Talk:Once Upon a Time season 6

Social media sources

I would say the show's producer is qualified to make statements about characters being in the season, and I'd also argue actors can speak for themselves about their own role. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Per the edit summary of my most recent revert, the editor in question obviously misunderstands what the third-party clause means. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOCIALMEDIA covers this and supports using as ref for info about self. I am a bit queasy about cast self-announcing participation in projects because of the "unduly self-serving" issue so would prefer to see a secondary source. If it is tagged {{primary source inline}} would be more appropriate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Recent Edit War With Sinbad and Scheherazade

I noticed there was an edit war over whether Sinbad and Scheherazade were casting call code names for Aladdin and Jasmine. Since the page is currently locked for new edits, I actually do have a source that I would like to share. TVLine's Matt Mitovich, a well respected source, claims that they are in the comments section of one of his articles. In fact, he's the same source that previously announced the casting call:

" Matt Webb Mitovich says: July 23, 2016 at 3:29 PM Sinbad/Scheherezade were code names for Aladdin/Jasmine."

This really isn't a surprise, since they've used code names for several Once Upon a Time casting calls before. I hope this helps put this matter to rest. 69.122.183.181 (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

References

"Dealings" v. "A connection."

Towards the end of the casting section, we have a phrase that says "David Anders will return this season as Victor Frankenstein. The character will have dealings with Jekyll and Hyde."

I'm not entirely sure why @LLArrow: is insistent on the word "dealings" in this context as it makes no sense for 3 primary reasons:

1) It's vague and doesn't accurately describe the relationship with Frankenstein/Jekyll & Hyde. It's poorly worded. What does it mean here?
2) The source itself that's attached to the sentence uses the word "connection".
3) deal·ing
ˈdēliNG/Submit
noun
plural noun: dealings
1.
a business relation or transaction.
"they had dealings with an insurance company"
synonyms: business methods, business practices, business, commerce, trading, transactions; More
a personal connection or association with someone.
noun: dealing
"my dealings with David consisted of giving him his late-night formula"
synonyms: relations, relationship, association, connections, contact, intercourse; More
the activity of buying and selling a particular commodity.
"car dealing"
2.
the particular way in which someone behaves toward others.
"fair dealing came naturally to him"
- Enough said.

I propose we change the word "dealings" with "a connection." It's more accurate, more broad, makes it less confusing, and because LLArrow refuses to explain why "dealings" is so important to them. Whether it's changing it to "a connection" or anything else, I don't believe "dealings" is an appropriate word in this context.

-- S ^talk/_contribs 19:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Either phrase seems OK. wikt:dealings says "relations with others". Which is how I think of the word, btw. If the show hasn't happened, wouldn't the relationship be rather vague? What dictionary are you using, S? Jim1138 (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

"The Other Shoe" airdate - Presidential debate

I believe The Futon Critic has listed the wrong info concerning the airdate for #603 "The Other Show", given the fact the second presidential debate will be held October 9, 2016, across all major networks. I move to either remove the information entirely, until we can get network confirmation (i.e. press release), or supply a note for the episode stating the POTUS news. What say ye peeps, LLArrow (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I say leave it until there's further information. Zap2it has also listed the episode as October 9. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

http://www.disneyabcpress.com/abc/calendar/ It is ABC's official calendar. Just check on October 9th, there is a OUAT episode in this day. Lady Junky (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The correct title for 605: "Diamond in the Rough" vs. "Street Rats"

This is an ongoing issue that needs to be addressed. So back in August, Norman Buckley, the director for episode 605, leaked the title "Diamond in the Rough" on his Instagram, but quickly deleted it. Later that same night, Adam Horowitz tweeted out that the title was now "Street Rats", which was likely in response to the earlier leak. However, now all reputable TV listing sites are listing the episode as "Diamond in the Rough", the same title that was originally leaked. Adam Horowitz was asked about this on his Twitter recently, and claims that the listings are incorrect, and that the title should still be "Street Rats": https://twitter.com/AdamHorowitzLA/status/783095588334088192 . All attempts to revert back to "Street Rats" have failed, due to the listings being newer than Adam Horowitz' original tweet about the title, but the earlier tweet I linked is in fact new. It appears that there was some sort of miscommunication between the creators and network. So who's word do we go by in this complicated situation? 69.118.16.49 (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

We need to just wait for the official press release to clear things up once and for all. LLArrow (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

"Diamond in the Rough" was originally only forced because the Futon source was the newer source (over the first Twitter source). Now this is not the case, and even newer sources (that is, the second Twitter source) have arisen, confirming that the Futon source is incorrect (it does happen). Reinstating the information is valid. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

A brief update on this situation. Zap2it and TV Guide have since updated the title to "Street Rats", which Adam Horowitz claims is the correct title. So it seems like ABC has realized their mistake, and hopefully the press release follows suit. 69.118.16.49 (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

And Futon has titled it as "Street Rats (FKA Diamond in the Rough)" [1]. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Episode Summaries are "Too Long"

The episode summaries in the list is too long, regardless that there is a page for the episodes. The summary needs to be shorter. Shows where episodes does not have it's pages can be long as the ones here, but since ONCE has episodes pages for each one, the summary should not be long. I propose this suggestion : " using the press release for the summary "

For Example :

