Jump to content

Talk:Once Upon a Time (TV series)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Some guesswork in synopsis, I think

I think the synopsis in the article body is a bit off. I got the impression from the trailer that the town is a normal down in "our" world, but that the characters are exiles from a parallel world where fairy tales are true. The synopsis also implies that there's a clear-cut connection between the title and the fairy-tales-in-the-modern-day concept, and I'm not sure that can be said (it seems obvious, but unless we have a source, we shouldn't say that it is the reason for the title). -Miskaton (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What.

'A pregnant woman enlists Emma's help to escape from both Storybrooke and the enigmatic Mr. Gold, which parallels with Cinderella seeking to make a deal with Rumpelstiltskin.'

Cinderella and Rumpelstiltskin never made a deal, and aren't even from the same story. How can something parallel something that never actually happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.39.38 (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

In the show it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leighdevoe (talk • contribs) 03:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

it will begin airing in norway i believe

channel: tv norge time: tba — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Books

There is 1 fairytale book based on The Grimm's Brother's tales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.7.18 (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

22 episodes?

I came here to figure out how many episodes there were going to be, and followed the source listed saying 22 episodes. Nowhere on that source does it say "Once Upon a Time" will have 22 episodes. It says "Happy Endings" will have 22 episodes, but not "Once Upon a Time" (which are two different shows). The only thing I've read is that there is a full season order, but nowhere did it list the number of episodes. Aswed123123123 (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit: I put tags on the page since I haven't seen ANY verification of 22 episodes anywhere. The 22 episodes bit will be deleted off this and the episodes page if not cited within a reasonable time period, as I've had this comment on here for a few months with no one confirming or denying it yet. Aswed123123123 (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Reffed it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

International Broadcasts table

The international broadcasts table has grown to include around thirty entries. Two are referenced. And according to one ref, it has been licensed to over one hundred thirty countries. On top of that, I'm doubting in the necessity of having it at all. I'm for removing it, and I will remove it if a strong case for its inclusion isn't made. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Steven King Involved?

This show bears the imprint of Steven King and his style. Was he involved in its production in any way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.251.108 (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No, but its a blatant rip off of the comic book Fables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.180.177 (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


I would like to remind you that this is not a forum. And since the IP's orignal comment was placed under the previous header, you cannot move it into a another or create another header for it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Fairytale names vs. real-world names?

Is it worth mentioning that characters have names that have connotations to their true identities? Regina = The Queen, Ms. Blanchard = Snow White, Dr. Hopper = Jiminy Cricket, Ruby = Little Red Riding Hood, 'Ash'ley = 'Cinder'ella, (Though Regina is her name both in the fairy tale world and the real world.) And so on...

As much as I'd love to, it could fall under original research. If you can find a reliable ref stating the correlation, by all means go ahead. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

When does Season 2 begin?

September 2012 (as has been added to the Ratings table) or October 2012 (as stated in the Series Overview section)? Editors please check your stuff before adding things! — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Cast Photos

Recently, individual photos of the main cast have been added, this seems completely unnecessary and space consuming, not to mention the format of the photos is exceptionally bulky and malformed. It wouldn't surprise me if Wikipedia already has a bylaw to back my notion. LiamNolan24 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I agree with ‎Michu's rationale in the edit summary, that the readers would like to see the actor's faces. But I believe that the photos are better suited to the character list rather than the series page. And about the "W." I don't see why the initial even has to be here. I understand every name of a character being listed in the character list or individual article, but I don't understand why it has to be listed on a series page. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Photos of the principal cast can be found on the character list, this merits the removal of the photos on this article. LiamNolan24 (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I can agree on such a solution. Michu1945 (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A quick copy-and-paste of the series synopsis here (and many of the episode summaries on the list and in their individual articles) returns many, many word-for-word results. Some may have been copied from Wikipedia, but how many were copied-and-pasted to Wikipedia? There may need to be an investigation into this. Kevinbrogers (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Just as in police work, the clues tend to disappear, and after a few years, it may not be possible to answer such questions. (For example, the original material may have been posted and removed from the Web.) The trail may be cold, these months later.
Also this gets into the tricky area of why Wikipedia has such extended synopses in the first place. If it's original research or fan material, it doesn't belong. And if it's substantially taken from someone else's original research fan material, then it's a copyright violation. Either way, these extended retellings would never make it into a major commercial encyclopedia. Leptus Froggi (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A Little Off...

"They've given us license," Kitsis said. "I could be wrong, but I think this is the first time anyone's shown Snow White with a sword, or pregnant."

