Talk:Loki (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

FandomWire

@Trailblazer101: The part of this source that I am using in the article does not originate from MCU Cosmic and is also not coming from "a source close to FandomWire", I just used the source to support the new production logline and the commentary regarding Loki having not gone through the change he went through in the later films. You removed the content based on different content in the source that is not being referenced here. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Writers

Bisha K. Ali, head writer on Ms. Marvel, is also a writer on Loki according to her Twitter bio. Additionally, this post. YgorD3 (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

With the tweet regarding the Super Bowl spot, she doesn't mention Loki, and to get to that, you need to include her bio (which isn't something easily cited as a user can change that on a whim) and that's WP:SYNTH. So I definitely believe it's something and real, but at least right now, we don't have the citations to back it up to include in article. Hopefully a site will pick up on in it and make an article about it for our use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Atlanta Filming has reported Loki has wrapped filming

Good news. Atlanta Filming, a papparazzi site who lives close to Trillith Studios, has confirmed the "Loki" series has wrapped filming: https://www.instagram.com/p/CIga6MJgi7G/.

I'm hoping we can add this info into the show's wiki page in the filming section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.162.120 (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Not a reliable source because the Instagram post is not from a verified Instagram account. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

There's no way to know for sure that a show has finished filming unless someone attached to the show or a reputable website reports as such. How do we know that Marvel aren't planning to film scenes on a soundstage at a later date? 81.96.245.175 (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

All we know for certain is from Victoria Alonso, that in mid-November, there was 5-6 weeks left of filming. So it's definitely finishing up soon, we just can't use this source to support such claim. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Civil War Airport shoot?

In Polygon's article about the many MCU series trailers revealed at Disney Investor's Day, it states in the Loki section regarding the D. B. Cooper airplane hijacking There’s only one airport that looms large in the minds of the MCU, and it’s the one where the Avengers all punched each other in Captain America: Civil War. But look a little closer, and you’ll realize that it’s not just that everyone is a snappy dresser. This is not a modern airport. The aforementioned airport in Civil War is the Leipzig/Halle Airport in Germany, and although no news came out about the series shooting in Germany or when this shoot occurred, I was wondering if and where it should be included in the filming section. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Re-reading it, it sounds like they're just comparing the two airports, so it probably is nothing notable. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think the shot is meant to be the Civil War airport, but maybe evoke it? Though there was a shot that looked a lot like Black Widow from behind.... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Deadline confirms Loki has been renewed for Season 2

Deadline confirmed Disney+ has renewed Loki for a second season: https://deadline.com/2021/01/loki-michael-waldron-kevin-feiges-star-wars-movie-as-part-of-newoverall-deal-with-disney-1234665495/.

Hoping we can add this into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.162.120 (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Filming end?

This might be nothing and a HUGE stretch, but at the WandaVision fan event, the moderator introduced Hiddleston as being in the UK. So if he's there, he's not in Atlanta filming anymore. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitely a stretch, but it does sound like filming is done so surely something is out there that we can use. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

We don't know if filming actually ended in Atlanta, no one explicitly say so nor any updated news from cast or the crew. I don't think we can use that because it is WP:SYNTH. I think we should wait until a reliable source explicitly say so. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Richard E. Grant casting - Primary Source vs Rumors

An IP made an edit to include Richard E. Grant in the main cast per Marvel's official listing but Trailblazer101 reverted it in favor of rumors from anonymous sources in the original Variety article that claim he'll appear in only one episode. The Variety article also makes it clear that his role is being kept under wraps, implying that they don't have all the facts. Also, as we've seen from WandaVision, Marvel Studios is not using "guest" but rather placing all the major players in the main billing block even if they appear in just one episode. With this in mind, what are the justifications for rejecting the primary source here in favor of rumors from anonymous sources? — Starforce¹³ 17:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Variety is not reporting on rumors, which aren't allowed. Discussing Film first reported on the news, and Variety confirmed it with sources close to the production. They are "anonymous",but that is a common case. Marvel's own cast listing for the series does not specify "Main" or "Guest" roles, so listing Grant as among the "Main" cast is WP:OR. Variety's report states Grant is in a single episode, so listing him with the starring cast is making an assumption. That is why it was reverted. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I would think Marvel would have more specific details about the current casting status than some anonymous source who talked to Variety a year ago.— Starforce¹³ 18:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I think, using WandaVision as a basis, even if Grant is only in that single episode, he will probably be getting on end billing. So for that fact, I think we could move him up to "Main" (and actually get rid of subheaders because we don't know any other castings). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm all for removing the headers based on how the credits are done for WandaVision, as it does seem likely that is Marvel Studios' format. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Show inspirations

Keep an eye out for the Entertainment Weekly article the director did, as she listed some inspirations for the series. I really want a reliable source to use to note that somehow Teletubbies inspired it (in addition to Blade Runner and Mad Men). Rusted AutoParts 19:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this info is part of their "Summer 2021" coverage? I haven't seen the article or content in question drop online yet. Maybe tomorrow (Monday 5/17) morning. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I keyword searched but it didn't appear in the article there. It's apparently upcoming, so it could be tomorrow like you said or closer to when they begin their (virtual) promo circuit. Rusted AutoParts 21:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

ScreenRant reported on it now, and it could only be in a print version? A Tumblr user uploaded the EW issue and it's definitely in there. Rusted AutoParts 21:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Based on the image on Tumblr, it definitely seems like it was part of EW's preview, but Agard/the site only included a few bits of info in that slide show from Friday. If EW doesn't publish that full article in the print version, we can use {{Cite magazine}} and add the info as a print/offline source, because I see other bits in that full article that are also useful to include. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Second Season Clarification

I attempted to make an edit to the page clarifying that a second season had been reported and was not officially confirmed yet. However, another user reverted this because the sources reporting the second season are reliable. I understand that the sources reporting this second season are generally reliable. However, I feel that it is important that the article be worded in a way that helps to clarify that a second season has not been officially confirmed yet by Disney or Marvel Studios, as the way it is written currently is extremely misleading. LexiLang10 (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@LexiLang10: It is not extremely misleading. A second season is known to be in development, as that is what reliable sources such as Deadline Hollywood have stated. We have to stick to the source on Wikipedia, and we can't say "reportedly" as if it is speculation. Reliable sources should form the basis of information on Wikipedia, so we do not need official confirmation from Marvel or Disney. IronManCap (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, you are editing logged out, so you should clarify your connection to the IP address on your user page or talkpage to avoid concerns of sockpuppetry. IronManCap (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@IronManCap:The issue I have with this is that a reliable source is not the same thing as official confirmation, and in regards to something as important a second season of the show being confirmed, we should stick to what is officially confirmed or not, in my opinion. After all, even the most reliable sources are wrong sometimes. Deadline has been wrong on a number of occasions, and if this is indeed one of the times they are wrong, then Wikipedia will have been partially responsible for spreading that misinformation.

