Jump to content

Talk:We Interrupt This Program

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DYKUpdateBot (talk | contribs) at 12:01, 26 September 2021 (Article appeared on DYK on 26 September 2021, adding {{DYK talk}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Plan to move to the mainspace

As of this edit, I believe the draft is in a really good place regarding the run-of-the-mill content that is common to any episode of television (its plot, cast, reviews) along with the series-specific "general" info needed for context (see the whole development and filming sections). Once we start getting the episode-specific production info (aka the press interviews with maybe Park or Dennings), then I think we'll be good to move to the mainspace. Remember, WP:NORUSH. Please comment if you have other thoughts on this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding just to visualize what isn't ROTM or "general" series info in that edit, it's three pieces of content: From "Development" The fourth episode, titled "We Interrupt This Program", was written by Bobak Esfarjani and Megan McDonnell, and shifts perspective to outside the sitcom reality.; from "Filming and visual effects" listing the VFX vendors (that's a loose consideration to begin with); and from "Music", stating how "Voodoo Child (Slight Return)" was in the episode. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need much more since we also have the plot, cast, and critical response. If we don't get any more production details (which seems unlikely since we have gotten so much for the first three) then I think the soundtrack details next week should be enough. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't need much more, but we do need more than what's there to get beyond the ROTM content. I think press might be talking with at least Park on Monday, so if nothing pops up over the weekend, by the start of the week things might surface. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adamstom.97 I didn't see your writing additions before my previous comment. That addition looks good to move this, which I will do now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need to include everyone in the cast?

Is it really necessary to include every single actor in this infobox? An overwhelming majority of those characters have no names, are played by non-notable actors and have no significant impact on the plot. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Some of those shouldn't even be mentioned at all. If the character has no name, barely any dialogue or none whatsoever, and the actor doesn't have an article, then there's nothing notable about it, even if included in the end credits. —El Millo (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted both your edits while we are still discussing how to proceed. This is the first episode where the cast list has been this big and this many unnamed characters. The thought starting with the first episode was to have the "starring" actors be the main on-end billing, and then everyone else is just a "guest" and should be in infobox. But I agree this episode makes that not the best possible solution. We need to come up with some sort of delineation that can be applied to not only this episode of the series, but others as well. Is that just remove any character in the infobox that comes after unnamed ones if there are more than X number of additional cast? For here, that would be everyone after Lana Young's Dr. Highland, and on episode 2, that would take away the tap dancers. Also, while this should apply to the infobox, we can still list the full cast in the casting section. That isn't an issue and has been done in the past for Marvel series, namely Agents of SHIELD episodes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that they simply don't warrant inclusion anywhere, based on notability. The actors aren't notable, not having an article, and the characters aren't notable, not having a name and little to no dialogue. That would work as a pretty good delineation, having at least one of the following three: an actor with a Wikipedia article, a character with a proper name, or some relevant bit of dialogue (that isn't just part of background noise or something like that). Of course exceptions may appear and we might have to restrict or lighten the critera following the release of the rest of the episodes, but this would seem like a good start. —El Millo (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would be okay with that. So adjusting from my statement, that would just keep Agent Franklin in the infobox here as well, and the tap dancers still would be removed from the episode 2 infobox. I understand the notability part for the infobox, but again, I feel it's okay to include the full episode cast in the casting section, or rework the paragraph as needed. It's a similar situation to when, as I said, the press releases for AoS (such as this one for Melinda) gave us what amounts to the "co-stars" in the release along with the guest stars. Those were included in the article, but not the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think those small roles should be removed there as well. Remember that verifiability doesn't warrant inclusion, and an unkown actor portraying "a man" or portraying "Tac Agent #2" isn't notable. Their presence in the infobox would clearly be WP:UNDUE, but there's a threshold for basic notability that has to be met for being included here, that I think these actors portraying these characters haven't met. —El Millo (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we remove these actors/characters from the section, the Screen Rant source should be added as an external link so anyone looking for that info can click to it easily. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's permitted by WP:ELDUP or it's a justified exception, then sure. —El Millo (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be, I believe. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make this change here, and on the second episode. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just confirm what the rule is that we are going to follow? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Facu-el Millo's comment above, which I shifted to the hidden note, the rule is as follows: Guests in the infobox and casting section should be actors with a Wikipedia article; characters with a proper name; or a character that was relevant to the episode, be it with dialogue or plot. And if there are a large amount of additional cast members with "generic" titles like this one had, including a link like the Screen Rant ones can be added as an external link so readers can see the full credits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article image