Heh, an accurate quote, but people saw Snow White with a sword, and pregnant in the comic Fables.  ;-) 24.15.6.162 (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


This is going to be an ongoing problem. Comics fanboys ignorant of the world beyond their little fandom think anything referencing fairy tale characters with a modern twist is derived from Fables or its author Bill Willingham. It was a problem with entries on Sondheim's Into the Woods musical and writer James Lapine. They attempt to plant a flag for and link to this irrelevant work at every opportunity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.208.126 (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Character articles

If you don't want them to be all deleted/redirected/merged to the list, you've got to:

  • reference the content (with reliable sources)
  • provide proof of the independent notability of each character who was given a separate article (critical reception, merchandise, appearances in other works, etc)

It's not Wikia. I'm giving you 1 month to work on the articles. --Niemti (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

By "you" I assume you mean "we" because you are after all apart of the community here and therefore if you see something needs doing be bold and do it. MisterShiney ✉ 19:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
You assumed wrong. All what I can do is to: merge, redirect or delete. --Niemti (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Well considering you aren't an admin you can't actually delete anything. So I ask you to rather than go around and pointing out all the faults, be bold and work on the articles yourself. MisterShiney ✉ 20:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I can. Wanna bet? The faults: 0 reliable sources, no apparent independent notability. It's not Wikia. 1 month. That's all. --Niemti (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Dude(tte), all you can do is nominate. You have no special powers or influence. It meets notability because they are main characters of a multiple season series. You cant come in expecting everyone to do the work for you. If you feel it needs it, then find it. MisterShiney ✉ 22:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
29 days. --Niemti (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Disney" Allusions

In Alice in Wonderland/Through the Looking Glass, the Caterpillar does say "Who are you?" and the mushroom does make you grown taller and smaller. It's not just the Disney version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorMath (talk • contribs) 01:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Mention of Special Episodes

Just thought that shouldn't the extra special episodes of Once Upon a Time be given a mention here in the main page? The special episodes at this time are:

  • "Once Upon a Time: Magic is Coming" Special (aired between Seasons 1 and 2)
  • "Queen of Hearts" Special Enhanced episode, aired 31 March 2013
  • "The Miller's Daughter" Special Enhanced episode, YET TO BE AIRED (April 7 2013)

I believe some of these may have been mentioned on other pages, such as the separate episode pages.

Sources include (there are many more)

Jhgenius01 (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

All I can say is, be bold!—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 13:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The Allusions Section

That section is getting huge. If any of is is going to be considered to stay, it needs references from some sort of reliable source. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree. When the series first started, I tried fighting it by removing all episode-specific allusions and just leaving in those that apply to the whole series, but I sort of forgot about it after awhile. Perhaps those that only apply to specific episodes should be moved to their article (with proper sourcing, of course), while those that apply to the entire series be left here? This would cut the section down significantly... I can't really see any use in having two whole lines for every episode (mainly referring to the "Hat Trick" reference at the end of the section), especially if the series runs for several years. Kevinbrogers (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I have placed an examplefarm template. A handful of examples important to the plot would be sufficient; the exhaustive list of every reference in every episode no matter how trivial is ridiculous, and the section has ballooned to become the largest in the article, far in excess of its importance to the whole. This section needs to be gutted. 67.162.236.230 (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What about Stargate? It can't be coincidence that the show includes one actor each from Stargate Universe, Stargate SG1, and Stargate Atlantis. Has that been mentioned anywhere? Carl Kenner (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it can be a complete and utter coincidence.——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The Emperor's New Clothes/Critiques that still have to be made

Forty years ago, I read Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit" in college, and God knows it was difficult, but, in the end, comprehensible and most of all, worthwhile. Although probably an admission of the failing of my intellect over the intervening forty years, I find "Once Upon A Time" more difficult to follow, from week to week, and most of all, NOT worthwhile, either as entertainment or edification. The one saving grace is the work of the actors, whose characterizations are original and sometimes revealing, but the story line seems merely an exercise in writerly showmanship than purposeful, heartfelt, storytelling. And has anyone noticed that there is a deep logical surd in juxtaposing stories of characters meeting the exigencies of time with the same supposed characters fixed in time? It's like trying to square a circle. It just doesn't make sense, and, to my understanding, constantly undercuts the characters' motivation. As an exercise in completely unfettered imagination, I guess it's OK, but as purposeful art, it makes as much sense as "Hannibal Meets The Queen of Outer Space."--Begreifen (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You should get yourself a job at some published feuilleton, so we could cite your highly important views on the topic. However, being just as German and therefore absolutely free from any intellectual vanity as my fellow writer above, I would like to mention another subject of critique that seems pretty obvious to me. I couldn't find it in any American review of the series, so I'm not able to cite any source, too, but since a series like that is produced for an international market, I wonder if no other Non-American review has made the point: the series pretty soon degenerated to a soap opera which ad nauseam repeats the same story over and over again: the good ones save the all-american values like family, honesty and straightness against the bad ones, who turned down the path of evil the first time they betrayed these values, but still have a chance to come back to the path of the good, if only they wouldn't insist "i want my revenge" and keep responding "and why would i do that?" with their british accents when asked why they don't "fight for your family." Maybe, when this topic is discussed anywhere out there, we could cite it here. Once. Someday.--JakobvS (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "upon"

