doctor Strange In The Multiverse Of Madness

Should we refer to Wanda Maximoff as Wanda or Maximoff in this article? A similar discussion was already held at Talk:WandaVision#RFC about what to refer to Wanda Maximoff as which ended in a clear consensus to refer to her as Wanda. Pinging InfiniteNexus, Aquillion, El Millo, CactiStaccingCrane, Merko, JoseJan89 from that conversation. I personally find it repetitive and unnecessary to have to have this debate a second time. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

That RfC was for the character in the MCU as a whole. We always talk about consistency among these articles, so we should be consistent on this as well. —El Millo (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
That's my believe as well. I can't personally revert it back here or at Captain America: Civil War though because I'm too close to 3 reverts. Someone else can though. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Wanda, per previous consensus. Repeatedly switching it to something different than Wanda might be borderline vandalism, because there was a RfC consensus about it. Merko (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, NO, that would not be considered "borderline vandalism". 18:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: while technically the RfC would only apply to WandaVision, we've always conducted ourselves with consistency across all articles. Reverting these changes seems a bit WP:POINTy, no offense, given the arguments put forward and that it is still consistent with what the WP:MCU says and how we've treated characters such as Ned Leeds, for example. —El Millo (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think consistency demands that we call her the same thing at every article, just that we use a consistent approach for her and all other characters. It was right to change to "Wanda" at WandaVision because Pietro is also mentioned there, but he isn't here. So leaving her as "Maximoff" here is consistent with our general approach. Calling her "Wanda" at every article would actually be very inconsistent with how we treat all the other characters. The only way we could justify doing that is changing to use everyone's first names, and there is definitely no consensus for that yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
That ignores the fact that she is almost is never called by her last name, and the guideline clearly says to use their first name in that case. Just like we use Ned for Ned Leeds and MJ for Michelle Jones. For most characters in the MCU, their first and last names are used a similar amount of times, and in those situations, yes, we must their last names unless there is another character with the same last name. But that's not the case with Wanda. Her first name is used way more than her last name. The existence of Pietro was a supporting point in the argument at WandaVision, not the main one. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Right, some characters are referred to by first name and some are referred to by last name, based on how they're most commonly named. We've determined that Wanda Maximoff is much more commonly called Wanda than Maximoff, so we use Wanda for all instances. The MCU task force's own page states that we use last names except if the character in question is rarely referred to by their last name, which is what was determined here, and it applies to all articles on the MCU, at least as far as we had locally agreed. —El Millo (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. The policy was created to prevent constant fights over whether to use Tony or Stark for characters like Iron Man, where either would make sense. It was never meant to restrict us from being able to use the common name when there's a clear answer. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Wanda's full name is used just as much as most main MCU characters. This isn't a Ned Leeds or MJ situation where the last name is basically an Easter egg. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
"Maximoff" has been used onscreen many times before, unlike "Leeds" and "Jones-Watson". InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Given the further discussion and points, I concur that Maximoff has been used frequently to justify continuing to use it at these articles where there is no one else possessing that surname. It applies to WandaVision, and I see now that it should since my comment there, but specifying the first name is not needed for this article and some others. This approach fits in line with what we established at the MCU taskforce. To be inconsistent would be using both in the same article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I thought we had agreed not to include any "grouped" actor names in the main titles? This is what the other MCU articles do currently, and what WP:MCUFILMCAST reflects. Klyne and Hilliard are paired together here, as are Atim and Hugil. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah that's right, apologies. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
No worries. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Is there really a reasoning why we exclude them? I checked the relevant discussion and it was seemingly only mentioned once with no clear reason. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 23:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I think it was just that generally the main-on-end credits chuck in some extra, minor names that are grouped together. The reason we use the main-on-end credits over the poster billing block is to include any major actors that were being kept secret from the poster, not to include smaller roles in the film that are only creditied in the main-on-end. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I was referring to the grouped names and why we exclude them in the main-on-end titles. Sorry for the confusion. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that's what Adamstom was referring to. The grouped names in the MOE are the minor cast members. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

In this recent edit from KyleJoan, "generally positive reviews" was removed from the lead (in reference to an earlier comment from Facu-el Millo). I'm fine with this. When Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic disagree, other sources are needed for such claims.

Also in an earlier edit, I removed a summary statement calling out individual film elements that were praised and criticized. Such statements must be tied to a source (or sources) that assess overall critical reception. We shouldn't be assessing individual critic reviews ourselves to synthesize a summary, which is a form of original research.

Per MOS:FILMLEAD: "Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources."

If someone wants to locate better sources and revisit, I'm all ears. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the Rotten Tomatoes critical consensus specifying praise for the direction, this round-up documents Olsen praise. I propose adding to the lead section: "The film received praise for Raimi's direction and Olsen's performance." I agree with the removal of the other (improperly synthesized) claims. KyleJoan^talk 01:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a solid source and I'd support that addition. However, it should first be added, cited, and summarized in the Critical response section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Would anyone else say that this film should be categorized as horror? It was definitely marketed as being horror-esque with the trailers and there's obvious horrific content shown throughout the film. The Scarlet Witch chasing them down the dark tunnel panting ferally was particularly terrifying. As was Sinister Strange's descent into madness.

(Tyrian Watts (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

We can only add that if there are reliable sources saying so. ZooBlazer 00:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)