wednesday

Is it really a good idea to reveal major spoilers in the cast list for a show that is less than 4 days old? I.e. that Thornhill is also Laurel Gates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneMoreMike (talk • contribs) 13:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. There are no policy-based reasons to exclude spoilers from Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia does not exist to accommodate your viewing experience. If you don't want to risk getting spoiled, you should avoid Wikipedia articles of newly released films or series altogether, or at the very least avoid sections in such articles that are likely to include spoilers (i.e. cast sections and episode summaries). See WP:SPOILER for more information. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 14:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Then why isn’t Hunter Doohan also shown as playing The Hyde?
There is no „encyclopedic purpose“ being fulfilled in mentioning just the one of them. OneMoreMike (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
True, will go ahead and add that shortly. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 14:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Where are the sources for these roles, outside of viewing the series yourselves? It isn't mentioned anywhere else that I can find.
If there aren't any sources, then it's "original research", right? OneMoreMike (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
No, it's plain description of the series, being a primary source for the information. Notice how no citations are provided for the episode summaries? That is because we are allowed to use the series as a primary source here. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Ah, well - I get why you can add the spoiling information. Took me a moment to get there, sorry.
Maybe the problem is that I find it questionable whether an article about a brand new series fulfills any "encyclopedic purpose"? An article about the Maltese Falcon without mentioning that the statue turns out to be a fake would be incomplete if written today (although it gives away the ending) because it is integral to e.g., Bogart's career, early film noir, academic discussions about the origin of the term MacGuffin etc.
Can the same thing being be said about a plot point in a brand new series? Is it - right now - central to anything beyond the series itself? OneMoreMike (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, decades of editing and I'm sure hundreds and thousands of discussions within the community have established that Wikipedia articles of TV series should include brief episode summaries and character descriptions, see WP:MOSTV. In any case, Wikipedia articles should be internally consistent, meaning if we cover "spoilers" in the episode summaries that are central to certain characters, we should not omit them from character descriptions in the cast section. Taking a cursory look at some press coverage, all of this information is also easily verified, so I really don't see an issue including it. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd argue there is a difference of purpose between the cast list section and a plot summary section. The cast list should reflect how the actors are credited in the series itself. X (actor) as X (credited character) and then a brief description to identify the character (not a complete summary of the character's history). There's really no "encyclopedic point" to include spoilers here unless it is independently notable. A plot or episode summary section however, should succinctly and fully summarize the plot including anything that might be understood as a spoiler. 173.52.210.30 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you consider "independently notable", but these characters, including spoilers surrounding them, have been covered at depth in several RS, see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] for examples from just a cursory search. I feel like it would be gratuitous not to include well-rounded, all-encompassing character descriptions at this point. This urge to suppress feels arbitrary to me. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Wiki does not censor its articles for spoilers. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Please change the descriptions for characters Tyler and Miss Thornhill as they give away the entire plot of the show and it totally ruined it for us, when we just wanted to find out who the actors were. 86.27.36.34 (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: Please take a look at WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:SPOILER, and Talk:Wednesday (TV series)#Major spoiler in the cast list. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 00:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Change “swim team” to “waterpolo team”. In the Premise section, it currently states that Wednesday is expelled for dumping live piranhas in the school's pool while the boy's “swim team” is practicing. It should be corrected to “waterpolo team”. The boy are wearing waterpolo caps and have a waterpolo ball. 2601:249:300:10E0:11CB:D343:5335:571C (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  Done, although I'm not sure how relevant these details are for a short premise in the first place. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Do we really need to state that someone thought it was like other CW series' in the lead? Move that down to "reception".--Mapsfly (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