(Additionally, the reason I wasn’t logged in earlier was because I only just made this account now. I’ll make sure to be logged in from now on.) LexiLang10 (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not up to Wikipedia to decide whether reliable sources may be wrong or not, as that constitutes personal analysis, known as original research. See WP:Verifiability, not truth. We just state what a reliable source has stated, and if another reliable source states something else, we take that into consideration. So far, all reliable sources agree there will be a second season, so we state that. IronManCap (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

A project can be in development before it has been officially announced. The wording, if it were, would state "A second season has been announced." As it is simply "A second season is in development.", we are only implying that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Favre, you say that we need to clarify that a second season has not been officially announced yet, but we never say that it has been so there is no need to clarify. We only say that it is in development, which is what reliable sources have stated. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Eric Martin in the writing section

Hey Adamstom.97, my thought process on having the sentence include both Martin and Ali was to have it be a list of the writers on the series (eventually adding more as would learned them), similar to what's done at WandaVision. And as a way to combine info, it happened to just include about Ali going to Ms. Marvel. I was going to revert, but then I realized your adjustment to where it is now was going more on the Ms. Marvel part of the info with the other "tie-in" content. Is there a way we can maybe merge our two thoughts together, even if that means we double on the Ali info? The only problem is I don't really know the best spot currently to simply state who the series writers are. When I first put them in, I added it after the Feige/Broussard TVA info, but that didn't feel quite right. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the issue at the moment is the "list" only includes Martin, who we already have noted above, and Ali who we have basically a whole different sentence about. I feel like we kind of need at least one writer that we aren't already discussing elsewhere before having a list is useful. As for placement, I put it with the MCU info because I had changed it to only talk about Ali and Ms. Marvel. I feel like an actual list of writers should go nearer the start of the section. I'm not against having Ali in a list of writers and mentioning Ms. Marvel separately as an option either. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah if we split the info how would we feel about that? So state "Eric Martin and Bisha K. Ali served as writers on the series" wherever that makes sense in the section, then where the info is now, state "As well, Ali became the head writer of the Marvel Studios series Ms. Marvel (2021)." Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy with that plan. Somewhere in the first paragraph in the section is probably the best spot for the list for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Cast, episode articles, and reviews

With the series premiering soon, wanted to post again for this series things regarding the cast, episode articles, and reviews

Cast

As with WandaVision and The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, "starring"/"main" will be actors credited in the main on-end billing (ordered per WP:TVCAST), with guests following in prose. And as with the six-episode Falcon and Winter Soldier, I think a recurring character should be defined as 3 or more appearances.

Episode articles

Let's try to start articles in the draft space for them, to build up production elements before shifting to the mainspace. Unfortunately, we don't seem to really have any episode 1-specific info yet to start that, so that might be a on-release day thing for that and other episodes going forward.

Reviews

It looks like critics are getting the first 2 episodes for reviews. As such, material might be appropriate to include here on the main article, and probably some bits at the first and second episode articles each, in addition to the reviews that will come out day of (AV Club, IGN, EW, etc).

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Favre, I agree with everything here. I have put together some of what I think should be at the first episode draft at my sandbox, feel free to expand further. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to add a little to what you started, but perhaps we should move what you've done to Draft:Episode 1 (Loki). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I forgot about that, might as well copy the stuff from my sandbox into that draft. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Works for me, I'm done with my additions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Se7en

Waldron identified Se7en as another inspiration. Rusted AutoParts 20:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Rusted AutoParts. I'm reading the article now and can add in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Other recaps of the press conference, like this one, have some more details that may be good to add. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Silence of the Lambs as well. This is gonna be a wild show. Rusted AutoParts 01:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi protection edit request on June 8, 2021

Since Loki will be coming out soon, I think there will be an influx of new edits from unregistered Wikipedians. I think experienced and expert Wikipedians can be involved in the expansion of the article (ie Episodes, Reception, etc). In addition to this, WandaVision and FATWS also have edit protection. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dcdiehardfan: This could possibly work. Since I'm not an Admin, I can't fully protect it. ChannelSpider (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:PREEMPTIVE, we don't generally use protection as a preemptive measure. —El Millo (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: Yeah, I see what you're saying, that makes sense. I was just wondering, why does WandaVision and FATWS have semi edit protection? 😅 Dcdiehardfan (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@ChannelSpider: Acknowledged, thanks! 👍🏽

@Dcdiehardfan: Perstient editing after the series finale, also your welcome. Also sign your posts by four tildes (~) – ChannelSpider (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@ChannelSpider: Ahh okay, that makes sense now, thanks! Well, I can work on the Reception section, I also have D+, so I can maybe perhaps proofread and fix up the plots if needed. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dcdiehardfan: Good luck! Tomorrow's going to be glorious. – ChannelSpider (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@ChannelSpider: Yup, it sure will be haha! Hope you enjoy! 😁 - Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Rearrange Marketing section?

Hello everyone. I was just wondering if I could rearrange the Marketing section in chronological order (ie order of release) so that way all promo materials will be shown in release order. In addition to this, I was also thinking of adding a sentence about the 'First look' video released on the Disney Investor Day. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It is in chronological order and the Investor Day release is mentioned. Please look again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I see, sorry about that lol, I got the months confused. However, I see that the Marvel Must Have program paragraph (dated January 2021) is the last paragraph, I was just wondering if I could put that in it's proper chronological order? -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Marketing is all together, chronologically, followed by the merchandise information. It doesn't make sense to have the announcement so far away from the other info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

KK, I'll work on the Reception and other sections then. 👍🏽 -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Audience Viewership Possible Section Draft

Samba TV, a view-tracking app, counting only smart TVs and not devices, reported that 890k US households watched the first episode of Loki, Glorious Purpose, in addition to saying that it is "the largest US premiere-day audience for any of Marvel’s Disney+ shows."

