Jump to content

Talk:Once Upon a Time season 5

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

Adding the Dark Swan alter ego to the Season 5 article

[edit]

Given what happened at the conclusion of Season 4, it seems to me as if the Season 5 article ought to reference the fact that Emma is now the Dark Swan (Dark One) by including that designator under the "Main Cast" heading. Thoughts?DigificWriter (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

isn't that a fan designation? I haven't heard anyone official say it. Also Rumple was never put down as the dark one. It will be explained in the plot and episode summaries. --Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jennifer Morrison has used the designator several times, and it's become an official part of ABC's Season 5 marketing campaign, so, no, it's not just something that was dreamt up by the fans. As far as Rumple not being listed as the Dark One is concerned, though, the difference between him and Emma is that, in Emma's case, that designator is being treated as an alter-ego for her, as is evidenced by the way that Adam, Eddy, and others have spoken about this new direction for the character, whereas with Rumple, it was not (his official alter-ego being Mr. Gold).DigificWriter (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DigificWriter: I've added it with the Comic-Con source as it seems pretty much official at this point.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too Many Images

[edit]

The 3 images in the development section is too much considering the size of the section which means we need to lose one of them.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 22:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is specific regulation against it, I strongly disagree. The more visual aid the better. LLArrow (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I brought it up is because on my screen, the Merida poster is messing with the ratings table below, so it is more of a "too many images for the amount of text right now" type of thing, obviously as the season progress and more characters are cast/return, then we can add in more.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 23:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright now, I've shrunken the images to accommodate. As the season progresses we can adjust accordingly. LLArrow (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged this article with excessive non-free content usage. Unless extreme rationale can be found for them adhering to WP:NFCC, this tag will not be removed and the non-free content will be up for WP:FFD. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging J Milburn. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the production company has released promotional images for the series as a whole, a single promotional image is potentially a useful addition. LLArrow, your "more visual aids the better" philosophy gets it completely the wrong way around. We shouldn't be trying to work out how many images we can get away with, but how few. IndianBio, you may want to nominate some of these images at FFD or NFR. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed excessive image. LLArrow (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to change Weekly viewership rank to Weekly (18-49) rank

[edit]

As many of you no doubt know, this show doesn't rate high enough in viewers to be reported on the weekly viewership Nielsen tables. However it does rank high enough to make the 18-49 tables most weeks. I would like to propose that the weekly viewership rank be changed to Weekly (18-49) rank so we're not left with a huge gap on the table(See Season 4 table). It makes a lot more sense to do this, as the table currently lacks an 18-49 ranking section. Can we get some kind of consensus on this? 86.14.62.209 (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they exsit then yes, judging by last season's table, we do not need that column for weekly anymore.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem comes down to CBS shows dominating the weekly viewership Nielsen rankings as they attract a large amount of older viewers. Where as this show usually does better in the 18-49 demographic(Which is more important anyway) and pretty much always places on the Weekly 18-49 Top 25. If you feel like changing it, you can copy paste the Weekly 18-49 template text from the Season 4 table onto the Season 5 one, it should only take like 10 seconds at most. 86.14.62.209 (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References in the Cast Section

[edit]

@AlexTheWhovian and Brocicle: Does it matter where they are? All cast members are listed in detail with sources in the casting section at the bottom of the page anyway, so its not like the entire page is unsourced.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditto51 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 30 September 2015

2 hour episode

[edit]