Why is "upon" capitalized in the title? Is it how the show was named or were there changes in capitalisation rules of English? Gevorg89 (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The show is named that way. You can see that it's official in the title of the official website (only noticeable in the search result [the first one]).––Ɔ Ȿ♭ ௵ ☎ ℡ ☎ 00:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Fairy Tale Counterpart

A while ago I added "The Beast" and "The Crocodile" to the Fairy Tale Counterpart column for Rumpelstiltskin, as he is shown to represent the fairy tale characters of The Beast and The Crocodile. However, the edit was recently removed with the explanation of "Aliases do not count". I don't want to start an edit war, so I would like to discuss this as I do not understand the logic used. The column doesn't say "Name", it says "Fairy Tale Counterpart", meaning the fairy tale character that they represent. If The Beast is considered an alias and not a fairy tale counterpart, then "The Evil Queen" would fall under this rule since it is Regina's alias, as well as for "Prince Charming" and the "Mad Hatter". Ωphois 00:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the logic is that the other real-world fairy tale characters he represents should not be included because he is not represented that way in the fairy tale book Henry gave Emma. Maybe.
I'd include them.—Ɔ Ȿ♭ இ ☎ ℡ ☎ 20:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Following your guess as to the logic, that would mean no characters from worlds other than the Enchanted Forest could be listed. There are also various reliable sources listing The Beast and The Crocodile as his fairy tale counterparts. Ωphois 22:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I gave it my best shot, but it makes no sense to me. Again, I think they should be included. (Hopefully someone else will bother to put their opinion.)—Ɔ Ȿ♭ இ ☎ ℡ ☎ 22:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
To comment about the episode "Ariel," the Evil Queen posed as Ursula in order to get Ariel to keep her legs. Yet near the end of the episode, the Evil Queen is contacted by the real Ursula who tells the Evil Queen not to do it again. Ursula's voice was provided by Yvette Nicole Brown. This makes the Evil Queen and Ursula different. Rtkat3 (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I understand your argument, but the real Ursula at the end of the episode just gave a warning about impersonating her. She didn't actually interact with Ariel or do anything like in the fairy tale. Regina as Ursula is the one who took Ariel's voice and is giving Ariel legs like in the film, thus fulfilling the counterpart of Ursula from the film. Ωphois 02:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Anyone else have input on this? Ωphois 02:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the real Ursula might show up in person in a future episode. Rtkat3 (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if this conversation is still open but I would like to give my input about Ursula/Regina. For me Regina is not Ursula since we've seen clearly at the end of the episode the real Ursula even if the real one didn't have any interact with Ariel. Just because Regina was the one who took Ariel's voice etc, that doesn't make her Ursula. She just pretended to be her to make her plans possible. Just my 2c TeamGale 19:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Recurring or Guest?

I'd just like to see if we could come to some agreement about when we credit someone as "Recurring" or "Guest" in the Recurring Characters table. There seems to be some confusion regarding a character appearing in 3 episodes or less in Seasons 1 and 2.

Here's what I mean… Sebastian Stan is credited as "Recurring in both S1 and S2 after appearing in 3 episodes in each, as is Jorge Garcia in S2. However, Julian Morris and Alan Dale both appear in 3 episodes in S2 and are credited as "Guest". Either they all need to be "Recurring" or all "Guest". It really doesn't bother me either way, I'd just like it to be consistent.

What do you think, where should the cut-off point be?

(Also, I don't particularly like the new arrangement for Robin Hood in this table, but that's an entirely different discussion!) --CruellasFurCoat (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Belle's name and Regina's curse

Unlike the others, Belle was not given a Fairy tale identity while the curse was actually in effect, just locked up in the basement without memories. The six-season identity that Regina cursed her with in season 1 is not her actual Storybroke identity and not how she spent 28 years of the curse. Unlike with Mary Margaret and the others, "Lacey" is based not on Belle and how her personality can twisted to give Regina everything she wants but on what will hurt Rumplestiltskin. So, her Storybroke counterparts name is Belle French because she did not spend 28 years as Lacey. So please stop changing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.131.57 (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

They state in the episode that the memories Regina "restores" are the curse memories. Ωphois 08:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Regina: Oh, you mean she has her memories back? You're welcome.
Mr. Gold: Not her memories, her curse memories.
Regina: Yeah, from the curse you gave me. You see, all I did was jog things back in place. Ωphois 08:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Tell me this, if it was "restoring" why wasn't Belle wandering about Storybooke as Lacey in the first season? Or, rather, why wasn't she acting like Lacey while trapped in that hospital? Why wasn't she instantly acting like Lacey when she loses her meories? Why would Regina have to go into the hospital and mess with her memories after Belle had already been re-cursed if Lacey was her cursed self? Because it was not a restoration of the curse memories. Regina is lying. (Of course, it could be a large continuity error...)