Reference: https://deadline.com/2021/06/loki-first-day-viewership-scores-record-for-disney-marvel-series-per-samba-tv-1234773100/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcdiehardfan (talk • contribs)

Already added. —El Millo (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

"Featuring" vs "Based on" in the opening sentence

In the lede, it currently says that the series features the Marvel Comics character - which is incorrect. It features the MCU Loki, who is in turn based on the Comics Loki. When we first started using "featuring" for projects credited as "based on Marvel comics", it was directly pointing to the MCU character but that seems to have changed at some point (or I missed it?), leading to wrong information. Featuring a character means that it includes or is about that character. And these series/films are definitely not about the comics characters. While we can debate whether to use "based on" due to the credits differences, "featuring" is definitely not the correct alternative because it's giving people incorrect information. So, we nee to rethink this. I'm open to suggestions. Thoughts? — Starforce¹³ 19:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – just to clarify that whatever consensus is reached in this discussion will also apply to Ant-Man and the Wasp, Captain Marvel, WandaVision, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, The Marvels, and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania. —El Millo (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• @Starforce13: Hmm, I do see the predicament you've brought up. I think as much as possible, we should retain the listing of noting the Marvel Comics characters in the first sentence. Would "centered on" or "inspired by" work? So Loki is an American television series created by Michael Waldron for the streaming service Disney+, centered on the Marvel Comics character of the same name or Loki is an American television series created by Michael Waldron for the streaming service Disney+, inspired by the Marvel Comics character of the same name. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Centered on" would not solve the issue, but I don't think saying either is wrong here. That this is a specific iteration of the character (the MCU-specific one) doesn't mean that it isn't still that character. The fact that we have an individual article on the film iteration doesn't change the fact that it's just an adaptation of the comic book character. Remember that we used to link directly to the comics character before we had these MCU-specific articles. I'd like to clarify that we never linked to the MCU version when we started using "featuring", we kept the link to the comics version. —El Millo (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Favre1fan93, I agree we need to include the comics character in the first sentence for sure. My only concern is using "featuring" which is misleading in 2 ways: (1) it implies that it's the comics character featured/depicted/included in the show/film, rather than the MCU one; (2) "featuring" can apply to any other character featured in the film/show, not just the central character. If we're ok with treating the MCU character as their comics counterpart, per Facu-el Millo's point, then might I suggest we change to "Centered on"? It will solve issue #2 above. And "inspired by" tends to be far off from the original - more like the Big Hero 6 (film). That said, I don't know if there's a perfect wording that doesn't cause issues. — Starforce¹³ 23:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
      • @Starforce13 and Facu-el Millo: What about based on the Marvel Comics featuring the character of the same name? That first part is our sourced "based on" credit, and then we are further specifying its the comics with Loki of the comics. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
        • I like this, 100%. It addresses all of my concerns, and without complex phrasing. Thanks! — Starforce¹³ 01:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
        • That one's very good. —El Millo (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
          • Thank you both for helping with this! — Starforce¹³ 02:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• I just noticed that an edit to Captain Marvel (film) was made based on this discussion. If a talk page discussion is intended to reach a consensus about more than this article, then there really should be discussion beyond just this article's talk page. I reverted the phrasing inserting into the Captain Marvel film's lead because it seems more wordy and not as easy to read, and instead changed it to "based on the Marvel Comics character Carol Danvers / Captain Marvel" to try to address the concerns here about the word "featuring". However, if there is more discussion about the Captain Marvel article, that should probably be held on that article's talk page (or a more centralized talk page). If there is a discussion outside the Captain Marvel talk page, a ping would be appreciated. Thanks! – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • A notice has been placed at Talk:Captain Marvel (film) for any other interested users. @Wallyfromdilbert: the "based on" wording isn't appropriate in the articles discussed here because the credits don't say they're based on the characters, instead saying simply Based on Marvel Comics. Now, Starforce has pointed out that "featuring" wouldn't be correct either, since it's the film versions and not the comic version that are featured in the films (point a disagree with). Favre1fan93 came up with the proposed and implemented wording that was accepted by both of us. There's already an established consensus that simply "based on [character]" cannot be used in these instances. Do you agree with Starforce that "featuring" also is incorrect and therefore a different wording should be used, or do you agree with me that "featuring" is correct? If you agree with Starforce and still consider the proposed wording to be unsatisfactory, do you have any other wording in mind? —El Millo (talk) 03:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I can see why Starforce13 raised the concern about the new wording here, and I think Favre1fan93's solution is pretty good and not too wordy. The changes have my support. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the notices, Facu-el Millo. I think having two short clauses together like that is excessively wordy for a lead sentence, and I would prefer simply "based on" or "featuring", with additional context provided in the development section or elsewhere in the lead if needed. Obviously if they are based on "Marvel Comics", then they are based on the characters from those comics. I don't think we need to follow the convoluted logic behind film crediting schemes when it would negatively affect the readability of our prose. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
        • I think you are exaggerating a little there, it isn't really "convoluted". We moved away from the "based on" wording because it was unsourced for those articles, and any attempt to get around that would have been WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
          • To see each of them:
            • Captain Marvel is a 2019 American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics character Carol Danvers / Captain Marvel.
            • Captain Marvel is a 2019 American superhero film featuring the Marvel Comics character Carol Danvers / Captain Marvel.
            • Captain Marvel is a 2019 American superhero film based on Marvel Comics featuring the character Carol Danvers / Captain Marvel.

