Talk:Once, Upon Time

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Once, Upon Time article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Doctor Who Mid‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Craig Parkinson on Casting

In response to TheDoctorWho, The reason Craig Parkinson is not as important as the rest of the cast mentioned on that bit is because it contains the three only main characters and then a recurring character from a previous series of the show that is a noteworthy mention as it's a "big return" if you like.

Also as a side note why is my change of the word "Series" to "Episode" and the bit with John Bishop also being reverted? Panda815 (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The specific section here is for casting. Therefore, any and all casting information related to the episode can go there. There is no specific guideline, MOS, or rule that limits it to series regulars and recurring cast members only. From a technical standpoint, the infobox is actually supposed to summarize the contents of the article and not the other way round. Meaning any information in the infobox is subject to verification through other parts of the article. Can I ask if you're objecting a list of guest stars here, then why not on the series article? If it's not important enough to list here then surely not enough to list there?

Apologies for the revert of the other part of the edit, it just unfortunately happened to be collateral. It can be reinstated as its not being objected to while the discussion of Parkinson takes place here. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not objecting to a list of guest stars in the cast part. In the main series article there is a long list of casting which goes across the series and that is sourced by a large press release that announced all the cast. I'm saying that adding the bit about Craig Parkinson isn't a good idea because it doesn't add any value to what's been said.

Having the list of cast on the series page gives a fuller overview of the series which is the point of the series article and also no cast besides the main three members have been mentioned up until that point, however, we already know that the episode features a guest appearance from Craig Parkinson through the rest of the article so it's basically copying a statement that has already been made just not quite as explicitly in other places.

Does that answer your questions? Panda815 (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can it not add any value to what's been said when nothing has been said? I understand that you're not objecting on the main series article, but more asking why you're not; it doesn't make sense that you're okay with a list of guest stars in one location, and not in another.

As for my other point, again the Infobox is supposed to summarize the contents of the article. A good way to ask yourself if its doing that is: If I remove the Infobox from the page am I removing any content from the article? If we were to remove both the SOURCED statement that I added AND the Infobox, there is nothing there stating that Parkinson is in the episode, so no, we don't already know. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with it on the series page as it gives an overview of cast for the series which as I said in my last comment was what the series page was supposed to do.

We know from the plot that there is a character called the Grand Serpent and from the Infobox that it he is played by Craig Parkinson. I don't quite understand why you think that the Infobox is supposed to summarise the article when the Infobox is the first thing you see BEFORE the rest of the article. Typically a summary occurs after the event it is summarising not the other way round Panda815 (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well just as the the list on the series page gives an overview of the cast for the series, an episode page is supposed to give an overview of the cast for individual episodes. As for why I think that, its in MOS:INFOBOX which is a guideline every article should follow: "An infobox is a panel [...] that summarizes key features of the page's subject."

The reason its placed before or alongside the rest of the article is exactly because its a summary, just as the lead paragraph summarizes the article. Should we put the lead at the end of the article because its a summary and "summaries occur after the event"? Absolutely not, same goes for the infobox. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok it is fair enough then that the info does belong in the article to a certain extent. Is there any other place we could move it to just to make it seem less dropped in and out of place and a bit more comfortable?

If not shall we add all the rest of the guest stars with this source: https://cultbox.co.uk/news/headlines/doctor-who-flux-once-upon-time-guest-cast-list

? Panda815 (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casting really seems to be the best place for it to me, I'm personally indifferent on adding the rest, if you want to add the rest I won't stop you. TheDoctorWho (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a fair conclusion to make, looking back through a few other episode articles, it does seem like guest cast are credited like so, so I think I’ll leave it as it is. Panda815 (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Lowest rated episode"

An editor called Alex21 has begun an edit war claiming that this article states this episode "was the lowest ever". Alex21 has written "Does BARB specifically say "it was the lowest ever"? No". Since the article does not state this, they removed it incorrectly. What the article does state is that this is the lowest rated episode since the series returned in 2005 and BARB fully supports that with the data provided from their website. Thus it is a valid statement and the source fully supports the validity. I fear Alex21 is determined to begin an edit war and insist their narrative is the only one in the article. Their first deletion was done that it could not be 'undone', clearly indicating an intention to shut any attempt to reinstate the correct statement down. 5.51.178.251 (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21: pinging just so they're aware.

As correct as that statement may be Alex is correct. The source does not explicitly state that this episode had the lowest consolidated figures since 2005. The source only gives numbers. To draw the conclusion that it is the lowest consolidated figures you have combined different parts of the source (i.e. every separate week that an episode of Doctor Who has aired from 2005 until now) which is a clear violation of WP:SYNTHESIS because it is original research. If you have a source that directly supports the content then by all means please add it back. Unless you do, other editors, myself included, will continue to revert.

As a side note Alex is not an administrator and cannot prevent you from editing whether that be through a block or via page protection. The reason that you couldn't undo the edit was most likely due to intermediate conflicting edits to surrounding areas of the page. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]