Most likely a continuity error. It wouldn't be the first time for the show. The characters flat-out state that Lacey is the curse persona though, so unless you can find reliable third-party sources that say otherwise, we have to use what was said in the show. Ωphois 19:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
It is most likely that Regina gave Belle new "curse" memories, or an altered form of her curse memories, as well as altering Belle's personality in the process. Of course, Regina can't tell that to Rumplestiltskin, otherwise he would crush her (since he his more powerful than her anyways), so Regina gives him that answer instead. 72.197.234.162 (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
By the way, Lacey is most likely the name of Belle's Curse counterpart, because we never got to know her Curse name before it was broken by Emma Swan. Also, she was only shown for a short period of time as a Storybrooke resident before Season 2. 72.197.234.162 (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that in the Season 1 finale when she goes to Gold's shop he calls her Belle and she replies "Who?" or something along those line. Can be sure without watching the episode again though--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 07:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I've rewatched parts of the episode several times, and I believe that this seems to be the case. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
To add my 2c, we can't hear Belle's other name before Emma breaks the curse at the end of Season 1. She sure has one since she can't remember her real name; we just can't get to hear it. The only other name we know about Belle is "Lacey" but we can't know if that was the name she always had from the beginning of the first curse or if it was just the name Regina gave her when she cursed her again later on. At least I can't remember details on that from when I watched the season. Personally I would add Lacey on the table at the moment since it's a name she has in Storybrooke. I am rewatching the show with a friend these days and we just started watching Season 2. If I can see any more details about Belle and the subject that can help, I'll update. TeamGale 07:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Robin Hood layout

Any chance we could discuss the layout for the Robin Hood row in the Recurring Characters table.

I personally don't like how it looks at the moment with it being split up into two rows. One of the big problems that I have is that I don't think Tom Ellis should really be credited in this table for appearing in only one episode. Many other actors have appeared in two or more episodes and are not credited here.

What I suggest is that we remove Tom Ellis from the table and just include Sean Maguire on his own instead. Or I'm fine with having them both in the same row with the actor column saying "Tom Ellis (S2)/Sean Maguire (S3)" or something to that effect. I just think the current layout makes the table look inconsistent.

Of course, I'm open to other suggestions if anyone has any. --CruellasFurCoat (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The table is "Recurring characters", though, not cast. We don't really even know how many episodes Sean Maguire will be in, so we can't discredit Tom Ellis at this point. I don't think it makes the table inconsistent, seeing as this is the only instance of two different actors portraying the exact same character. No offense, but to me the (S2) (S3) next to the actors looks sloppy. What does everyone else think?

Robin Hood Main Season 4

The way the series is going it seems likely that he may be promoted to a series regular at some point, maybe even Season 4, so if he is then how would we organize his box then?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

We would just bump Robin Hood up to the main cast table. Ωphois 18:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
With both actors or just remove the actor that only guest starred and leave only the main one, it would look werid with a Guest Only row in the middle of the main table.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Regina's father

Regina's curse did not create new identities for dead characters as such he was not Henry Mills in storybrooke--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Crediting Co-Stars in the table