It's barely any longer and not really that difficult to read or understand. —El Millo (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

It is also the only one that is correct/verifiable. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I think there are some exaggerated claims here about what is original research. Saying that the Captain Marvel film is "based on Marvel Comics" but has nothing to do with the character in those comics is a little absurd. There are also sources that use that exact language "based on the Marvel Comics character" [1]. I don't see the need for the more tortured language. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

We're not saying it has nothing to do with those characters. We are literally mentioning the characters involved, but sticking to credits without WP:SYN. When it comes to credits, the actual onscreen credits usually outweigh what 3rd party articles may assume. — Starforce¹³ 06:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Further notices have been placed at the talk pages of all articles involved. —El Millo (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Additionally pinging @Trailblazer101, IronManCap, ChannelSpider, and TriiipleThreat:, since they also participated at the original discussion from about one month ago that lead to the change from "based on" to "featuring" in these cases at Talk:The Marvels (film)#Based on. —El Millo (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Wallyfromdilbert, please see the original full, lengthy discussion regarding the "based on" credit here: Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)#Based on. It was made clear from that discussion that the solution applies to all the films/series where we just get "based on Marvel Comics". This is just a subset of that discussion to refine that wording for accuracy. I should have probably used that discussion but it didn't seem controversial because naturally a decision within an MCU article talk usually affects all the related articles since we like to ensure consistency. — Starforce¹³ 04:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • That looks like another discussion on a single article's talk page that is now being applied to multiple articles where editors would never have been aware of the discussion. I don't think there is some need to require one standard lead sentence for all related films, and I think there could be multiple ways to write the lead; for example, not all MCU films necessarily need to mention what they are "based on" in the first sentence, depending on the context. If there is a need for a consensus beyond a local consensus on an article because of editing disputes, then I think it would make more sense to have those discussions on something like a project talk page where they can have a larger set of editors aware of the discussion. The lead does not need to be restricted to repeating language from the film crediting scheme, in my opinion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    • They don't need to have the same format, but they should be reasonably consistent where logical because they are part of one topic. Additionally, these changes are being made based on what is correct rather than what is a desirable format and if something is wrong then it should definitely be fixed in multiple places, even if it hasn't necessarily been discussed at every article that is affected -- if someone takes issue with the change once it has been made then the discussion can continue afterwards. There are definitely options for making sure discussions happen at the correct place and everyone who should be alerted about them is, such as using the new MCU task force talk page and leaving notices at all the effected film articles, but in this case we aren't really talking about a major change so I don't think it was wrong to assume that this would not be a controversial update. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Most of the regular MCU editors participated in at least one of these discussions, and the consensus was applied and kept without any reverts for more than a month. Using "featuring" instead of "based on" for these is the WP:STATUSQUO now, based on a discussion with many participants. At the time, there was no task force, so it was decided to use The Avengers talk page as a somewhat more central place to discuss a matter on MCU films; I talked about it briefly at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films (now archived), thinking it might be a more central place for the discussion, but as it had already started at Talk:The Avengers, we just continued there, with a link to that talk page for anyone interested to go there as well. On consistency, a clear reason should be provided for why it would be better not to be consistent amongst very similar articles under the same topic. —El Millo (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree with Facu-el Millo and Adamstom.97's reasoning here. The previous discussion was pretty broad amongst a wide range of editors who edit various MCU articles. I also support Favre1fan93's proposed change for consistency with the infobox, whilst also still being accurate, and this can easily be applied to other articles where the credits simply state Based on Marvel Comics. Wallyfromdilbert, I think you are referring to WP:BLUE a bit here in that we should just go off what we might expect to avoid being extraneous. However, as outlined on Talk:The Avengers (2012 film), that leads to some ambiguity, for instance with Captain America: Civil War perhaps being based on both Captain America and the Civil War comics, or whether we should include Winter Soldier and Ultron for The Winter Soldier and Age of Ultron respectively. To avoid these considerations, which would have required our own analysis of the films (WP:OR), we decided to just stick to the credits, crediting certain characters where the credited creators matched up. Where there were no credited creators, we stuck to Marvel Comics per the credits. Using credits this way avoids our own analysis with which characters or comics to credit in the parameter. IronManCap (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
      • I have no issue if there is a consensus about how to deal with an issue, but we really should stop the "original research" claims. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Second episode

I haven't been able to locate the draft for the second episode (if any currently exists) but I came across the following references while doing some research. Feel free to use them to your heart's content. As follows:

• https://www.techradar.com/au/news/loki-episode-2-release-time-date-disney-plus/
• https://www.comingsoon.net/tv/trailers/1178149-loki-episode-2-stills/
• https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/loki-episode-2-release-date-time-theories/
• https://www.gamesradar.com/loki-episode-2-runtime-disney-plus/
• https://www.inverse.com/entertainment/loki-episode-2-release-time/

Unsure about the reliability of them all but I hope someone finds them useful. — Sean Stephens (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The draft is at Draft:Episode 2 (Loki) until we know the title. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2021

Change the third episode's title to "This Isn't About You". 90.247.223.186 (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. No title has been confirmed for the episode. IronManCap (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Gender Fluid Loki

I am a little skeptical of this. The "confirmation" in this promo doesn't appear to come from actual footage from the series, it is more like an Easter egg from the marketing team. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the series itself doesn't acknowledge it. I don't think we should remove it, but I think we my need to change our wording to clarify where this is coming from. We should also probably hold off on the category for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

After I added the info, I felt we might need to adjust now or at some point that it was a teaser that confirmed such. I would be okay keeping the wording as it until the series concludes and adjusting then, but if you feel it should be different now, I'm for it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we should change it to "marketing for the series revealed..." until the series itself confirms it. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we should keep it. Many news outlets and media are reporting this as a gender fluid confirmation for Loki. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Tom Hiddleston and Michael Waldron confirm Loki is gender fluid. - Richiekim (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

it is confirmed as well when you see the other loki in the 2nd episode Sarah afton (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi protection edit request on June 9, 2021

I believe this article should be semi protected. There is already an influx of new editors editing the page. We should probably protect it to make semi-experienced Wikipedians edit it, not newcomers. AngryCyclist (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Make a request then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Request made. AngryCyclist (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Wait what? The whole point of protecting a page is to prevent active disruption, not to stop new editors from editing the page. How is your reasoning not going against the spirit of Wikipedia? This is supposed to be a free and open platform. Not a members only thing without good reason. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand, but many editors are adding information with many grammatical errors and not much new info has been added by new editors. Many are simply rediting the plot of Episode 1 and changing it entirely. AngryCyclist (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

still that doesn't mean you should take the ability of editing it away from the newcomers Sarah afton (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

bimber od epizodzie translation- about the number of episodes

the number is unknown until the whole thing comes out so right now wouldn't it be sensible to have the number of episodes unknown with the number that is already out Sarah afton (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

It says it right there in the hidden note in the parameter: Increment when new episode airs. See template documentation for more info. The {{Infobox television}} template documentation explains that it should only be incremented after each episode airs. —El Millo (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

that's why I'm saying unknown except for the 2 that are out now Sarah afton (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

That's now how it's done. We simply state the number of released episodes. —El Millo (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

it's still stating how many are released isnt Sarah afton (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Just the episode number. This is part of the template documentation, which is based on common practices and community consensus. —El Millo (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Is "female Loki" actually Sylvie Lushton?