So how do we treat this? Currently we have episode 8 (presumably, I used the logic of every Sunday) as this episode. Do we treat it like Smash the Mirror like last season (in which case we may need to look over the 100th episode stuff) or do we treat it as one until we get further confirmation?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The latter option - we treat is as just the one episode until we get further confirmation. Alex|The|Whovian 15:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexTheWhovian: And what do we do about this? I am so confused now...--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
408 needs to be counted as one episode, in every sense of the word, then the chronology will align. LLArrow (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah let's not start that again... Even here Adam is acknowledge acknowledging that StM is two episodes (saying that schematics of how the episodes were funded. And from what I can gather, it looks like it might be two episodes on one night and so it will be exactly like StM only each episode with a different name.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 22:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only suggested it because it is the easiest solution; it is just semantics; and no one would really care. That's my 2-cents-worth, but I'm fine with however this mess is sorted out. LLArrow (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we would care, because we'd be introducing factual errors. Alex|The|Whovian 02:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more opinion than fact. After all the creator of the show called the matter "semantics". But I digress. Good on those who figure this one out. LLArrow (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to tvline the 100th episode is the start of 5B. Scroll down a bit, its the final bit on the article. 86.15.195.121 (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC) http://tvline.com/2015/10/09/once-upon-a-time-hooks-father-season-5/[reply]
That was already apparent. LLArrow (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been searching around on Twitter and the usual sites and it seems like there may be a title after Broken Heart. Though many websites have been calling it a two hour episode, is it possible they could be mistaken and it's infact two seperate episodes, with two seperate titles airing on the same day? 86.15.195.121 (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is old news. The question is how to get the table to reflect the twelfth episode as #100. LLArrow (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, this is so confusing. I don't think it's possible to add another title to the page without calling it Episode 100. You would likely have to go back to Smash the Mirror and merge the episodes and call it a feature length story that was split into two parts and mention how it aired over two episodes or something. 86.15.195.121 (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I can add my 2c. I think the confusion comes to the fact that "Smash the Mirror" is appeared as two episodes in matter of viewing (the official site had it as two episodes) but on production point of view as one episode with two parts (see the production codes). They created it as one and it was separated later as two episodes. That was the confusion to start with last season and the back and forth changing/war editing. That's why the confusion comes back now. If we keep going with the viewing count, then the 100th episode won't agree with the one Adam and the production team count as 100th. Most probably the two hour episode will once again be two separated episodes in viewing count. The question is if we follow the way the producers count or the way the episodes appear on the official site and probably the DVDs as well. I would go with the viewing count because it's the way that can be cross checked in the future with the DVDs since references are getting removed when an episode airs. Unless if Adam's tweets are kept on the article and have lots of notes explaining what's going on. TeamGale (talk) 08:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We could always add a note like what we have for Smash the Mirror, explaining that the 100th episode is from a production POV and not from the actual view count.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 08:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we could do that as well. And probably also add to the "Smash the Mirror" note that in production the episode counts as one? Even though that shows in the production codes. I don't know. Just right now, in production POV, we have an episode more on Wikipedia and as I see it we'll have one more with the new 2-hour episode. So their 100th we'll be our 102nd. That's why the whole confusion. We just need to decide which way of counting we'll be following and adding notes when it's needed. TeamGale (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From how I read it, it sounded more like the two hours will be two episodes with different titles, and even if not, the way Adam explained it is definitively different from the way he explained it last year as last year he said that there were 23 episodes to the season then announced StM being two episodes, whereas this year he simply announced a two hour episode.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 09:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been mulling it over and I believe that it is imperative that we somehow align the episode counts to match the 100th. It's just far too monumental to over look, and it will become a chronological/logistical nightmare as time goes on. It may even be nesccary to make two seperate episode counts, for series and season. One reflecting DVD/ABC, the other production/Adam. This is in addition to the erroneous Production Codes. LLArrow (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ditto51 Yeah, I remember that he said it was two episodes but they kept counting it as one with two parts as production. It's where the whole confusion started. And as it seems, it will keep going on for every season now and it will become a nightmare as LLArrow says. Maybe the best solution is to create separated columns; one for production counting and one for viewing counting as mentioned above. I just hope it won't get very confusing with the numbers. How could it be done? Breaking the "series" column into two? The season column can be left as it is I think since every season starts counting from beginning... It will be too much to have four columns in my opinion. What do you think? TeamGale (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LLArrow: I know. The way it is right now we are saying that episode 100 will be the spring preimere with a 10/12 split, but the episode table says that episode 100 will be within the first ten episodes of the season. @TeamGale: If creating an extra column is possible, then we could always place a note at the top of the column explaining why we have the extra column. But we also have to consider that these tables are standard across the previous 4 seasons as well, so we would have to do some major retooling to get List of Episodes page looking right. And we would want a note on each table, but we wouldn't need a note on the season pages for the first three seasons.