I'd just like to have a discussion about the new inclusion of the dwarfs, Marian and the new Frozen characters in the Secondary Characters table. Firstly, why have we started crediting Co-Stars? This is something we haven't done before and I really think the table is getting very messy now the six dwarfs have been added. I know they've been in a lot of episodes, but they're hardly important characters in the overall show. As for Marian, we'll see whether she's upped to Guest next season, but for the moment I don't think she's needed. Also, I'm not really a fan of the new Elsa row, mainly because she wasn't credited and this makes an inconsistency with other characters. I'm talking about Cora in 1.17 and August in 2.02 who were seen but not credited. Either we need to change their episode counts to reflect this, or it really doesn't make any sense. And also, we don't even know if Anna will be recurring or not. If she's anything like Glinda this season, she won't be seen much and really won't warrant a place in the table. Please discuss! CruellasFurCoat (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure Leroy/Grumpy is credited as co-starring, Frozen and Mairan I'm neutral on. They will probably be recurring next season anyway, but the dwarfs should definitely be on there because they are Recurring. Dr Whale, Kathryn and Geppetto all have less of an impact of the entire plot than the dwarfs so yes they should be included.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 12:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
No, Grumpy/Leroy is the only one of the dwarfs to be credited as a guest star. Lee Arenberg is flown out from LA to film his scenes whereas the other dwarfs are just Vancouver locals. Thinking about it, I guess it isn't really a problem to include the other dwarfs as they have appeared in so many episodes. However, I have gone and edited their episode counts as they were all wrong. I've also removed Marian, Elsa and Anna for the moment as they are completely unnecessary. As the summer progresses, I'm sure we'll be given more information about these characters and we can edit the table accordingly. For now, I think the table looks just fine. CruellasFurCoat (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, the numbers weren't wrong, they just included Archive footage, and since we make it clear on the Starring section to go off actual appearances and not credits, I included the archive footage as I added the Dwarfs.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I agree with what you have done, but going off the rest of the list, I have moved Leroy to the top. Otherwise the table will need major rearranging to put the entire thing into order. As Leroy has been confirmed for Season 4 he needs to be at the top until Granny is.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I guessed you must have included the archive appearances too, but as it's no new footage it's really unnecessary. I've also just noticed that the episode counts for Charming and Red are one off because they include the archive appearances. I'm going to change Meghan because it's the same situation as the dwarfs. However Josh obviously is credited in 1.02 although he's only seen in archive. Any ideas what we should do here, I'm not too bothered either way. CruellasFurCoat (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
He was credited but we really cannot have one person with Archive footage and the others without. Like if you comparing game sales you can use every countries data for Pokémon and then compare it to just the UK sales for Halo, it gives the wrong impression. Personally I think all Archive footage should be included because the character still appears in the episode just without the actor having to do any work for it.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
if we have or can find reliable sources saying that Elsa, Anna, and Marian will be recurring next season, I think they should be included now like we did with Zelena. Ωphois 21:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I think it's logical to have at least Elsa as recurring since she'll be in the main plot for the first part of the next season but yes...we need a source. Also to me, seems logical to have Marian as recurring but still...source is needed. If anyone finds reliable sources we'll add them. For Anna I only read that we'll see her but nothing more than that and if she'll be in many episodes or just as a guest. TeamGale 00:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Season 4 Cast

I think it's pretty clear by now that all of the main cast from Season 3, except Michael Raymond James, are returning for Season 4. And so I don't see why the ABC press release is not a good enough reference to confirm this. http://www.abcmedianet.com/web/showpage/showpage.aspx?program_id=003310 The page was updated yesterday, and now includes new information about Season 4, as shooting has begun. The cast list is unchanged, and so we can clearly see this is the cast for the season. It has also been confirmed that the show will have a panel at San Diego Comic Con, featuring all the starring cast except Ginnifer Goodwin. (Inevitable due to the baby.) http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/07/10/abc-takes-on-comic-con-international-2014-including-resurrection-once-upon-a-time-marvels-agents-of-s-h-i-e-l-d-panels/281515/ However, Josh Dallas tweeted last week about heading to Vancouver for filming, along with Ginny so that's another piece of evidence for the both of them. https://twitter.com/joshdallas/status/486229513701830656 In fact, the only cast member who hasn't been confirmed is Michael Socha... who we've heard nothing about since April. Sure, they might be holding off on his announcement until Comic Con... but it's never actually been confirmed he will be starring! And then he's the only character we have in the table... Please can we discuss as it really doesn't make sense how all this evidence isn't good enough. Thank you CruellasFurCoat (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind other sources, but the abcmedianet one hasn't changed since I tried to use it a few months ago and it was rejected then. Also I looked at it to be sure that Season 4 hadn't been updated into it before I removed it but I could see nothing that even remotely mentioned Season 4 so it couldn't be used. I am not opposed to the use of the others however. TVbythenumbers may need further disscussion with the comminuty on here. While the Twitter may confirm it, if you could find a different one as people tend to not like twitter. (See Grumpy/Leroy on the season 4 page where it was removed for social media's not being used unless absolutly nessary.)--Ditto51 (My Talk Page)
TV by the Numbers is considered a reliable source. Ωphois 03:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Georgina Haig - Elsa

The creators said that at the end of season 3, the actress who would portray Elsa hadn't cast yet so basically the woman we saw in the last episode was not Georgina Haig. I was just wondering if the episode has to be counted to Georgina or leave it because that woman could be anyone since we only saw her from behind; even an actress who already plays on the show another character and she did that till they cast the new one. TeamGale 18:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be included, but with a note saying it was just a stand-in. Ωphois 20:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, since no one else commented on this for over 10 days, I went on and added it as a note. I agree that somehow it should be mentioned. TeamGale 23:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Wendy Darling