Multiple reports stated that the character is actually merely female Loki, but Sylvie Lushton. She lives in Oklahoma, and her power was given by Loki, which matches the timeline at the end of the episode. Though there are no clear indicators as to whether this is true, it is very likely to be in my opinion. But should it be written down in the episode breakdown? Modernmore (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

https://www.gamesradar.com/loki-episode-2-credits-sylvie-enchantress-marvel-lady-loki/

https://www.menshealth.com/entertainment/a36740823/loki-sylvie-lushton-enchantress/

https://www.gamerevolution.com/news/684999-loki-sylvie-lushton-enchantress-marvel-villain-episode-2

https://spoiler.bolavip.com/series/Disney--Loki-EXPLICACION-del-episodio-2--Es-Lady-Loki-o-Sylvie-Lushton-20210616-0006.html

It's a possible that this is Sylvie/Enchantress, but at the end of the day, it's all speculation. So, for now, we're just going to call her the variant like the show has led us to believe --- until they reveal who she really is. We'll probably find out next week considering the speed at which the show is moving. — Starforce¹³ 21:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with previous editor. We have to wait until names are dropped in the show; we can't assume any facts based on previous comic book incarnations.--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Modernmore: @Starforce13: @GimmeChoco44: Okay, turns out the credits of Episode 2 confirm it, "Sylvie Laufeydottir". Here you go: [2][3] The credits are the show, more so even. This is a composite character. 94.237.76.31 (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I know about the credits thing, but we go by the English credits since the names aren't always the same. We don't choose names from various languages based on what we prefer or think is the correct name. And I'm not denying that it could be Sylvie. (I mean, they even cast someone for the role of Young Sylvie.) But for Wikipedia, we need something more solid, and I'm sure we'll know who she is next week. So, let's just wait. — Starforce¹³ 22:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

This article from GQ in Spanish talks about all these. GQ qualifies as a reliable source, could we use this? —El Millo (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I've also found this Inverse article that talks about it. —El Millo (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

We also have other reliable English sources like Vanity Fair. I think we could mention it in the form of commentary/additional details for the character - instead of directly changing the name. Otherwise, it's going to be confusing if we ignore what they're using on the show and go based on a clue/speculation from what looks clearly like an accidental reveal/production error. There's also a version that credits her as "Randy", when we all know Randy was just a local she possessed. So, if a reliable source were to use that credit, it would still be misleading. That's why I think we should stick to the English credits and what they call her on the show... but potentially add a commentary about Sylvie/Enchantress if needed. — Starforce¹³ 23:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd say go by what we know per the English credits and what happens on screen as of episode 2, and save any of these sources that look good for any potential commentary at a later date if any of this shakes out. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I would add that even if she uses this name, that doesn't mean she is not a Loki Variant or that she is Enchantress, so we really know nothing other than she doesn't want to be called Loki and she might be going by Sylvie instead. All the sources are just speculating based on the same information we have. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh definitely. So far, this is just about the name. —El Millo (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm kinda torn between Sylvie and Lady Loki, but we need actual sources and go per English credits (as said by @Favre1fan93:) and wait a while. – ChannelSpider (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we should go with the English credits and wait till she is actually confirmed to be Sylvie, Lady Loki, or something else. As of right now, it is just speculation. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems the consensus has been reached to only go per English credits, so Di Martino would be credited as "The Variant". – ChannelSpider (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, we spent almost the whole of WandaVision thinking that Vision (or at least his corpse) had somehow been brought back by Wanda, only to find out in the end that her Vision was entirely a construct of her magic, and the real Vision remained under SWORD control, waiting to be reanimated. BD2412 T 03:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Also remember, we considered Evan Peters' character to be "Pietro Maximoff" until he was revealed to actually be Ralph Bohner, so we shouldn't come to our own conclusions regarding the "true" identity of Lady Loki/Sylvie/Enchantress. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The MCU creatives get some mileage out of these kinds of misdirection. BD2412 T 04:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep, no rush.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Y'all might wanna monitor Cailey Fleming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- this happened. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: unrelated but thanks to "Lamentis", her name is just Sylvie. Not Sylvie Laufeydottir. – ChannelSpider (talk) 12:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

renslayer is a girl in the loki series but people say other wise

people keep on changing my edit on renslayer changing it to "his" when it should be "hers" why is that Sarah afton (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

never mind someone answered for me Sarah afton (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2021

"Change "female loki" to enchantress, she is the marvel character introduced in episode 2 played by Sophia Di Martino 82.31.208.214 (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that identifies her as the Enchantress? We're going with what's seen on the show... and if it turns out to be Enchantress, we'll update then.— Starforce¹³ 12:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

there is no credible source so therefore is a rumor Sarah afton (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

How about [4]? IKhitron (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

the enchantress only shows up in suicide squad and there has been no more sightings of her since then Sarah afton (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

but the enchantress is also a marvel character who is thor's main enemy in a different world so maybe it shouldn't say enchantress but her name Amora Sarah afton (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Laufeydottir

Sylvie's full name "Sylvie Laufeydottir" has been officially confirmed at Marvel.com. Since we still refer to Loki just as "Loki", where should we use Sylvie's full name? —El Millo (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like if we want to include it then we may need to have a general discussion about the other Asgardians whose surnames we currently do not use. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The only spot I think would be appropriate on this article would be in the sentence where we state she is not Lady Loki or Enchantress. So we could do: While Sylvie Laufeydottir was inspired by Sylvie Lushton / Enchantress and Lady Loki from the comics, she is a different person with a different backstory from those characters as well as Hiddleston's Loki. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Or the sentence before that about Sylvie being an alias. Actually, that might be a better spot than what I suggested above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding other articles. Should we include these "surnames" in cast tables? I'm referring both to the Recurring cast and characters tables and articles such as List of MCU film actors. —El Millo (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to lean towards no, for the same way we don't say "Thor Odinson" or "Loki Laufeyson", but simply "Thor" and "Loki". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

If we think it is needed then I think putting it in the alias is a good idea. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I do to but again referring to what favre1fan93 said we dont say hella godess of death but just simply say hella so it would be better to have it as sylvie then as sylvie alias Sarah afton (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Episode ratings graph seems deceptive

