the main on-end billing is listed in the section's main bulleted list as if they were part of a film poster's "billing block" per FILMCAST, and they are listed in order of first onscreen credit per TVCAST. Additional actors are noted in prose below the main bulleted list as is done in the MCU film articles, with recurring and guest actors included per TVCAST. This was determined by tracking appearances in the series (see Talk:WandaVision/Archive 3 § Cast breakdown), with four or more appearances considered a recurring role and two or more considered a guest role. See past discussions here, here, and here
  .

Comics: Marvel Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

Disney Low‑importance

	Disney portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Marvel Cinematic Universe Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the

the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force (assessed as Top-importance

).

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2021, when it received 16,738,895 views.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 10 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Text and/or other creative content from this version of WandaVision was copied or moved into List of accolades received by WandaVision with this edit on September 2, 2021. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

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

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:MCU#Miscellaneous. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

It's been nearly a year since the last activity on this talk page. Starting a regular conversation wouldn't have gone anywhere. That local consensus is not policy and has never been universally applied. In fact, Wanda Maximoff (Marvel Cinematic Universe) uses Wanda over Maximoff to refer to the character, and has so for over a year. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:55, 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?

Agatha All Along
Marvel Cinematic Universe
List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series
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]