Why is she considered to be from a fictional-real? She comes from London, which is the real world, the same as Tamara, Greg, and Storybrooke.--Lonely678 (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thinking more about it, I'm conflicted. I disagree with the other user who said that she is from Victorian England realm. Baelfire's bean took him to a world without magic, and wonderland showed magic being done there. However, the other use is correct in that the timelines don't match up. Rumple said he waited hundreds of years looking for his son, which wouldn't tie to Victorian England in our world. However, Neil did later said he was only over a hundred years old, which would tie to Victorian England here. The writers may have just retconned it into being a hundred years to fit with baelfire meeting Wendy in our world. What does everyone else think? Ωphois 18:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't see them retconning Rumple to 100 from 300, but it isn't just here where she is listed as being from our world, the wikia does as well (I looked at it again and saw that she is classed as a land without magic character so I stopped reverting edits changing her to our world.) Other than the obvious continuity problem with Rumple's and Neal's ages, Wendy was seen in one episode in our world but four in Neverland as such she could possibly be listed based on that. Also the argument against magic working in VIctorian England: Wendy's brothers was kept young in our world by Peter Pan as they stayed the same age from when they tried to adopt a newborn Henry to when they appeared in Storybrooke.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
So are you agreeing that she is from our world? Ωphois 19:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, But since fictional characters are only listed with a real world counterpart if they were either from present day world or effected in some way from another world and add on the fact that she was primarily seen within Neverland, i would say that she should stay on the right hand side and not the left.
* My Argument
** She was seen mostly in Neverland
** She is out of time (literally, everything she knew happened like what? 120 years ago?)
** Most people will assume that Rumple being 300 years old and the difference between Victorian England and 2014 being different then it must have been a separate world.
** Primarily she is a fictional character from the fairy tale and not someone made up by the writers (which all of the people who have real world names are)
** As such I believe she should continue to be listed as a fictional character/identity.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I feel that she should be listed as both, as her real-world identity and fictional identity are the exact same. Ωphois 20:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
My 2c on the subject...Wendy is a fictional character from a fairytale like everyone else on Storybrooke. Even if she lives in London in the Peter Pan fairytale, she is still fictional. Like it was mentioned, is not a character that the producers created like Mary Margaret, David etc. Personally I wouldn't put her on the real encounter column. The way I see it if the name is added in both columns with the thought that she has the same name in both worlds, then other characters (like Hook) have to be added in both columns as well. TeamGale 20:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Victorian England is just that, Victorian England in the real world of OUAT and in that world Wendy Darling was a real person, time moves somewhat differently in the different worlds, when Baelfire first appeared in the land without magic it was the Victorian era, he was then taken to Neverland by Pan's shadow where he ceased aging for a time, he then arrived back in the real world later and aged to adulthood there. Wendy was taken by Pan and stopped ageing until rescued. Wendy's brothers left Neverland working for pan earlier and aged to their current ages BUT they could easily have returned to Neverland in the meantime and thus maintained those same ages. In the world of OUAT based solely on what is shown on screen it can only be assumed that Wendy and her siblings are from the real world. 76.4.44.160 (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah we reached a conclusion that because she was a fairytale character she would remain in the right hand column. Also people like Alice from the Wonderland spin off are from a completely separate world around Victorian England.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I would say the conclusion needs to be revisited, surely it is more important to state whether they are a fairytale character or not in the context of the show? I would assert that her beginning life in the real world (in the show) led to her only appearing in fairytales (in the show) by virtue of coming into contact with people from Neverland or the enchanted forest and ending up in the former. Her correct place would then be in the left hand column. If we are to take OUR perspective as important then there is little difference between any of the characters, they are all fictional. It really has to be within the show that is important here.76.4.44.160 (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The general consensus was that the left hand column was to be used to input any characters that the writers specifically created. Also, if you see my reasoning from above (the bullet points) in the most basic grips of the show she is not from Storybrooke or the modern day real world like everyone else so...

New Idea: As some else has pointed out before she is basically just a guest character who was there to further Neal's character development and did nothing for the overall story unlike Aerial or Tink who did, so maybe she should just be removed altogether.

Other New Idea: Remove the column's completely, on the Seasons' pages we just put down who the actors play with a "/" between them, perhaps that is what we should try here.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Table Headings

Prehaps the table headings should be changed to "Storybrooke Identity" and "Fictional Identity'". You know, instead of actually specifying our world vs all others.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No one commented on this, I want to implement it but I want people to agree or disagree first so please comment here on what you think the columns should be changed to.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just seen this idea and I think it'll work well. However instead of "Storybrooke", I think "Land Without Magic" works better (just really for the sake of Greg and Tamara). I really don't think it looked good at all to have both identities in one column separated only by /, everything was just getting very confusing. Hopefully everyone will like the new titles. CruellasFurCoat (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I can see it working but some characters will still be disputed. Like Regina and what she is called in the Enchanted Forest which led me to make one column.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
If it really does bring up a dispute over Regina's name then we could always try "Regina the Evil Queen". Personally, I prefer it how it is right now, but there will always be options. CruellasFurCoat (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Before edit war over Regina's name.