According to Rotten Tomatoes, this was a somewhat common criticism among critics. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 10:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Michu1945, Would you please take it to the talk page instead of edit warring? MOS:TVCAST is unequivocal here: All names should be referred to as credited. We should not focus on minuscule in-universe details like a supporting character's maiden name that is literally mentioned once and has no bearing whatsoever on the story. Catherine Zeta-Jones and Gwen Jones are credited as "Morticia Addams" and "young Morticia Addams" in episode 5, respectively. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 08:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if this is notable or not but there are some spotify ads with Jenna Ortega "Wednesday" talking to the listener. If it is notable I have the sound file of the ad.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ RoseWaterSkies (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually the sound file is only partial. RoseWaterSkies (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
RoseWaterSkies, I'm not quite sure how that could be incorporated into the article. Could you expand on that? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
RoseWaterSkies, if there are high quality advertisements based on her character as Wednesday, then it might be possible to add them into the Popular culture section when you give us the links to the ads you are referring to in order to verify the details. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I wouldn't know how to link a spotify ad but I also have a video of the ad. But sadly like the sound file it is also partial. RoseWaterSkies (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
No, we cannot simply insert ads into this article. Commentary based solely on the ads themselves would constitute original research. If reliable sources cover them, information can be included. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
If a reliable ad agency or a Hollywood studio is involved in the production of an ad, then it seems notable; if RoseWaterSkies can figure out how to present us with the links, then it could be researched. Prominent ad campaigns have been discussed on Wikipedia on many different product lines. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
ErnestKrause, you seem to have quite a substantial misunderstanding of our inclusion policy. What makes things notable on Wikipedia is coverage in reliable sources. We infer notability from coverage in secondary sources, not primary sources like Spotify ads. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Can we wait to hear from Rose? If there is a notable ad campaign featuring Ortega, then the reliable sources will follow it. At this point neither you nor myself have seem such an ad campaign and if Rose can get some info to us with linked sources then everyone can examine it. RS is always going to be of significance on Wiki English. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
ErnestKrause, of course, but Rose has never claimed to have anything except the video/audio files of the Spotify ads. I'm only explaining that those by themselves cannot be used. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any mention of such ads anywhere. Someone needs to provide a link to a news article or established respected web page referring to its existence for a start. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
That was my entire point in the first place. Not sure why this thread derailed so badly. Perhaps I should make myself more clear in the future. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm now discovering that Ortega actually did do ads in her adolescence, for example, like Burger King in 2013 and others. It appears that Rose above might have heard one of these old ads being replayed recently and reported it here without knowing the old dates of those ads. Mystery solved? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
No, she was talking like she was Wednesday. It was directly advertising the Wednesday series. But thank you Ernest:) RoseWaterSkies (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
User:RoseWaterSkies perhaps you could upload the file somewhere online and link it here (on the Talk page not the article page) for someone who is interested to do more digging. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Would it be ok if I uploaded the clip to my youtube channel? As I have stated previously the clip is only partial. RoseWaterSkies (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I feel like that would be getting into WP:NOTFORUM territory. Googling "Wednesday Netflix Spotify ad" should do the trick. I'll assure you however that such search terms do not yield any useful results. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 01:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Rose is sticking with it and if she can upload the file to her public Youtube channel, then Keith can do the digging after he sees the Youtube file which Rose can link on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
https://youtube.com/shorts/ZDog7Fe5gmM?feature=share this is the partial recording of the ad. I don’t think it would meet the notability standards but thank you guys for your continued interest RoseWaterSkies (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
That appears to be Ortega promoting the series for Netflix viewers to tune in; it does not seem to be an independent ad campaign. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I’m sorry for your confusion but I was just talking about Wednesday ads. I wasn’t talking about independent ads RoseWaterSkies (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
You say that now, but are you one of the people who have seen this video here [11]. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
The video I uploaded? I’m a little confused RoseWaterSkies (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
No, the one I just linked as #11 on my last post; its on Youtube. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
ErnestKrause, what on earth are you talking about? That's a fan's dance tutorial. How is this relevant to improving the article? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 01:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
That was the finish for this thread, which is done. You can archive it if you prefer. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

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

To link Wednesday (soundtrack) in the music section. 223.178.87.170 (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This was a premature WP:SPLIT in my opinion, but alright. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 10:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Actually, upon reviewing the new article against WP:WHENSPLIT, outside of the unnecessary tracklists, no more ground is covered than can easily be covered here, so the split truly is premature. I will redirect the article to this one. It may be recreated once there are actual grounds for a split (see shortcut). Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 10:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Reywas92, is there perhaps another way we could phrase his "involvement/association" with the 1991 film? I guess it depends on how strictly you apply the word "associated" in this context. I would consider Burton being on the shortlist of directors an "association" with the project. Using the term "projects" instead of "films" further clarifies that he did not end up actually participating in production, in my opinion. Documenting his history with the franchise seems lead-worthy to me. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider that an involvement or association; the mention in the body is fine but it's not warranted in the lead. He didn't actually do anything or had creative involvement, just pulled out his calendar and said "sorry I'm busy." Reywas92^Talk 00:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 00:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any encyclopedic purpose in including the teasers in the final episode (Tyler turning into the Hyde, Wednesday receiving anonymous texts) in the episode summary. They do not actually have any relevance to this season's story and only serve as a commercial ploy to keep viewers hooked. Per MOS:TVPLOT, plot summaries should be kept as concise as possible and only cover the core storyline without focusing on minutiae like scene-by-scene breakdowns. I will defer to this section any time they are being re-added. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 04:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This page should have the disambiguation banner at the top:

This is not necessary because the title of the article is unambiguous. The tag is only used in cases of ambiguous article titles like Wednesday. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

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

also Wednesday has a hand named thing 2600:1702:3A50:8740:1536:554B:83F5:9086 (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2022 (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. Cannolis (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that its useful to mi up the chronology of sentences in the popular culture section. It seems like a Dec 2 edit, is followed by a Dec 24 edit, which is followed by a Dec 3 edit. That's a bit of a jumble which does not appear as useful as it could be for that section. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Chronology is not always necessary and sometimes even detrimental to good writing. The section flows well in my opinion. I don't see an issue. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 01:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Its New Years, so I'm going to say Greeting for the New Year. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

"Titular" means "in title only" eg "The Queen is the titular head of state". "Titular" does not mean "title". But "title" means "referred to by the title". I.e., "Ortega plays the title character", not "the titular character". Please change it, thanks. 122.58.105.122 (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It also means "relating to or denoted by a title", and a common usage would be as it is here - describing a piece of the subject that shared with the title of the work. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
See instance #3 of Merriam Webster Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Add "Parody" to Genres section due to multiple similarities and references to Harry Potter by Joanne Rowling story.