"The Savior" As our heroes set out to stop Hyde, Emma develops a mysterious side effect, and Storybrooke becomes a haven for refugees from the Land of Untold Stories. Meanwhile, Regina and Zelena embrace their newfound sisterhood by becoming roommates, while Rumple tries to free Belle from the sleeping Curse with the help of a stranger. In flashback, Jafar confronts an afflicted Aladdin in Agrabah, and a secret about the Savior is revealed. "A Bitter Draught" When a mysterious man from the Land of Untold Stories, who has a past with the Evil Queen, arrives in Storybrooke, David and Snow work together with Regina to neutralize the threat. Belle seeks Hook’s help finding a safe place to hide away from her husband, Mr. Gold. The Evil Queen continues to try to win Zelena over to her side, while Emma resumes her therapy sessions with Archie and shares her terrifying vision of the future. "The Other Shoe" As Storybrooke continues to welcome the new arrivals from the Land of Untold Stories, families, friends and even long-lost enemies are reunited once again. When Ashley (Cinderella) searches for her step-family, intent on settling their unfinished business, Emma, Hook and Henry scramble to help her before it’s too late. Meanwhile, Regina attempts to bribe Mr. Hyde for information about how to defeat the Evil Queen and Snow helps Dr. Jekyll find a suitable laboratory for his work. David makes a deal with Gold and delivers a message to Belle in exchange for new information about his father. In flashback, Cinderella attends a ball and meets her prince. "Strange Case" The Evil Queen and Hyde continue on their quest to steal Dr. Jekyll’s serum; Snow looks forward to her first day back as a school teacher; and while Emma looks forward to Hook moving in with her, Hook finds himself trying to protect Belle from Mr. Gold, who has made sure she can’t leave the confines of the pirate ship. Meanwhile, back in the past, Rumplestiltskin helps Dr. Jekyll complete his serum to separate a man’s personality into two – good and evil – but his help comes with a hefty price.

All of this are taken from the press release and are short and better summaries. 115.133.111.220 (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Copying the press releases is a blatant violation of the WP:COPYVIO policy. WP:TVPLOT states that episode table summaries should be 100-200 words, regardless of if there is an article for the episode or not Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Understood. Never knew that copying the press release was also a violation of the WP:COPYVIO policy. Thanks for the feed back. 115.133.111.220 (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.159.78.48 (talk)

Having noticed that several of the summaries here were too long, and others failed to fully summarize the episodes, I have been rewriting them. @AlexTheWhovian:, I noticed that you deleted the text "Past" and "Present" that I was using to separate the parts of the summary. Due to the show's format, I think it's very important to the coherence of each summary that it be indicated which events take place in the past and which in the present, or in whichever separate time/place settings the episode used. Can you elaborate on what you didn't like about my content or formatting? I could preface sections by writing "In the past," and "In the present," but I thought it was better to save four words that could be used elsewhere, since the consensus on the TV style guide is to reduce word allowances for these sections. --DavidK93 (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The series has gone for over five years without the necessity of the Past/Present headers. If necessary, the alternate phrases can be used to begin the sentences, and then trim the episode summaries down accordingly. Do realize that the episode doesn't need to be fully summarized in the episode table, given that the separate episode articles exist for this reason. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I understand the difference between the long summaries on episode pages and the short ones here--which should be evident from the fact that the summaries I worked on are of the correct length. When I said that summaries weren't "full," what I meant was that they often used phrases like "with tragic consequences" instead of "He murdered Mary." They were sometimes written like teasers instead of with concrete details about outcomes, and that's part of what I'm trying to address. I was trying to be bold in including the necessary information in the briefest way possible. You pointed out that this isn't how it's been done in the past; Wikipedia does not enshrine existing practices, and I would have hoped you had a substantive reason for deleting the headings; noting that there are other ways to do it is not a reason for not doing it this way. But I don't want to get into a fight, so I'll just abide by your preference since the summaries are still well within the required length. --DavidK93 (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that @LLArrow re-added the Plot tag after I deleted it upon shortening the summary from 247 words to 181 words, bringing it in line with the style guide recommendation for 100-200 words. I'd like to remove the tag without making further edits, but I also want to hear out the other editor's position. LLArrow, what is your reason for tagging the section? --DavidK93 (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It's still bloated and over detailed. Could be much more concise. LLArrow (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the tag. It complies with the guidelines and should not be tagged as such. If you have a personal grievance with it, LLArrow, then trim it as you desire, but do not tag it for what is a personal issue, and not a guideline issue. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Mary Lydgate

I removed a wikilink that led from the character name "Mary Lydgate" to the article "Mary Reilly," because I believe it amounts to an unsourced claim that Mary Lydgate is adapted from Mary Reilly. For the same reason, I identified Mary Lydgate as an original character. @Xtian95 restored the link and listed her with pre-existing fictional characters. If Xtian95 or anyone else can provide a reliable source for the claim, then I support including it in the article. I searched, and only found references to this theory on fan wikis and blogs. --DavidK93 (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Seeing no further comment, I will revert that change. If anyone locates a reliable source that identifies Mary Lydgate as an adaptation of Mary Reilly, that information should be re-added to the article. --DavidK93 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This unsourced claim was added to the article again at some point, and I have deleted it again. --DavidK93 (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)