Talk:The Umbrella Academy (TV series)

Kraken

Kraken is Ben, not Diego — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C0:4080:2110:D5FB:E9AE:D153:D12A (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

No, but it would seem so for the allusion of tentacles with a kraken (octopus). In both the TV-Series and the Comics Ben is "The Horror" and Diego is "The Kraken".84.164.206.39 (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Split the page?

Should the page be split into articles for seasons? It seems like its an important show with enough information to do so, but I'm not really sure what the baseline is for splitting pages. SirLou (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@SirLou: Hi, Lou. I'm not sure if you've thought about this in a while, or you might know by now, that television series usually have both an article for the whole series, and one for individual seasons. For example, think about Game of Thrones and Game of Thrones (season 1). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 02:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It is not enough to split right now. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Note that Draft:The Umbrella Academy (season 1) Draft:The Umbrella Academy (season 2) and Draft:The Umbrella Academy (season 3) were submitted to AfC which is not the correct place deciding to split. They have all been declined until consensus to split is made. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Seriously?

Bowman114 even though it seems most likely that you're trolling, per WP:BRD this needs to move to the talk page, although I don't know what we can discuss. Please go and purchase a clock that has a 12-hour setting and see what it says at midday. Or go ask literally any person who understands the 12-hour clock. -- Fyrael (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, I will grant you that in theory 12 PM could be considered an oxymoron because at the moment it strikes 12 is the meridian that we are already claiming to be "post". It's a neat thought. Still doesn't invalidate a time of day that billions of people already understand. -- Fyrael (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Viktor/Elliot Pronouns

These should be changed to he/him, and used in perpetuity. 2601:8D:8700:3AF0:94AE:C020:2B22:5EDE (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

We should refer to Vanya when she is referred to that way in the series and Viktor when he is referred to that way. It makes no sense to describe him as Viktor in episodes where he is Vanya. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this is an interesting question. WP text about Elliot never uses she/her pronouns per MOS:GENDERID, and if Viktor were a real person, WP would also use his name and current pronouns throughout. But as far as we know, Viktor is a fictional character, so MOS:GENDERID does not apply, strictly speaking. However, my suspicion is that given the parallels between the actor and the character in this case, the community might eventually decide to apply GENDERID-like principles (although we might not do the same in the case of, say, Woolf's Orlando). What do others think? Newimpartial (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I think in cases like these, it makes no sense to retrospectively change a character's name in a plot summary. If Page's character was referred to as Vanya in a given episode, then that is the name that should be used in the summary. We are recording what actually happened in the episode, and indeed in some cases, like Vanya's liaison with Sissy, the fact that she identified as female at that time is integral to the plot. The transition is explained under the "Cast and characters" heading and in the summary of the episode in which it happened. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, there are competing goals/multiple principles here. If the goal is no-spoilers plot summary (which is a goal, though not especially an encyclopedic one) then we would certainly always want to use the character name that is referenced within each episode. However, another goal is to reflect the highest quality of critical commentary, and I am confident that much of this - at various stages of publication - is already treating Viktor as a character whose unified arc begins at the beginning of the series and continues through season 3. So if the best sources apply the name retrospectively, aren't we supposed to follow them? Newimpartial (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

A plot summary is a description of what happened in that episode, and should not rewrite what happened based on subsequent events. Sometimes the gender of the person at that time is relevant. It would actually be incorrect to say that Viktor identified as male (and to use his male name and pronouns) in the summary of (for example) season 2, episode 6, because he was not identifying as a male when he made love to Sissy in the car. It would actually make a nonsense of the plot to say that "Viktor made love to Sissy". Nor was he identifying as male in any episode prior to season 3, episode 2. It's not a question of spoilers. The unified arc is dealt with in other parts of the article; his transition is covered under "Cast and characters" in the main article (which comes before the plot summaries) and in the in-depth List of The Umbrella Academy characters where his story arc is explained. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't pretend to have any expertise in writing episode summaries, but another option that would communicate the same information would be to use the current character name but to give a parenthetical explanation or a footnote providing the name that is used in the episode. This is what we would do if it were not a fictional character, and the person's deadname or gender presentation at the time were relevant to the events described in WP article text.