Coding related question to see if anyone knows, could we mix <!-- with <noinclude> to make it so that the note only shows up on the list of episode page or would that not work?
<noinclude><!--</noinclude>Note<noinclude>--></noinclude>
--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ditto51: It would seem that it would. Have you tested this theory in sandbox or elsewhere? LLArrow (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried and since they are preset you cannot add another column. We could include separated differences in the overall series number (i.e. "100/102") and include an explanatory note of course. I don't know guys, I'm just spit balling here. LLArrow (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't figure out the table, we could always either:
  1. Ask the template people to add in another column
  2. Or we could just put the note on the episode itself and just say that this is considered the 100th episode as it was considered as such by the Production team.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also to answer LLArrow's question, the noinclude thing worked, as shown here (Coding Page) and here (Test to see what the code looks like).--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 19:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I say we do option two; make an exception for the 100th, with a note. LLArrow (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So something like:
"While listed as episode 101 (presuming either one episode or two separate episodes as opposed to a 2-parter) / episode 102 (if it is a two parter), the production staff? treated it as episode 100 as [[Smash the Mirror]] was produced as a single episode during the previous season."
What do you think?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good. A bit long winded, but that's to be expected. I would remove the word "team" though. LLArrow (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Change it to however you like, that way we can all work on one and get one that we all agree on.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only issue I have is the word "team". "Production team" insinuates that it was a group decision and it's far too specific. "Production" is a very general term that allows for undisclosed legroom. However, we should wait for others to weigh in before settling/publishing. LLArrow (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two separated columns was an idea. I am not much of a technician to help with it :/ I think asking to change the whole template from people who know how to do it is too much. So if it's not working then I agree we should go with the note or under the series column have two numbers as LLArrow mentioned (100/102) and add note at the top saying that the first number indicates the production numbering and the second the viewing one... We need to find a solution that will apply to the future as well so we won't have to make extra notes every season. Cause if they keep doing that every season then the difference between the production/viewing count will be getting bigger and bigger. TeamGale (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LLArrow, TeamGale, and AlexTheWhovian: So do we want to get this sorted then? Adam's has just announced the 100th episode (by our count) title, so a note might be needed for the people who are going to try and attach the spring premiere to to.
Actually, does that work? Episode 100 is episode 11 of the season which is the same as what Adam said with the 10/12 split. Am I going insane or does that seem to work right now?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New Question! Adam's tweet that revealed episode 11's title as "Swan Song" also confirmed it to be the mid-season finale, which means the series isn't being split 10/12. Maybe the extra hour is an extra hour and so the split is 11/12 with two of the currently revealed episodes being released as a two parter. Make sense to anyone?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The episode could be numbered @$$ at this point. I'm completely indifferent. Frankly the issue is taken far too seriously here. The creators of the show could care less, I fail to see why we must. If it were up to me; go back, renumber 408 as 408A and 409 as 408B, and the whole mess is over. LLArrow (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we have to go back for the StM thing then so be it, but the season split thing is slightly more important as Adam's tweet confirms "Swan Song" to be both episode 11 of the season and the mid-season finale, which does not compute with his early statement of a season split into a 10 episode and a 12 episode run. Because right now we have Adam calling episode 11 both the mid-season finale and mid-season preimere (his 10/12 split tweet saying premiere, his recent tweet of the episode title saying finale).--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fairly evident that there will be 23 episodes this season, just as last, the only difference being no "Part 1", "Part 2" installments, just individual episodes (i.e. "Birth" and "The Bear King" will air on November 15). LLArrow (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the numbering on the episodes area has been changed, I've changed the numbering on the ratings table. However, someone will need to go through all of the season pages to change the numbering to keep it consistent. 86.15.195.121 (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Alex|The|Whovian 22:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Manual of Style Change that will effect this article

