# Talk:WandaVision

In the info about Vision, it was written that Bettany plays an original version. Can you define the term original? I do not think it means created for the show since White Vision also appears in the comics.  JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

We state the original character which refers to the character described in the first sentence of his description. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I do not get it JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
It is referring to the original version of the Vision, who died in Infinity War and has now been rebuilt as White Vision. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The accolades article is getting close to becoming a FL, which should make WandaVision eligible to become a GT. The topic would include this article, the episodes, and the accolades for sure. Should that be all, or should any of these also be included?

Agatha All Along
Marvel Cinematic Universe
List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series
List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors (Marvel Studios) (including this because I know the former films GT included the actors article)
I have the basics set up in my in my sandbox to prep for the nomination, not that I have to be the one to nominate since others were more involved overall with getting the articles to GA. The blurb, or whatever it's called, probably needs touched up since I just copied parts of the lead from this article for the most part, so anyone can feel free to edit that to clean it up. ZooBlazer 23:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Agatha All Along, yes. The MCU articles, no. There might be merit to having the Wanda and Vision character articles in this, but that's hard to say since they are franchise characters and not solely related to this series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I was originally thinking the character articles may be needed, but I noticed GTs for things like the Supernatural seasons don't include their main characters even though they have wiki articles, but I'm not sure if seasons of a show is the same as a whole miniseries in the GT process. ZooBlazer 17:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
My argument though say with your Supernatural example, their character articles apply to that series only. Wanda and Vision's apply to the entire MCU, not just their WandaVision appearances. So I'd lean towards we probably don't need to include them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. I think MCU characters would probably be best as the main articles of a GT/FT. Like Iron Man and Thor, who both have multiple movies, plus Iron Man has an article for his armor and Thor has one for his weapons. Vision may be good to save until after Vision Quest releases (obviously both articles would need to eventually be GAs) then include this article for a smaller GT. ZooBlazer 06:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
The awards are now a FL, so we can probably now go through the GT process. I know @adamstom97 and @Favre1fan93 were heavily involved in getting the articles to GAs, so you guys should have first choice of nominating or not. I'm willing to do it if neither of you want to. ZooBlazer 00:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Nominated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
A reviewer will likely bring up the lack of an image. Since WandaVision images can't be used due to being non-free, File:Elizabeth Olsen & Paul Bettany (48469160767).jpg is probably the best option, at least that I've come across. ZooBlazer 18:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't necessarily know if images are needed. They can be helpful, but if it's an image for an image's sake, maybe not. But yes, that one is good to use if it is needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Wanda does begin to suspect something is amiss. She is unaware that she created the hex until later in the series. The premise section just establishes the idea of the show, it does not go into the whole plot, so that is why it only reflects the first couple of episodes. The full plot of the series is detailed in the episodes section. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
I'd argue that it doesn't serve us to repeat promotional misleading material meant to sell the show - I think it's better to be unambiguous. I don't agree that the "premise" only applies to the first couple of episodes; is there somewhere in policy that explains that's what it means? Tduk (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
That's what the word "Premise" means, we don't need a policy to explain that. See also Premise (narrative). - adamstom97 (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Arguably, then, according to that specific definition, "As their surroundings begin to move through different decades and they encounter various television" should be removed, right? Referring to episodes after the first. Tduk (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
No, that is part of the premise of the show. Nowhere did I say that the premise is restricted to the first episode. Per Wikipedia's definition, the premise is "the initial state of affairs that drives the plot". In this series, that is the fact that they are in Westview and their surroundings begin to move through different decades. There is a difference between the whole point of the show, which is established in the first few episodes, and the big reveal that happens later on which is not part of the premise. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Many definitions of premise disagree with the one on the completely unsourced article that has not always reflected the one you are suggesting. Aside from that, we've also established that what the text describes is rendered inaccurate as the series progresses. You're also arbitrarily defining how much of the show is covered by your definition of "premise". I don't see how having the questionable content there improves the article. I also don't think anything is served by us going back and forth, shall we wait until someone else voices some thoughts? Tduk (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