Why is the "Critical Reception" graph only showing percentile rating of 100 down to only 80? This seems deceptive, as the line graph seems to illustrate what looks like a "drastic dip" in ratings... yet that "dip" is showing the actuality of going from 97 to 84. Sure, it's up to the individual to read it and the stats properly, but given the graph doesn't go all the way down to 0, or perhaps 50 if anything, it's a false representation that down to 80 is "bad". If the graph is intended to be "expanded" later, pending reviews/ratings of future episodes, then why not present that now? Am I missing something? If it's based on on Rotten Tomatoes' rating system, why not set the lowest end of the "Positive" ratings to 60 which is what they consider the minimum for a "Fresh" rating? Is it a template issue (based on the fact it's using "Television Rotten Tomatoes scores" template code in the article)? -- Tytrox (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a general issue with that template, not an issue for this article. You can take your concerns to Template talk:Television Rotten Tomatoes scores. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Tytrox (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2021

um i need to edit the reception and include episode 5 plot summary Dindugal dragon (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2021

Change "every attempted" to "ever attempted" in section 7.3. 68.194.176.32 (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done as requested. —El Millo (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

He who Remains (Jonathan majors) is also Kang

As per an article in the official marvel website https://www.marvel.com/articles/tv-shows/loki-he-who-remains-citadel-end-of-time-kang-statue Sleptlapps (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Majors hasn't portrayed "Kang" yet. The statue is the only appearance similarity to show the connection. It seems obvious that he eventually will, but that'll be then. -- Tytrox (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2021

In the 6th episode of the Loki series, In the credits there is a scene in which it clarifies that there will be a season 2 of Loki Lakshayy Jain (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

That's just flavor. It has no bearing on the plot. It's like the "Thanos will return" bit at the end of Infinity War. -- Tytrox (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Cast section prose

Would anyone object to removing the Minutemen actors and the unnamed TVA clerk and scanner? Yes, the Minutemen noted reached recurring status as defined, and the clerk and scanner guest, but they are all unnammed, and extremely minor. I think the prose should just be Neil Ellice as Hunter D-90 as he is recurring, and then our 2 uncredited cameos, Sif and Throg. The prose should read in my view: Neil Ellice recurs as Hunter D-90, while Jaimie Alexander makes an uncredited cameo appearance as Sif, and Chris Hemsworth makes an uncredited voice cameo appearance as Throg. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, they're too minor and including them doesn't really help the readers much. — Starforce¹³ 16:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Also Agree here. IronManCap (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

in episode 6 while Ravonna and mobius fight hunter B-15 shows hunter C-92 the 2013 version of renslayer but as it does that Ravonna says my school and I think she isn't a vice principal'

I think it should be principal instead of vice principal because she says her school and I also thin that instead of saying renslayer directly it should be Ravonna because she doesn't become judge renslayer until the future Sarah afton (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Saying "my school" doesn't mean you own it. Even students use "my school" - I know I've done it dozens of times, doesn't mean I own it. Marvel recap called her the Vice Principal, so that's what we'll stick to. Please stop edit warring over this. It's not worth it.— Starforce¹³ 23:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

hey how are you I okay I understand what you're trying to say but is it okay to it's not that you can't really see or portray what she is so why why why is it hard for you to understand that she may or may not be a principal Sarah afton (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

This is information at the official Marvel.com website. This has already been explained to you. —El Millo (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

ok Sarah afton (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2021

it takes place after The Avengers, not Avengers: Endgame 103.130.74.5 (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done -- Tytrox (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Reverted. The series takes place after the events of Endgame, without which it couldn't have happened in the first place. The premiere even starts with the scene from Endgame, the fact that it is 2012 has nothing to do with it. —El Millo (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It was depicted in the movie, but doesn't follow the movie's timeline. The whole premise of the show is this Loki is a "variant" that has split from the main time line at the point that it occurred, ie. at the end of 2012 Avengers. The main MCU timeline Loki was depicted as being killed off. This Loki has not replaced that Loki, that's why he's a "Variant". -- Tytrox (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE Hold on... I've re-reverted in grace that it could be a misunderstanding. Maybe it needs a rewrite. -- Tytrox (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done -- Reverted. Story wise Loki branches from 2012 Avengers, but it occurs during Endgame with the time travel plot element. Maybe it could be rewritten. -- Tytrox (talk) 07:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I think how it is is okay for the lead. If readers want to know more about it they can read the article, as this is explained in the Cast and characters section, the Development section, and even more extensively in the Writing section. —El Millo (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Facu-el Millo here. Tytrox, it takes place after the events of Endgame, not necessarily after it in the timeline. The events of Endgame include Loki stealing the Tesseract, which leads to the events of this show. IronManCap (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit request in episodes section

Replace the word he who remains' likeness with kang the conquerer in episodes section. RajdeepRanger (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done It is not confirmed that that is a statue of Kang in itself, although the link is there as Kang is a likeness of He Who Remains. IronManCap (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done after being cited to the Marvel.com website, which confirms it is a statue of Kang. IronManCap (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

edit request for seasons

I would like to state that they are making the second season now Sarah afton (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Already done. IronManCap (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Production Designer under Production

Production Designer should be credited under the Production section. Production Designer Kasra Farahani

Marco101alvarez (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done please see appropriate Farahani mentioned in the "Design" section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Still not done, but per the request in the section above, Farahani will be mentioned with that material addition. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Crime thriller/procedural genres

I'm wondering, do the crime thriller/procedural genres still apply for this series? The only instance I could find for "crime thriller" is from the title of a /Film article from December and the official synopsis doesn't mention "crime thriller" either. Though one can argue the procedural drama part can be applied to the TVA looking for Sylvie, that disappears for the later part of S1 ("Lamentis" for example). Considering that the 2 genres do not appear on the official Disney+ page of the series, I think they should be removed from the article. - Richiekim (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

We can keep them because they still apply to the first 2 episodes. And also, in the latest interview with Rotten Tomatoes, Kevin Feige casually called it a procedural too. — Starforce¹³ 16:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

They are still elements in the series, but whether we should list them as actual genres is debatable. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Design Subheading Edit - Production Designer Credit