Also note that the edits we are talking about are actually this and this which involve character blurbs rather than plot summaries. I am not at all convinced that our readers are well served by the use of deadnames (without footnotes, even) in these cases. Newimpartial (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Well there is a policy on the use of deadnames when the person has been primarily known under that previous name. Indeed, following that policy, Elliot Page's deadname is given in his article as "born as". If he had become famous subsequent to his transition, it would not be. But this is a fictional character, so none of the issues such as outing etc. apply. Harlan was never friends with Viktor. He was friends with Vanya. That is simply a factual recounting of what happened in that series. He was friends with a woman, not a man. It is altering the plot to say that he was friends with a man, just as it's altering the plot to say that Sissy made love with a man in the car.

Normally we get around this problem by using the person's surname. But in this case we can't do that. I suppose that we could say "Viktor (then a female known as Vanya)" every time he is mentioned, but that seems a little clunky to me. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I am waiting for other editors to weigh in or even for new sources to emerge. But I don't really see any difference between your statement that He was friends with a woman, not a man about Viktor and the equivalent statement about Elliot (except that one is fictional). When it comes to human biography, we do not interpret the factual recounting of what happened as requiring that we use the deadname or the pre-transition pronouns - that is not what we do at Elliot Page or in any other biographical article. Also, it is not necessarily the case that we get around this problem by using the person's surname - this widely-participated RfC determined that the primary information we provide in relation to trans people's pre-transition works or achievements is their post-transition name, not their deadname (which can, however, be included in a footnote or parentheses as appropriate). Newimpartial (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, as far as other editors weighing in - I was the one who brought up the topic and who also added this edit some days ago. See explanation for said edit in the notes. I honestly think both you and the previous poster make good points, and that's why I haven't proceeded with other edits after that. I can only really speak from personal experience for this topic - when speaking about events that happened with a trans person's past, we typically do use their current identity and pronouns, even if people involved were interacting with that person pre-transition - we treat those people as if they've been transgender their entire lives, even if they weren't presenting that way the whole time.

However, is it a spoiler that Vanya is now Viktor? On the other side, is it relevant to the descriptions of past episodes? Does it increase the accuracy of the article to change all mentions of Viktor's past pronouns? Normally I would say treat those event descriptions the same way we discuss events that happened in the actor's past, but does that apply to fictional storylines? I think in this case, the difficulty comes with the separation of different seasons. Hope this made sense and was of some help. 2601:8D:8700:3AF0:A174:2122:4467:830F (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Why not start an RfC? It sounds like a suggestion to expand the scope of MOS:GENDERID to fictional characters... my opinion is currently osscilating wildly between "sounds reasonable" and "sounds bonkers", and I can't seem to make up my mind yet.  Tewdar  15:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the main difference is WP:BLP. When a real person transitions, it is of course correct to change all references to that person to the new name and pronouns, as has been done with Elliot Page. But this is different. In giving a plot summary of a piece of fiction, we are essentially telling a story. If you are telling a story and you reach a point where a character known as Joe transitions to Jane, you don't stop telling the story and go back and start again, changing all references to Joe to Jane and altering pronouns. The story simply continues through its arc. And you refer to Jane going forward. This is especially true when, as in the case of Vanya/Viktor, the gender of character at a particular point in time is essential to the plot. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely a reasonable argument against the idea...  Tewdar  16:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, we might want to follow the sources as they develop rather than reasonable arguments, but I'm certainly interested in hearing from more editors on this.

If we were to have an RfC, my likely !vote would be to follow the sources in each case, because I am not convinced at the moment that the treatment that is correct for Orlando would fit The Umbrella Academy and vice versa. Newimpartial (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The sources refer to Vanya pre-series 3 ep.2. It really is that simple. The existin sources sources aren't going to change. Future sources that refer to previous series might say something like "Vanya (now known as Viktor)" or even "Viktor (previously known as Vanya)", but the sources that exist accurately relate the plot, and trace Vanya's journey to becoming Victor.