"what the text describes is rendered inaccurate as the series progresses" -- this is common. You are acting like I personally have made up a new definition of "premise" and am trying to force it on the article, but this wording has been well established in this GA-class article for years, and is based on reliable sources which are provided in-line. You randomly decided that you don't like the premise and tried to change it to an unsourced, inaccurate one. I am open to hear from others, but I disagree that this is a simple case of "he said-they said". - adamstom97 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
I actually didn't change the premise, I removed some of the misleading material from it; so yes, I do think it's looking like a case of "they said-they said" at this point, as you've even inaccurately described the change I made; I'm not sure if in the moment you misread it. I didn't add any material at all, so describing what I did as "tried to change it to an unsourced summary" is as misleading as I argue the premise is itself. Tduk (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
I see also you mentioned its WP:GA status, which I thought was curious, since I'm not aware of anything in the GA requirements which do imply the impossibility of inaccuracies, but now I see you nominated the article yourself. Are you aware of WP:OWN? Tduk (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm exactly following how you believe this premise is somehow inaccurate. For trying to conceal their true natures, Wanda and Vision are shown in the series attempting to fit in with the suburban lives and conceal their powers. For the couple suspects that things are not as they seem, that has been a major component of the mystery unfolding throughout this miniseries' six episodes. These are both discussed in depth throughout the article, and, given this is only six episodes, this premise does summarize the bulk of the miniseries. I will note that you also removed the "EWNov2020CoverStory" ref, thus leaving the end of the premise unsourced. Also, just because Adam has been a substantial contributor does not mean OWN should just be thrown around when in a disagreement. You removed reliably sourced information that has been in place for years, thus, the contested removal needs to be discussed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply; I agree, that's the discussion I'm trying to start. I removed two pieces of text - "trying to conceal their true natures", which I thought was just a bit misleading for the overall plot, but I may have been overzealous and won't contest that. I removed "the couple suspects that things are not as they seem" because I'm not actually sure what that is supposed to be referring to. It reads like generic TV copy, and I'm not sure it is helpful in explaining anything. In my opinion, it should either be removed (and presumably fleshed out below in the article), or elaborated on where it is now. Tduk (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
You are welcome to suggest new wording. It still needs to be a premise, not a summary of the entire plot, and it needs to be supported by reliable sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm open to collaborate on this; my issue is really with the phrase "the couple suspects" - I feel it oversimplifies things. I'd either remove that phrase entirely - the premise still works otherwise without that phrase. Arguably the phrase is about the next stage of the premise. If we do need to keep it, maybe "it becomes apparent to some that things are not as they seem"? I'm not quite happy with that either but I think it's an improvement. Tduk (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Can you clarify what your issue is with that phrase? I don't understand why that part in particular is an issue, and I think changing it to "some" makes it unnecessarily vague. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
I agree it's unnecessarily vague, but it's already pretty vague, which is why I have issue with it. Can you explain what you think it's referring to in more detail? It isn't clear to me what it is supposed to mean; it just sounds like a TV pitch. I feel it doesn't add anything useful to the text. Tduk (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
The premise of the show is that Wanda and Vision think they are living in an "idyllic suburban life in the town of Westview, New Jersey, trying to conceal their true natures", but they start to suspect that "things are not as they seem" as weird things happen such as the changing decades and TV tropes. That is the basic set-up for the show that you would tell someone to give them an idea of what the show is. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
What's the implication, that they believed they were actually in a sitcom at the beginning of the show? Tduk (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
They believe that they actually live in Westview sometime in the 1950s/1960s and don't realise that there is something weird about that straight away. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Perfect, thank you. I don't agree with that; that was not how I interpreted the show. I feel that line of the premise relies on one early poor promotional source, and without that, the line relies on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; I think you would need to find a few good sources that will back up what you just said. Tduk (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
The premise is accurate to the show and supported by sources in the article. You are welcome to suggest alternate wording, as long as that is still supported by sources, which others could consider. I'm not sure what else you want me to say. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