Once the soundtrack info is released, we can see what the cover art is to see what poster Marvel is associating with this episode. If it's a more general series one (ie not like the past ones that were clearly decade related), I think, should an image be desired, we go with a screenshot from the episode, as allowed by MOS:TVIMAGE. I'm thinking of this one with Darcy and Jimmy because the performances of Dennings and Park are commented on in the reception section, which would be helpful in satisfy WP:NFC#8 for any image chosen. But also, just because there isn't an image used here, doesn't mean there needs to be. The Darcy/Jimmy one is just a suggestion, which I myself can see the merits of not using per the WP:NFC policy. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thought as well, see what the soundtrack cover is and use it if it makes sense, but we don't need to use one if there isn't a good option. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on using the soundtrack cover if no other option suffices. I did see that Marvel Studios released a poster on their Twitter today that could also work for this episode as it does show more of what was featured. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking that. This new poster seems to accurately represent episode four. —El Millo (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That poster could work, but I do feel like it's "series" oriented, not "episode" oriented, but it could also be the soundtrack cover, which would be beneficial. When the soundtrack info is released Thursday, let's come back and discuss. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the poster released today, should that be what we go with, here's the Imp Awards link, plus commentary pieces here (best), here, and here (somewhat). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So the soundtrack art is not that poster released on February 2. What's everyone's thoughts on any potential image? I initially felt that released poster was for the series and was hesitant on it, but I do see how its content does apply to this episode and there is commentary pieces that could be added to the Marketing section. The screenshot is also a viable option. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should move forward and use the poster from February 2 to represent this episode. The soundtrack cover really isn't distinct unlike the poster is, and as you mentioned, we have enough commentary on it to warrant it's inclusion. I feel a screenshot would have worked had the poster not been released, but the poster is more preferable given it highlights more of the episode's content than the screenshot of Darcy and Woo. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'll add it all in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the soundtrack cover doesn't look specific to this episode but that poster has all the characters and costumes from this one so makes sense to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think we've even gotten a proper poster for the soundtrack cover. It's similar to the first teaser. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97, Trailblazer101, and Facu-el Millo: FYI, episode 8's soundtrack is using the poster we have here for its album cover. Just wanted to note that, but I think the poster here is definitely most representative of this episode, not episode 8. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that poster better represents Episode 4. Marvel Studios did post this tweet featuring a promotional poster with Agatha and Wanda for Ep. 8, so maybe we could use that for the episode. It's not like the standard format, but it is something. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can move any episode 8 image discussions to that talk, but briefly, if any image should be added, I would suggested a screenshot of Wanda and Vision in Avengers Compound as that moment received a lot of coverage. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "what is grief if not love persevering" scene? —El Millo (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But again, if we want to seriously consider an image (I don't think there needs to be one), let's move to the episode 8 talk page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on both counts. —El Millo (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CSI