After the sentence, under the Design subsection, "From the comics, Herron was drawn to "these amazing images of desks going on into infinity" to incorporate into the TVA design.[27]" credit should be given to the production designer as well. This should be added in a new paragraph following this sentence. Suggested wording with citations:

The production designer Kasra Farahani and Herron sought to reconcile the whimsical, warm American midcentury modernism of Mad Men with the dystopic, analog future tech of Blade Runner. Kasra arrived at a more European style of midcentury modernism for the shapes of the architecture to create a cognitive dissonance where you can't tell if the TVA is a warm and friendly place or if it's a place that wants to destroy you. Other than the Marriott location they used for the archives, everything was built on a stage or a backlot, so Kasra was able to control every detail. For example, the ceiling of the TVA were built low to give a sense of paranoia and not really knowing where you were. This gave the tactical and tangible quality to each set that allowed them to feel like it was part of the same world. "

Marco101alvarez (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Some of this material has since been added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Season 1 draft

When will Draft:Loki (season 1) be moved to mainspace? Is it only when Draft:Loki (season 2) is eligible to be moved as well? Do we normally have season article for series with only one season released so far? —El Millo (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Usually, we keep the episode list on the main series article until there's like 50 episodes per MOS:TVSPLIT at which point we do a "List of episodes article"... and then if you have like 5 seasons, then split by seasons. BUT.... unlike most shows, the MCU articles have a lot of content on their own even without the episode listing. So, they would naturally qualify for split due to size. I think we can wait until season 2 premiere and then do the split. And I think when the time comes, we can skip the "List of episodes" articles and go straight to season splits since each season is basically going to be treated as its own movie... and might be in different phases. — Starforce¹³ 02:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The thought process was once filming of season 2 begins, as we'll be building out production info on that article as we were doing here, so it would make sense to make such a move then. And as Starforce13, we won't need a List of episodes as we can keep the transcluded tables here. Thought a List of characters article might be something to briefly consider. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

One thing too with the draft I'm wondering is the cast section. If there are not a lot of overlaps between who returns in season 2, it might be beneficial to move a lot of the prose there now to the season one article and pare down what's here to a simple description. The way the draft is set up now, is mimicking what we had done previously for Marvel TV series (see Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. versus Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 2) as an example) but we might want to switch up the formatting as I said. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems like most main characters will also appear in season 2, but regardless, we'll have to wait until we can move the season drafts to mainspace to do those kinds of changes. For now, we could try them at your sandbox which, if I'm not mistaken, is for how this article would look like once the season drafts are in mainspace. —El Millo (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it makes sense to wait until we can move the season 2 article before making the season 1 one. And I agree Favre that it may make sense to have this cast section at the season article since it is written like a film's cast section and that "film" is the first season only. What we replace it with could just be a single line for each actor or maybe a short summary of the two season's sections. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that its make sense to wait until we can move the season 2 article before making the season 1 Sarah afton (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Miss Minutes spin-off

In this interview, Kate Herron, states the following in response to being jokingly asked about a slasher film revolving around Miss Minutes: "I would love to! That would actually be my dream." Whether the situation was created out of a jokeful preposition or not is irrelevant. We have seen in the past, such as in 2016 with The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, where Kevin Feige was jokingly asked years prior about "When are we gonna get our Falcon-Bucky roadtrip movie?", to which he responded, "[That's a good idea]". This situation could even be compared to the double feature Grindhouse, in which there are two fictitious, joking, trailers for films called Hobo with a Shotgun and Machete, years later, both were made. Now back to Miss Minutes, while the question was clearly a joke, the answer is given with sincerity. And it should deserve a brief section outlining the pitch in the same way Black Widow (2021 film) has a section on a not yet-in-development, potential spin-off film of its own, with a quote from its director. Mitchy Power (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The future Black Widow project is an actual potential future project. This being a joke is not irrelevant per WP:RSCONTEXT, nobody is seriously suggesting this is a serious project there. It's a simple one-line joke. IronManCap (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The case about The Falcon and the Winter Soldier doesn't apply here since we didn't include the exchange between Feige and that interviewer (and if we did, it would be incorrect to do so). The second case is the same, a joke doesn't stop being a joke if years later it becomes true. Only after the fact that it was made, and maybe not even then, is the initial statement relevant. Regarding Black Widow's example, there's nothing that indicates they're joking there. Still, we should wait until other editors weigh in. —El Millo (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, there definitely isn't anything here worth mentioning. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes graph

Is the Rotten Tomatoes graph really appropriate meaningful or necessary? (Hint, it isn't)

What is the graph supposed to say to readers? Some episodes got slightly higher ratings than others? Does that merit a graph? Is it noteworthy? (Hint, it isn't)

Why is the scale from 80-100? That distorts the picture and makes a small decrease look bigger. It makes it look like episode 3 did poorly when it got a reviews that would be the envy of most shows.
Different episodes received different numbers of reviews (97%/34; 94%/5; 83%/35; 87%/31; 92%/24; 91%/22). It doesn't seem like a meaningful comparison.
Does the slope from one episode to the next actually mean something? (Hint, it doesn't. If anything it should be a bar chart not a graph.)

Just because you can graph these numbers doesn't mean you should. I hope editors will take a serious look at it and remove it, or at the very least make it clearer what point the graph is trying to make. I don't believe this graph is even interesting or noteworthy, let alone appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- 109.79.161.25 (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I've already asked this question. It's a bug with the template. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Loki_(TV_series)#Episode_ratings_graph_seems_deceptive -- Tytrox (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The 80-100 range is automatic depending on the numbers available. So, it's not a bug. BUT... I agree, the graph is generally misleading and doesn't serve any relevant purpose to readers. I agree with removing it completely from all the MCU shows. It can be replaced with a table instead.— Starforce¹³ 02:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

There's a natural tendency for editors to see that a template exists and think that means it is a actually good idea to use it. I've been misled before.
Tytrox thanks for highlighting your question about this table but my point is that the graph is far more fundamentally flawed even than that. I should bring my objections to Project TV but I was hoping that someone with a background in statistics and data science would have stepped up already and maybe a good version of the graph is possible but I'm not so sure.
Also WP:PROSE, always more prose. -- 109.79.161.25 (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Nudge