I did suggest alternate wording and you undid it, but we can try to fit all the concepts you think are important to the premise. I also suggest we need better sources; one source published when a series began is hardly adequate to describe a series that has finished. Regardless,  I don't think tying the movement through tropes to something seeming amiss is correct. How's : "Three weeks after the events of Avengers: Endgame (2019), Wanda Maximoff and Vision are living an idyllic suburban life in the town of Westview, New Jersey, trying to conceal their true natures while their surroundings begin to move through different decades and they encounter various television tropes. As the series progresses, the couple suspects that things are not as they seem." Tduk (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
As has already been explained, the premise doesn't change as the show continues because it is directly tied to the start of the show. The only time we expect to update the premise with new details / sources after it has finished is if there is a second season with a different premise from the first. And the way the premise ties the movement through tropes to something seeming amiss is both literally correct (per what can be seen in the series) and also directly coming from the source, which says: But as the newlyweds cycle through the decades — and the familiar TV tropes — they realize their white-picket-fence life may not be as gleamingly picture-perfect as it seems. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
You claimed that about premise, but there are many definitions for the term that disagree with it. Maybe the solution is to not have a "premise" section at all. Regardless of that, "the couple suspects that things are not as they seem" and "they realize their white-picket-fence life may not be as gleamingly picture-perfect as it seems", while verbally similar, carry very different meanings. Tduk (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
You are the only one having an issue here, this premise section works the same way that every other one does, and it does match the source (not sure how you are interpreting it otherwise). Unless others agree with your concerns and want to help come to consensus on new wording, I don't see how this discussion is anything other than a waste of my time. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree; I was hoping more than 2 other people were looking at this article. I'm not sure why you phrased it the way you did, as a waste of "your" time. If you had simply allowed another wording, compromise or not, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Tduk (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Don't say "allowed" as if I control the article and am not letting you do something, that isn't how Wikipedia works. You have not gained consensus for your change so for now it will not be made. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
"Allowed" in that context means contributing to creating a consensus as opposed to not doing so. Sorry if that was confusing. Tduk (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm watching the article, but I don't think either version of the summary is "more right" or worth this lengthy discussion so I've been ignoring it. Schazjmd (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in; really, what I'd like to have done is to have the contested material removed. Also, note that there is some disagreement as to whether a "premise" is a "summary" or not. Anyway, it really is a minor update but personally I don't like to have misleading or confusing information on wikipedia. I didn't think we'd be discussing it that long. Tduk (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
We don't remove material because one person shows up who doesn't like it, especially when it is completely normal content that is in nearly every TV article. There is no general "disagreement" about what a premise is, you just don't like the widely accepted definition which this article and most other TV articles follow. It is not a minor update, and the existing premise is not misleading or confusing. It is clear that you do not understand what a premise is, do not understand how TV articles work, and don't even know what happens in the show. We don't make major changes to articles based on the opinions of people who don't know the material, the sources, and the guidelines. This may seem harsh, but it is frustrating to have been discussing this for so long and still have you acting as if there is some major problem that I am preventing from being solved. That just isn't true. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Could you please avoid from condescending to another editor and instead link the relevant policies you're referring to? So far you linked to an incorrectly sourced article that needed clean-up. As you said, there isn't much point in us going back and forth when apparently neither feels they are being listened to by the other party. I had hoped to get more engagement than this. As an aside, if an editor comes along and says something is misleading, it is reasonable to think they may not be the only one, and that just because the phrases make sense and seem correct to someone familiar with the subject, it isn't interpreted the same way by everyone. This doesn't have much to do with the more firm position that the "premise" section only has one fairly poor and out of date source. Tduk (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
This really does not need to be this extensive of a discussion, and has admittedly been exhausting to read. Tduk, when it comes to forming a WP:Consensus on Wikipedia, it goes both ways for communicating in a civil discussion. Because it seems you have elicited some more aggressive responses when told the changes you want are not likely to be enacted, some would naturally not appreciate such responses. It has been explained to you why such premises are included and why this article's wording is written as such. Given you seem unfamiliar with the TV premises, I would urge you to review and educate yourself on the explanations detailed at MOS:TVPLOT, which covers the basis of premises for television articles. The source you don't like is not "out of date" as it was released two months before the series released and is from official persons involved in making this show, so it is highly unlikely to somehow be incorrect or "fairly poor" in this regard. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