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television § Addendum to the Cast section

This is just a notice that there is currently a discussion on the "number of episodes each character has appeared in brackets" that will likely see them removed. In case anyone wants to voice their opposition or support to this, head over to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Addendum to the Cast section.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colour palette for 5B

[edit]

Me and another user currently disagree over which colour palette should be used for season 5B. The current colour of a dark burgundy is one option and a neutral black is the other. I believe that black should be used given that this season black has been featured prominently on both posters (5A and 5B), and considering season three already features a red palette. The argument for red is that it is showcased in the 5B poster, therefore that should be reflected in the article. Please present your 2-cents. Thank you, LLArrow (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OUAT split seasons

[edit]

Greetings, fellow Oncers. After having my edit reverted twice by different users, I am coming here for support. My edit made at 10:13, 31 January 2016 added a "Part 1/Part 2" dividing section into the season 3, 4 and 5 episode tables to show the seasonal eleven episode split that has taken place since season 3. It has been stated on numerous occasions by the writers and official media that every season since season 3 is split definitively into two parts each consisting of eleven episodes. This split allows the writers to dramatically change the story of the season and introduce a new overarching plot (e.g. Season 4A: Frozen, Season 4B: Queens of Darkness), with each half concluded with either a mid-season/winter finale episode or an end-season finale episode. Below are just three written sources that directly quote executive producers and creators Adam and Eddy. Media also refers to the split seasons as Season xA/xB (e.g. here and here).

  • IB Times: "'The hundredth episode for us — and the second half of the [fifth] season' ... Kitsis said."; "promotional video for the second half of Season 5"; "Milah ... will be reappearing in the second half of the season"
  • Hollywood Reporter: "The second half of the season ... says executive producer Eddy Kitsis"; "'We will see [Henry's] book. It will come into play in the second half of the season' Kitsis said"
  • Entertainment Weekly: "For two years now, Once Upon a Time has adhered to the same formula: bifurcated seasons, with each half focused on taking down a new baddie (or three). By the final episode of every arc, that villain has been soundly defeated, making room for the next one to enter the picture—preferably via a teaser that comes at the end of that episode."

I have come here to gain support for this change for the season 3, 4 and 5 articles, along with any future season articles so that this change can remain in place and not be reverted. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 23:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they refer to the seasons as split halves... But so do the other ABC TV shows. Take Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., and other TV series, for example. We should not implement such a major change just because 2 halves of the same season are aired during different times of the year. Also, Once Upon a Time's Season 1 and 2 can't really be neatly divided into halves, another reason why we shouldn't carry out this change. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seasons 1 and 2 are the exception as there is only a single overarching storyline throughout the season. The storyline split seasons format was only introduced in season 3. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 02:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's true as well. Adopting the proposed change would create complications for those seasons. And since other TV shows that air on ABC also have the "split season" format, we really shouldn't reformat the episode list. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If my position was unclear before allow me to spit shine it; I'm absolutely against creating split tables for seasons 2-5 and beyond. LLArrow (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons? Alex|The|Whovian? 06:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought it was obvious. The redundancy and inaccuracy of the notion. If it were like Breaking Bad season five, and was sold and marketed as two completely different halves, then I'd say you have a case, but it isn't. This is mere scheduling fodder, and a colossal waste of time and energy. LLArrow (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with what everyone says. There is no need to split the seasons. Every TV show is split in two with one half airing before Christmas holidays naming the last episode as "mid-season finale" and the second half afterwards. Just because on OUAT they have the opportunity to create to different main stories in each half, doesn't mean we have to split it. As LLArrow says, if the two parts were sold and marketed separated like Breaking Bad then yes, we should do it. But not at the moment. Just my 2c. TeamGale (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Episodes for Season 5

[edit]