Please delete/remove X the {{Television Rotten Tomatoes scores}} graph from the Critical_response section. Based on the above discussion I do not believe removing this would be controversial. (Feel free to replace it with a table such as {{Television critical response}} or similar, but that is an entirely separate issue.) I'm nudging this forward by repeating it as a formal request. -- 109.79.75.58 (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done There is an ongoing discussion at the template's talk page. Please take your concerns there. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2021

2405:201:600A:B068:9828:48A7:1637:70BE (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

loki is a web series made fom children

 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. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Analysis Section

Does the article really need to have a long section describing what several reviewers speculated might happen in the series, especially when most of the speculations turned out to be wrong? 2600:4040:11F5:F000:95F7:84CE:94BE:2E82 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is legitimate commentary from reliable sources. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of Society of Composers & Lyricists award

I recently added information for the Society of Composers & Lyricists here with a citation from Billboard, a reliable secondary source. This edit was reverted by Facu-el Millo in this edit based on MOS:FILMS#Accolades. I was going to move on, but I noticed that the same information had been included earlier by Hinterland29 in this edit, which was also reverted by Facu-el Millo.

Given the fact that this has been added twice by two separate users, should this award be included? I understand that the organization does not have a Wikipedia article as suggested by MOS:FILMS (which doesn't directly cover this article, but is fairly close); however, there is significant coverage of these awards in reliable secondary sources, which is the general guideline for inclusion. In addition to the Billboard article, the nominations have been covered by Deadline Hollywood, The Hollywood Reporter, and Variety. The MOS guideline notes that "awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability" (emphasis mine), but I think it's clear that this award has notability, even without an article at the moment – I may try to create one later, but that'll take time. Thoughts? RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The guideline says an article must exist. This would need more input and, even if this is a TV series, this seems like a question for WT:FILM. I'll post there for other editors' input. —El Millo (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

If the organization isn't notable for an article, the award isn't notable. If the organization is notable, then the question is, is the award they hand out notable? If it is, then the organization needs an article and the award either an article or a section. This is a clear case of placing the cart before the horse. Gonnym (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

After doing more research on the organization, it seems that it has enough coverage to merit a page; past versions of the page were deleted before the awards were created (which has led to more coverage). I've made a page for it at Society of Composers & Lyricists. If anyone wants to review the page before I make any changes here, that would be great. Thanks! RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative to make the page. While the current SCL has only been around since 1983, the previous incarnations it replaced go back to 1953. The immediate predecessor, the CLGA was a guild like the WGA or SAG, but lost that status after a prolonged battle with the studios in the 70s, so this group seems to be the equivalent of those guilds according to SCL's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinterland29 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Season article drafts

Draft articles for season 1 and 2 can be found at Draft:Loki (season 1) and Draft:Loki (season 2). A mock up of what this article would look like after a split to season articles can be found at User:Favre1fan93/sandbox/4. This is just to get an extremely large head start on all this, as splits should not happen until there is enough content to justify a second season article existing (which might not be until closer to that releases). See MOS:TVSPLIT for more. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I like this format for the season articles and the main series page. Quick questions, once these season articles are in the mainspace, for the series sections in the Phase articles, should we link the "Main article" to the series and the season? Also, should What If get season drafts as Feige confirmed S2 is in development. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The new "main" in my sandbox still is a big work in progress, because we'll have to see what of the writing info is really relevant to the series versus the season or applicable to both. Regarding linking, the table can link to both the main and season articles, and in the sections, I think hatnotes should be point to the season in {{main}} and the series in {{see also}} and links in the prose. What If maybe, I personally just felt we don't have enough info to justify drafts at this time, unlike here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Season 2 filming window

According to Tom Hiddleston, season 2 starts filming in around 6 weeks, so somewhere around mid June. -- Zoo (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Prep for article splits

With filming gearing up in about a month, wanted to see if anyone wanted to give a look over at the current proposed split of a season one article, as well as what this article will become. Both drafts are currently in sync with all material that has been added here. The proposal for the season one article can be found at Draft:Loki (season 1) and the current proposal for what this article would become is at User:Favre1fan93/sandbox/4. Big things are if everyone agrees with the split of content (what went just to season article, what stayed here, and what may have been kept in both places), and then on the season article, looking at instances of "series" when "season" may be more appropriate. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

When it comes to listing the seasons on this article, do we not need at least basic info for Season 1? Or is linking to the season 1 article all that's needed like you have in your sandbox? -- Zoo (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question? The formatting of what this page would become that I've done in my sandbox is correct/conventional splitting formatting. See Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. or Daredevil (TV series) for how that looks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference in episodes section on main pages, is plan for a series overview table and episode table at Loki (TV series), with episode tables with summaries at season articles like those two examples? Indagate (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the lack of an episode table is what's missing from the sandbox. I knew there was something. We should probably do it like the Daredevil article does it. Keep the table like we have now, but no summaries of the episodes on this article -- Zoo (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is the standard approach and it will happen once the move is made, the episode table transclusion just doesn't work in the draft/user space. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with doing the split based on your current proposals once filming on S2 begins Favre. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with adam. It all looks good for once S2 filming starts. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The draft and sandbox look great for when S2 begins filming. – SirDot (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

We also need to prepare for a situation where, instead of being a direct season 2, it will be a subtitled show/season... which seems highly likely considering how they are treating each season as its own movie. If that does happen, there might be an argument to use this entire article for season 1 and then Loki: Subtitle for season 2/sequel. Other than that, the drafts look good (we just need to add the episode list to the series article).— Starforce¹³ 02:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

If that happens, we'll have to see whether the WP:COMMONNAME is Loki: [subtitle] or Loki season 2. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Mobius

To follow up on a conversation started in Talk:Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: A-L last month, is there any reason Mobius’ full name is listed as Mobius M. Mobius other than that being the comics character? There is absolutely no reference to that full name within the show, the credits, or marvel.com. If it wasn’t directly confirmed by the filmmakers, that would make this name a violation of WP:OR. Nickh105 (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nickh105: In the official production brief, page 7: Mobius (Owen Wilson) Mobius M. Mobius is an agent for the Time Variance Authority... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Premise

Just wondering if it makes sense to add a bit more detail to the initial premise to help provide context since we now have S2 premise details. I think it would make sense to mention who Loki is hunting and how that leads to the creation of the multiverse, then explain what the second season is about. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

All for that as long as we source any additions! I'm about to add the premise to the Phase Five article as it is now, so if any of that material needs to make its way over there, let's do it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)