Which column does Regina Mills go in? Her fairytale column or the real world column. Actually, can we just drop the columns altogether, they aren't entirely necessary, are they?

I think the unspoken practice has been that if their real-world name and fairy-tale name are the same, then the fairy-tale column just uses their title. For example, Regina is the Evil Queen's real name, so only the Evil Queen is used. Same for David/Prince Charming and Jefferson/Mad Hatter. Ωphois 01:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Will Scarlets/Knaves land without magic identity

Shouldn't this be listed as N/A also? It's currently on unknown. Once Upon a Time in Wonderland suggests that Will was living in Wonderland when the curse hit the Enchanted Forest and took a huge chunk of people to Storybrooke, shouldn't he technically be like Hook and not have a secondary name?

As pretty much he ran away through the looking glass with Anastasia, and since then, even when she became the Red Queen, lived in Wonderland, right? 86.15.195.205 (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hatter was in Wonderland. Rabbit fetched him from Storybrooke in the first episode which is set when the Wraith came to town in the first episode of season 2, after the curse was broken. Hook was never effected by the first curse despite being in the Enchanted Fotest because of Cora's protection spell.
Smee is the same, he has a Storybooke identity, but wasn't seen until after the curse was broken so his is also listed as unknown. Hope this helped. :)--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 11:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Thankyou, it does. I was thinking that he also has an apartment in Storybrooke where he stored his heart, which Alice retrieved. I thought that perhaps he just traveled between realms with the aid of the Rabbit. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Characters

Why are the actors playing Robin Hood in season 2 and young Cora listed while those who played young Snow, young Emma, young Bealfire, young Pinocchio, young Prince Henry and Malcolm (Peter Pan) aren't? I think, IF we want to keep Tom Ellis and Rose McGowan on the list, we should also add those six other actors. But I still believe they don't belong on this already long list.
Also, why is it called "Storybrooke Identity"? I think it should be called "World Without Magic Identity" or "Real World Identity" since Emma's, August's, Neal's, Sarah's, Greg/Owen's & Tamara's names did not come from the curse, and we wouldn't need that small annotation for those characters.
Finally, for the characters having multiple identities in one column, shouldn't it be listed in order of importance instead of a chronological order? I mean, Esposito has been the Genie for only one episode, the rest of the time he's been the Magic Mirror. Same for Robbie Kay's character: we know him mostly under the name Peter Pan and not Malcolm.--67.70.84.13 (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that the others weren't listed. They should be. Its chronological because you can still see which identity they have. Perhaps we should bold their primary identity. The main page should really only have the Main cast anyway. So remove the recurring section? If we split Peter's character into both actors then Malcom will be portrayed by the other, while Kay can have Peter and Pied Piper.
What decides importance?
I'm all for removing everyone in the recurring sections. I mean we already have the seasons articles so it is slightly redundant. I'm going to remove it. WP:TVCAST--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Should we change the links in the first three seasons and the main article? The links in season 4 lead to the Disney characters, but I am confused about a few things. While the series in inspired by a lot of the Disney films, there are some differences. Robin Hood, his Merry Men, Maid Marian, and the Sheriff of Notingham are not animals like in the 1973 film. The Once Upon a Time version of Mulan is also different from the animated version due to her having romantic feelings for Aurora. The consensus for the Mulan (Disney character) article was not to categorize her as an LGBT character since the animated character was heterosexual. And finally Peter Pan was a villain with no chance of redemption at all. Should we just link them all to List of Once Upon a Time characters What do you all think? Sb1990 (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The most wrongness to have ever been wrong.

Ok... why is this show stated as having 89 episodes? It has 88. NOT 89. 81.147.166.230 (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

not wrong, smash the mirror was confirmed to be 2 episodes so 22+22+22+23=89.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Very good article!