MOS:TVPLOT actually describes something different from what is being presented in this discussion, which is kind of my point; however I have not been arguing to have a change made, simply responding to the talking points that have been provided, as just now. I agree that this conversation is not being useful, and I thought it was over apart from my thanking a newcomer for commenting. Tduk (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
A premise or synopsis section is meant to give a reader the "boilerplate" rundown of the series. These are released by studios prior to the release of a series to allow media and viewers to know what a series will be about. The official, copyrighted one from Marvel Studios for this series states: Marvel Studios presents "WandaVision," a blend of classic television and the Marvel Cinematic Universe in which Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen) and Vision (Paul Bettany)—two super-powered beings living idealized suburban lives—begin to suspect that everything is not as it seems. This premise is then what we have added to this article through the EW article prior to the series' premiere as a secondary source to support this statement (written in our own words to avoid WP:COPYVIO) along with some added context. Premises generally do not need to be updated for later events in the series given we have our episode summaries right below to do that. However, I could see (with very weak support to do so) adding a small sentence at the end of what we have that notes how Wanda was behind all of it, but that's not really what the premise section is meant to do. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply; I don't think the sentence you provided about Wanda needs to be added. However, I think that "As their surroundings begin to move through different decades and they encounter various television tropes, the couple suspects that things are not as they seem." is different enough from the official blurb that you provided as to be misleading; particularly "the couple suspects" implies that there is a cooperative suspicion, not that the individuals have different suspicions, and also the part about the different decades and tropes relating to the suspicions seems a bit WP:SYNTHy (and up for interpretation) to me. Again, they're minor points, and I'd also be for removing that sentence entirely as it doesn't add that much. I've mostly been saying that all along but maybe not clearly enough. Tduk (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
"the couple suspects" is just correct grammar, and is a very nitpicky complaint. I have already explained above how the decades and tropes bit is not WP:SYNTH if you actually read the source. And I would strongly argue against removing the line, that is basically the whole premise of the show. Without it we just have the setting, which is not the same thing. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
As I said in my response, the premise that is included here is being supported by the EW reference which provided more context about the show – hence the added As their surroundings begin to move through different decades and they encounter various television tropes, part. And then from the official premise, there is absolutely no different between saying the couple suspects that things are not as they seem.  instead of {{Wanda Maximoff [...] and Vision [...] begin to suspect that everything is not as it seems}}. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Alright, I suppose it is nitpicky, but this is the site for that, isn't it? We want everything to be the best that it can be. Like I said before, I feel the existing phrase. "the couple suspects", implies they suspect the same thing, while in fact a big part of Vision's suspicion is because Wanda has created this fantasy life for him, and that he does not actually even exist. I think _this_, if anything, is the premise of the show (as we've just seen Vision die in the movies). This bears no relation (at least, not explicitly) to the shifting through time periods. It's not clear that this causes Wanda to suspect anything is up either. Regardless, Wanda's suspicions are very diferent from Vision's. Tduk (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
They are both completely oblivious to anything being wrong until weird things start to happen with the setting / tropes, then they both begin to suspect something is up and slowly come to realize what Wanda has done. That is what happens in the show, that is what the source says, and that is what the article says. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I was wondering: why are the sources on this page formatted like that? This isn’t the standard format, so I was wondering why. Lililolol (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Help:List-defined references is an acceptable citation method. It isn't as common as inline definitions, but a number of articles do use this style. I didn't go through the history to see who did it, but I imagine the primary editor set it up that way because it's the method they preferred. I've used it on a few articles that I've created. Schazjmd (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
@Lililolol: The MCU articles frequently use this citation format as the general standard for writing. Please review WP:MCUVAR, where this and other WP:LOCALCONSENSUS decisions are adequately explained. Articles on Wikipedia use different styles as needed; though, not all articles are the same. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 01:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)