Add references to Harry Potter by Joanne Rowling section. Several of them are: 1) Nevermore Academy resembles Hogwarts in many ways: it is a castle-like building in a secluded place, with children having special abilities, there is a forest nearby like the Forbidden forest. 2) There are four major groups of students: Fangs, Furs, Scales and Stoners - like 4 faculties in Hogwarts. 3) Nevermore's secret society's room entrance and concept resembles the Chamber of Secrets (H.P. and the Chamber of Secrets) with a secret hidden entrance and ritual. 4) Resurrection of Joseph Crackstone ritual resembles the ritual for Voldemort's resurrection, having 3 conditions: a grave in a tomb, several body parts, and the blood of an enemy (Wednesday) resembles the scene and conditions of Voldemort's resurrection (H.P. and the Goblet of Fire) taking place in a graveyard ("Bone of the father, unknowingly given, you will renew your son. Flesh of the servant, willingly given, you will revive your master. Blood of the enemy, forcibly taken, you will resurrect your foe") 5) Scene of Enid turned a werewolf saving Wednesday from Hyde form of Tyler Galpin resembles Sirius Black saving Harry Potter. Enid in the werewolf form resembles Sirius in his dog form, while Hyde resembles werewolf form of professor Lupin (H.P. and the Prisoner of Azkaban). Especially the first jump of Hyde blocked by Enid is almost the same as Sirius's jump onto werewolf form of Lupin. Slavik12vm (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Someone please add relevant categories for mystery shows and high-school based shows. Both of these apply. 78.148.55.12 (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

When you hover over Emma Myers' name for the preview text, the first sentence says, "Emma Myers is an American actress accused of eating and murdering her fellow co-star Jenna Ortega."

Pretty sure this is the kind of vandalism for which the page is now semi-locked, but this should be removed. 76.106.43.195 (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Article previews display the lead section of the respective articles. They are not affected by the article you view them in but rather by the article previewed, so you can only edit them indirectly by editing that article's lead section. I see the edit at Emma Myers has already been reverted, so everything is sorted. You might still be able to see the previous version because it is cached. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 07:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello good time; I request the administrators of English Wikipedia to remove this article from protection mode so that everyone can contribute to this article.

Thanks Mojtabi (my name is not English) تنهاوناشناس (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

تنهاوناشناس, the article was protected per request on January 31 due to persistent vandalism by new and unregistered users. Protection expires on May 1, 2023. Until then, you can always make an edit request by clicking the "edit" button and following the steps at the top of the page. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank Mojtaba (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

could an edit be applied to remove the Laurel Gates reference from the cast list. it's unnecessary information and needlessly spoils the plot of the series. 92.30.106.208 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

No, information is not removed on the grounds of it spoiling your or anyone's viewing experience. See Talk:Wednesday (TV series)#Major spoiler in the cast list for context. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This is poor writing and is an issue that has come up elsewhere, and the wrong call was made here. The fact that spoilers are acceptable and understood on Wikipedia does not mean that the cast list is the place to put them. The cast list is just that, a cast list. It is not a plot summary. The plot should be in the plot section (or for this specific article, the "Episodes" section). The cast list description should have the basic introduction to the characters and no more, basically just a name & occupation. In the very unlikely scenario of a separate character article being spun off, it's a different discussion, but here? It's unnecessary.

Put things another way, spoilers are fine in Wikipedia, but they need to be introduced in the proper spot, just like every other fact. Character / cast lists are not supposed to be plot summaries. SnowFire (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

It all depends, imo. If "spoilers" are a central part of a character, they ought to be included in character descriptions too. You say that character descriptions should be basically just a name & occupation, but MOS:TVCAST is much more ambiguous: the guideline says that cast lists should include a brief description of the character. I feel like that standard is met (none of the character descriptions exceed a single sentence), although some descriptions could probably be tightened up a bit. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I would say we should start with tightening up Thornhill's description, then. It should be a basic ("brief") introduction to the character, and the character is just Thornhill for 7/8 of the TV show as well as her introduction. I know that there are many ways to run cast sections, but if you check other cast sections, they simply introduce the basics of the character. They don't detail exactly all their plot developments in each episode.
And "a central part of her character" is the wrong discussion IMO. No doubt it is a central part of her character, but this isn't an article on Thornhill's character specifically; it's an article on the TV show as a whole, and specifically its cast list. If there is ever a "Characters of Wednesday" article, then sure, go into the central parts of each character more, but that's not quite this section, which is a basic overview. SnowFire (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I want to emphasize again that the character description comprises exactly one sentence. That's nowhere near WP:SPLIT territory, in fact, it couldn't be much further from it. 'A central part of her character' is the wrong discussion IMO? What else do you put into a character description but central parts of the character? These parts of the character are amply discussed and analyzed in reliable sources as well, so it's certainly not undue either. I'm not convinced that this is anything but an effort to suppress perceived spoilers for the sole sake of suppressing spoilers. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)