Good articleWandaVision 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.
Good topic starWandaVision 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
DateProcessResult
August 30, 2021Good article nomineeListed
January 14, 2024Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
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

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]

Incorrect summary text

The summary of the program is inaccurate; it claims that Wanda begins to suspect something is amiss, when in fact she is the one creating the situation/illusion. Many of the other sources on the page describe the summary, but one old inaccurate source (probably based on a quick early tv pitch) is being used to describe this incorrect summary. I tried to fix this but my edit was undone without checking all the other sources in the article. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Tduk (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wanda does begin to suspect something is amiss. She is unaware that she created the hex until later in the series. The premise section just establishes the idea of the show, it does not go into the whole plot, so that is why it only reflects the first couple of episodes. The full plot of the series is detailed in the episodes section. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that it doesn't serve us to repeat promotional misleading material meant to sell the show - I think it's better to be unambiguous. I don't agree that the "premise" only applies to the first couple of episodes; is there somewhere in policy that explains that's what it means? Tduk (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the word "Premise" means, we don't need a policy to explain that. See also Premise (narrative). - adamstom97 (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably, then, according to that specific definition, "As their surroundings begin to move through different decades and they encounter various television" should be removed, right? Referring to episodes after the first. Tduk (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is part of the premise of the show. Nowhere did I say that the premise is restricted to the first episode. Per Wikipedia's definition, the premise is "the initial state of affairs that drives the plot". In this series, that is the fact that they are in Westview and their surroundings begin to move through different decades. There is a difference between the whole point of the show, which is established in the first few episodes, and the big reveal that happens later on which is not part of the premise. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many definitions of premise disagree with the one on the completely unsourced article that has not always reflected the one you are suggesting. Aside from that, we've also established that what the text describes is rendered inaccurate as the series progresses. You're also arbitrarily defining how much of the show is covered by your definition of "premise". I don't see how having the questionable content there improves the article. I also don't think anything is served by us going back and forth, shall we wait until someone else voices some thoughts? Tduk (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"what the text describes is rendered inaccurate as the series progresses" -- this is common. You are acting like I personally have made up a new definition of "premise" and am trying to force it on the article, but this wording has been well established in this GA-class article for years, and is based on reliable sources which are provided in-line. You randomly decided that you don't like the premise and tried to change it to an unsourced, inaccurate one. I am open to hear from others, but I disagree that this is a simple case of "he said-they said". - adamstom97 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually didn't change the premise, I removed some of the misleading material from it; so yes, I do think it's looking like a case of "they said-they said" at this point, as you've even inaccurately described the change I made; I'm not sure if in the moment you misread it. I didn't add any material at all, so describing what I did as "tried to change it to an unsourced summary" is as misleading as I argue the premise is itself. Tduk (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see also you mentioned its WP:GA status, which I thought was curious, since I'm not aware of anything in the GA requirements which do imply the impossibility of inaccuracies, but now I see you nominated the article yourself. Are you aware of WP:OWN? Tduk (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm exactly following how you believe this premise is somehow inaccurate. For trying to conceal their true natures, Wanda and Vision are shown in the series attempting to fit in with the suburban lives and conceal their powers. For the couple suspects that things are not as they seem, that has been a major component of the mystery unfolding throughout this miniseries' six episodes. These are both discussed in depth throughout the article, and, given this is only six episodes, this premise does summarize the bulk of the miniseries. I will note that you also removed the "EWNov2020CoverStory" ref, thus leaving the end of the premise unsourced. Also, just because Adam has been a substantial contributor does not mean OWN should just be thrown around when in a disagreement. You removed reliably sourced information that has been in place for years, thus, the contested removal needs to be discussed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply; I agree, that's the discussion I'm trying to start. I removed two pieces of text - "trying to conceal their true natures", which I thought was just a bit misleading for the overall plot, but I may have been overzealous and won't contest that. I removed "the couple suspects that things are not as they seem" because I'm not actually sure what that is supposed to be referring to. It reads like generic TV copy, and I'm not sure it is helpful in explaining anything. In my opinion, it should either be removed (and presumably fleshed out below in the article), or elaborated on where it is now. Tduk (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to suggest new wording. It still needs to be a premise, not a summary of the entire plot, and it needs to be supported by reliable sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to collaborate on this; my issue is really with the phrase "the couple suspects" - I feel it oversimplifies things. I'd either remove that phrase entirely - the premise still works otherwise without that phrase. Arguably the phrase is about the next stage of the premise. If we do need to keep it, maybe "it becomes apparent to some that things are not as they seem"? I'm not quite happy with that either but I think it's an improvement. Tduk (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what your issue is with that phrase? I don't understand why that part in particular is an issue, and I think changing it to "some" makes it unnecessarily vague. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's unnecessarily vague, but it's already pretty vague, which is why I have issue with it. Can you explain what you think it's referring to in more detail? It isn't clear to me what it is supposed to mean; it just sounds like a TV pitch. I feel it doesn't add anything useful to the text. Tduk (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The premise of the show is that Wanda and Vision think they are living in an "idyllic suburban life in the town of Westview, New Jersey, trying to conceal their true natures", but they start to suspect that "things are not as they seem" as weird things happen such as the changing decades and TV tropes. That is the basic set-up for the show that you would tell someone to give them an idea of what the show is. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's the implication, that they believed they were actually in a sitcom at the beginning of the show? Tduk (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They believe that they actually live in Westview sometime in the 1950s/1960s and don't realise that there is something weird about that straight away. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thank you. I don't agree with that; that was not how I interpreted the show. I feel that line of the premise relies on one early poor promotional source, and without that, the line relies on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; I think you would need to find a few good sources that will back up what you just said. Tduk (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The premise is accurate to the show and supported by sources in the article. You are welcome to suggest alternate wording, as long as that is still supported by sources, which others could consider. I'm not sure what else you want me to say. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did suggest alternate wording and you undid it, but we can try to fit all the concepts you think are important to the premise. I also suggest we need better sources; one source published when a series began is hardly adequate to describe a series that has finished. Regardless, I don't think tying the movement through tropes to something seeming amiss is correct. How's : "Three weeks after the events of Avengers: Endgame (2019), Wanda Maximoff and Vision are living an idyllic suburban life in the town of Westview, New Jersey, trying to conceal their true natures while their surroundings begin to move through different decades and they encounter various television tropes. As the series progresses, the couple suspects that things are not as they seem." Tduk (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been explained, the premise doesn't change as the show continues because it is directly tied to the start of the show. The only time we expect to update the premise with new details / sources after it has finished is if there is a second season with a different premise from the first. And the way the premise ties the movement through tropes to something seeming amiss is both literally correct (per what can be seen in the series) and also directly coming from the source, which says: But as the newlyweds cycle through the decades — and the familiar TV tropes — they realize their white-picket-fence life may not be as gleamingly picture-perfect as it seems. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WandaVision
No tags for this post.