I originally posted this on the talk page for the List of Episodes page, but it seemed like nobody was seeing it, so I thought maybe it would make more sense here. The list of episodes page for the series still says that Season 5 is 22 episodes. However, this no longer seems to be the case. Back at SDCC, Adam and Eddy originally specified that the split would be 10/12, so that the 100th episode could air as the Spring premiere. However, then ABC asked them to do an extra episode during the first half of the Season, "The Bear King", so plans changed. Originally they were going to count "Smash the Mirror" as two episodes, but then they went back to considering it one episode, as it is technically all produced under 408. Adam has tweeted several times since the end of October that Season 5 will now be 23 episodes, with 12 episodes airing for 5B. It looks like when "The Bear King" was added, that didn't change 5B being 12 episodes long as originally planned:

https://twitter.com/AdamHorowitzLA/status/659260312244215808 https://twitter.com/AdamHorowitzLA/status/674841621444165632 https://twitter.com/AdamHorowitzLA/status/674864535639973888 https://twitter.com/AdamHorowitzLA/status/692593287836729344 https://twitter.com/AdamHorowitzLA/status/693533694376562688 https://twitter.com/AdamHorowitzLA/status/693567901140393985

Jane Espenson also confirmed 23 episodes, when asked:

https://twitter.com/JaneEspenson/status/666026144416665601

And here's Adam clarifying in an article that "The Bear King" was an extra episode:

"Horowitz: When we were asked to do the additional episode, it wasn’t part of the initial plan to make it a two-hour story, but what we did do is, we found what we hope is a really engaging story for both of the episodes — and there is a connective tissue between them, but they tell two separate stories. But one pushes right into the other one and kind of takes a left turn a little bit, but we think it’s a lot of fun."

Source: http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/once-upon-a-time-hades-100th-episode-emma-saves-hook-1201640947/

Just last night, Adam further clarified that there is a 523 episode planned, when asked:

https://twitter.com/AdamHorowitzLA/status/696224077049044992

So shouldn't the episode count be changed to 23 episodes now? I can understand the initial confusion, after what happened with "Smash the Mirror" last Season, but Adam has since said that the 23rd episode will be counted as such this time around. 69.122.183.181 (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if Horowitz is saying that 5x23 is in production, then there's 23 episodes. Does this mean that the season is being split 11/12? Alex|The|Whovian? 22:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a 11/12 split now. Many of the sourced tweets from Adam Horowitz even specify "12 more episodes." I explained why the 2nd half is 12 episodes in my post above. The split was originally going to be 10/12, but then episode 509 "The Bear King" was added as an additional episode for the first half, as I also explained above with the appropriate sources. So the 2nd half was always 12 episodes, and based on what Adam Horowitz is saying, that hasn't changed. Therefore, shouldn't the List of Episodes page be updated to reflect that confirmation? It still says "22 episodes", which is now inaccurate.69.122.183.181 (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Co-stars

[edit]

Although Futon has all the actors as guests in the press for each ep, not everyone is credited in the guest starring bill cause they are credited in the co-starring bill during the end credits. Why can't we just clear up the confusion in the recurring or guest section. That page didn't have the co-stars until somebody added them.97.106.151.168 (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because Futon lists everyone as guest stars, we simply split them between that of people who have appeared in more than three or four episodes as recurring cast and those who appear in less than that as guest. Simple as. We've never done co-stars so why would we suddenly start now?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 08:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The actual show's credits take precedence over Futon, so if someone is credited as a co-star in an episode, they're co-stars, not guest stars. If they get guest star credit at some point they may be notable enough to include. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, where do you credit a co-star? Not in guest, as you say, but not in main, because they're not credited in the opening credits. We obviously need to group them together somehow, else we'll end up with main, recurring, guest, guest starring, special guest, co-star, etc, etc. Alex|The|Whovian? 09:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who are the co-stars, so I don't know, are any of them notable enough to be mentioned and never get a guest star credit? nyuszika7h (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The main page was fine until a user keeps vandalising it with co-star. Time for a cleanup and remove the Futon refs.S hannon434 (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Once_Upon_a_Time_season_5&oldid=1216314835"