This article is properly sourced and well-written. With some copyedits and tiny fixes here and there, this could be a qualified GA-nomination. If no one currently feels like taking initiative, I, having a great personal passion for the show, would be happy to make the final improvements. However, I know some editors prefer to wait for the show to end before improving to any kind of status so as to avoid constantly keeping up with new events related and keep the article from becoming outdated. What's the opinion guys and gals? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Cast order

Hi! Why are Mader and Maguire listed after Socha? Taking in example The Walking Dead, the CSI, and Grey's Anatomy pages, they should be listed before.
Also Carlyle should be listed before Sbarge and Dornan, and Bailey before Dornan. 76.66.98.97 (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. We use the infobox order, which is the initial order in the first episode, followed by when they were added to the Regular cast. So Mader and Maguire are listed below Socha. They may be rearranged between the two of them based on where they come in relation to each other in the season 5 premiere. --Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:Prose vs. table format for cast lists

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#WP:Prose vs. table format for cast lists. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

If someone can come up with something that's actually readable, then I'm all for accessibility, but in its current form, the cast list is pretty hard to read. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, currently it implies that Henry won't be in season 5, but actually, he's just not confirmed yet. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah but we state what is known to reliable sources, currently no one (a part from the people working on the show) know if he is still a regular, so we can only state what is known, any other way would suggest he is returning for season 5.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@Nyuszika7H: Pray-tell, how is the Cast list hard to read, when the rest of the article is easy to read? Alex|The|Whovian 02:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Cast and Characters section

Just to continue my edit summary of this edit, I know that stuff is duplicated between the casting and cast sections, once I'm done with the Cast and Characters section, I will trim down the casting section to just information about the series regulars being cast, returning and being demoted/premoted.

PS. Any assistance with the expansion of the Cast and Characters section would be appreciated. Thanks--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Character Articles

So with the exception of maybe Emma's article (and even that is borderline), I feel like the other main character articles should be deleted since all they are doing is reiterating stuff from the cast/casting sections on this page and their history from the list of characters pages. I thought I would post this here before flagging them for deletion though.

--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

List of films with borrowed elements

The paragraph in the lead starting with "It borrows elements and characters from Disney films and popular Western fairy tales, including [...]" really needs to be dealt with. There's almost thirty different films listed, not all of them have major contributions to the series, and it's constantly being modified, added to and removed from. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed Settings Section

I had to remove the setting section until further notice. I hope to restore it later.Robert Moore (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Why? Alex|The|Whovian? 06:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
it asked for sources, plus the list of worlds article was redirected to this site, so it's obvious that not many editors are willing to help improve it without using Wikia sites. Robert Moore (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Take out the redirect link and add sources. Easy. Alex|The|Whovian? 07:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, but you could've provided sources too. Robert Moore (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I was under no obligation to. I simply tagged it, you outright removed everything. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
You didn't need to tag it. That's why I removed it so I can redo the page, since no one else was going to contribute. Robert Moore (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Surely the section should only be included with links to where they are filled in real life, and then go under the filming heading? Otherwise it just seems like something that belongs more on a Fan wiki more than Wikipedia.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 13:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing the "Setting" Section

I think we can all agree that the entire section isn't really encyclopedic in the slightest and belongs more on a fanwiki than on a Wikipedia article. So before I remove it I was just wandering if anyone has any objections to it being removed.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Hook (Once Upon a Time)#Overcategorization

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hook (Once Upon a Time)#Overcategorization. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

"True Love" vandals?

So I started this discussion on Emma Swan after a string of IP vandalism but it hasn't had any response, so I'll ask here. I don't believe "true love" to be a standard for any info box of characters on WP but I do know that OUAT being based on fairy tales, there have been several references to 'true love', so is it accurate for it to be added in Emma Swan and Hook (Once Upon a Time) info boxes or is this just the desire of some over zealous fans? In my opinion I think the info boxes should be left with basic information and I find that using true love is a bit peacock-y and not neutral. But I also haven't watched the show in several years so it may be accurate. In any case, there seems to be a consistent string of vandalism on the pages of characters from this show, including Regina Mills. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 12:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Once upon a Time ends

Why is Once Upon A Time going to end anyway? Ds48 (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Because the producers and network decided to end it. Please be aware that Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. -- AlexTW 01:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing from category

I have removed this article from Category:Television series set in the 2010s. As is noted in the text on the category page, this category is intended only for articles about "Television shows whose events take place in the 2010s but which were made before that decade." As Once Upon a Time was made and broadcast in the 2010s it is not appropriate for it to be included in this category. Dunarc (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

List of Characters

So, I know there has been some desire to sepearte out the main list of characters page to lessen the size of the article, but I'm not entirely sure if splitting of the guest and recurring characters is the way to go. I don't know it just seems wasteful. It could be better to go along a similar path to the List of The Flash characters. The article would be made smaller in size that way purely by the ommision of all the table code and it would keep it all in one place/--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Disney derivative

Should it maybe be noted in the led section that a lot of the character appearing are Disney's own interpetations seen previously in Disney films and TV series (and even some Disney original characters like Anna and Elsa who were not in the original fairy tail)?★Trekker (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Storybrooke and Hyperion Heights should have pages

I think both have become prominent enough that they deserve to have their own pages on Wikipedia. Storybrooke at the very least should be eligible. (Tyrian Watts (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Once_Upon_a_Time_(TV_series)/Archive_1&oldid=1228815554"