@Favre1fan93: My interpretation of the information about the episode potentially being based on CSI was that Schaeffer was talking about "Previously On". Am I missing something that points more to this episode? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The part when he calls it the 'rewind' episode makes it a little more ambiguous, but this one is technically "rewinding" too, given that it goes back in time a bit. I think other sentences like do sitcom, sitcom, sitcom, and then shatter that and be in a different genre point more to this episode than to "Previously On", being thos one the fourth episode and the first one to break with the sitcom model, and this is the episode most obviously fit to be based on a police/detective show, much more than the eighth one. Den of Geek interprets it this way here, stating, Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings) may not have needed to change much for it. "Wisecracking lady planted in front of a keyboard" is a pretty crucial element to the CSI franchise, which clearly refers to this episode's scenes of her watching the WandaVision show. —El Millo (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, going off her quote of saying do sitcom, sitcom, sitcom, and then shatter that and be in a different genre made me place it for this episode, not episode 8. While 8 is also a "rewind" per se, it's more Wanda focused, while this one was "rewinding" what we've already seen in sitcom-world to get the outside perspective. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I can see that. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Favre1fan93 (talk) and Adamstom.97 (talk). Nominated by Favre1fan93 (talk) at 19:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • New enough (promoted to GA the day before nomination).
  • Long enough.
  • On policy issues:
  • You may know better than me about this one: isn't it typical, when relying on primary source material for the plot, to cite that primary source (the episode itself)? I see you've cited it elsewhere.
  • May want to look for repeated wikilinks, but that's not something that would hold up a DYK, of course.
  • It just passed GA (with a pretty thin review for such a long article IMO), but I'd recommend inviting the guild of copy editors to take a pass, and also to look for how much detail is based on primary sources. Obviously there are times with fiction and media productions there's a decent amount we can cite to primary sources, but elsewhere I'm not so sure. In general this isn't stuff that should hold up a DYK, with one exception that I'd call a policy issue: the marketing section's last two sentences are basically just advertising for Marvel products with no independent coverage. Are there independent sources for these?
  • Typo "rampes up" under critical response.
  • Need a citation at the end of a sentence containing a quote ("gasp in horror"). Ditto the line with "strongly presented". Ditto "dull and predictable [choice], not to mention questionable on gender-stereotype grounds". Ditto "myriad storytelling possibilities".
  • Bojalad = Bolalad?
  • Analysis section. "Brilliant" is a quote (not a word we'd typically put in wikivoice, of course), and should be in quotes (with a cite at the end of that sentence). "closest thing Marvel has done to horror" is not a paraphrase, either - it's taken directly from the article.
  • "the greatest storytelling decision in the MCU since Nick Fury" is another quote not in quotes.
  • The hooks
  • The first hook is too long. 200 characters is the maximum, and less than that is typically preferred. Without markup this one is 233. I also worry about "one-er" (here and in the article). I've never seen it put that way, and it's not even mentioned in the long take article. There is a slightly slangy term for it, "oner", but that's not mentioned in the article either. IMO best to stick to "long take". Your call if you'd rather rewrite that to be shorter or just go with ALT1. ALT1 seems fine. I'll add another version of it as ALT2 for you to consider (minor copyedit and pipelink CSI for concision). Your call.
  • ALT2: ... that the WandaVision episode "We Interrupt This Program" was pitched like an episode of CSI, deviating from the sitcom genre of preceding episodes?
    • @Rhododendrites: I've altered the main hook to get it under the character limit, which is now 200 exactly. Regarding your other comments, the plot does not need to be cited by the primary source; there was only one dup link, which is fixed; I can't speak to the GA reviewer, but they have been doing all the WandaVision episode article reviews and some comments they've had in the early episodes reviews applied as well to this and later episodes so those were adjusted before they got to the proper review. Regarding the marketing, no there are not, and the primary sources are the only reference to cite the content; fixed "rampes"; extra citation tags are not necessary since all the review/reception material is attributed to the next citation. Otherwise, that's citation overkill with the same tag used after every sentence; the person's last name is Bojalad; the analysis section has been adjusted per comments. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • plot does not need to be cited by the primary source - You're right. I found this documented: MOS:PLOTSOURCE.
      • there was only one dup link - there were a few others. I just removed them. I see that was reverted. Apparently there are conventions with writing about fiction I'm not aware of. Sorry about that. :/
      • applied as well to this and later episodes ah. Thanks for that context.
      • Regarding the marketing, no there are not, and the primary sources are the only reference to cite the content - For something like this, if there's no independent coverage, it seems like a clear WP:WEIGHT/WP:PROMO problem to just list various products Marvel has on offer based just on Marvel's website. Perhaps this is also some fiction-related convention I'm not aware of? If so, I'll go ahead and push this forward, but raise an eyebrow at a guideline that allows Wikipedia to just carry through marketing just because it's related to fiction.
      • since all the review/reception material is attributed to the next citation oof. If this is the case, that's a long-held misconception on my part. I know that I regularly see people require citations at the end of sentences with a quote, but now I can't find a policy/guideline which requires that, as opposed to at the end of a block of text.
      • Hook 1 works now. I still find ALT1/2 a little more interesting. I'll express a weak preference for ALT2 or ALT1, and defer to the user who promotes it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • RE the marketing again. Yes the source is from Marvel, but the products can't be bought from Marvel. It is showing the various merchandise and the series' partners offering the products related to the episode in question. At least in this instance for WandaVision, each episode had specific merchandise made available through the "Marvel Must Haves" program. I do believe that got coverage from third party sources when it was announced, but for the specific products for this episode in question, that was just from Marvel's site.
        • RE the citations. As long as I have been editing, I have worked that all material is/should be cited by the closest reference, even if that doesn't come after a direct quote (or the exact quote/material is contentious on the article). Otherwise, you end up with sentence structure that looks like "Content with a "quote" and more.[citation 1] And here is more content with "quote number 2".[citation 1] Once again more citation 1 material from later in its article.[citation 1]" when all three sentences can be cited with the tag at the end of sentence three in my example. If other quotes/material is inserted, then of course, the citations would be needed, but that is not the case in this article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still say the product material is promotional and should be removed absent independent sources, but it's not related to the hook and not so egregious that it should hold up the DYK. Going to go ahead and pass it now. To reiterate for whomever promotes this, I have a weak preference for ALT2, then ALT1, then the main hook, but will defer to you. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2 to T:DYK/P7
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:We_Interrupt_This_Program&oldid=1046581489"