And that's the point. If the authors aven't gone back and rewritten the plot, why would we? The plot of the show is the plot of the show, and as part of that, one character begins as a woman and becomes a man. It's part of the story, and we should not presume to rewrite that story when we relate the plot in a Wikipedia article. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

What you are making is essentially an WP:OR argument based on the PRIMARY source (and fairly ROUTINE and time-bound coverage thereof). What I am saying is, if this way of referring to the character in the first two seasons becomes common among the better sources, then it would make sense to follow them. Newimpartial (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any (non-fandom) examples of sources that have developed a different way of describing the events of previous series in plot summaries that we might follow? IMDB, for example, does not seem to have done this.  Tewdar  17:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This is an example of what my WP:CRYSTAL ball tells me to expect from the better sources, going forward. Newimpartial (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between commentators talking about the show in general and referring to the character by his current name and outlining the plot of the show as it happened. Are there any examples of WP:RS going back and updating their plot summaries of the show to³ refer to Viktor in episodes when he was Vanya? Lard Almighty (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to dispute the premise, but the relevant sources (for our character descriptions, which is mostly the text we have been discussing here) are not only plot summaries. You have been arguing that the character descriptions for other characters should not refer to Viktor by that name for earlier seasons. What I am saying is more holistic in its sourcing than just "plot summaries" - discussion of the earlier seasons by critics is already shifting to Viktor. Newimpartial (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Well in sections that refer to general discussions of the show (e.g. Reception), if the sources refer to Viktor then we should too. In fact, we should refer to Viktor everywhere except where it is inaccurate to do so. That includes plot summaries and character summaries where Viktor was Vanya at the time (e.g. her affair with Sissy, which is mentioned in Sissy's character summary and which was a lesbian affair, a fact that is central to the plot). To call him Viktor when specifically alluding to a time that he was Vanya in the context of an unchanging fictional storyline makes no sense. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: To call him Viktor when specifically alluding to a time that he was Vanya in the context of an unchanging fictional storyline makes no sense - this is your "OR" personal opinion, though. The Hollywood Reporter RS I linked to above already disputes this in practice; when enough of the newer sources do so, we ought to follow them IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Not at all, it's what the majority of WP:RS are doing as far as I can see. You can always find one that is the exception that proves the rule. What is WP:OR is changing the plot of a TV series to suit our own biases, which is basically what we are discussing here. Vanya had a lesbian affair with Sissy. Nothing can change that basic fact which, as I say, is central to the plot. We don't have to slavishly follow the sources if it doesn't make sense to do so. Sources can get it wrong. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear: if this were a BLP and not a fictional element, we would set aside all sources published pre-transition, when determining the correct name to use, and base the WP article terminology on sources published after transition. I mention this not because I am confused about fiction vs. reality (in fact, I have reverted edits to Juno (film) by editors who may have held a parallel confusion). I mention this because we would not say the equivalent of Vanya had a lesbian affair with Sissy if we were discussing a living person, and in doing so we would not be getting it wrong.

So what I am saying is, if and when the sources published since the character Viktor transitioned refer to the pre-transition character also as Viktor and use he/him pronouns, we should then follow suit on grounds of WP:V and in alignment with community consensus on WP. In doing so we would not be getting anything wrong whatsoever, as you appear to believe. Newimpartial (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

But it's not a WP:BLP. That's the whole point! This is a fictional story that remains unchanged in its history even as the characters change. We don't actually say Vanya had a lesbian affair with Sissy; it is implied by the characters' genders (at the time), which is precisely why it is so important that in referring to those events we refer to Vanya and not Viktor.

So referring to Viktor in that context does risk misleading readers (getting it wrong in other words). People who relied only on Wikipedia for their information about the show might assume it was a heterosexual affair. We can't simply rewrite a piece of fiction, and if otherwise WP:RS do so we don't need to rely on them. As I say, there is a huge difference between a fictional character and a real person, the main ne being that there is no one to out here by referring to him by what would be considered a deadname in real life. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a whole lot of original argumentation. The idea that a fictional story - unlike human life stories -remains unchanged in its history even as the characters change is a thing you are asserting without any supporting evidence, at this point.

And I am not asserting the contrary of that. What I am saying is that, if and when the RS end up treating Viktor in their coverage the same way RL trans characters are treated, we don't have a policy-based reason not to follow the sources. Newimpartial (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The policy is WP:BLP. We treat fictional characters (and dead people) differently to how we treat living ones. And yes, stories remain unchanged. I can think of no instance where a character goes through major change in a story arc (transitioning, becoming disabled, changing careers etc.) where Wikipedia goes back and changes an entire article to reflect the characters new status. It would be nonsensical to do so. If character X becomes disabled and needs a wheelchair from a certain point in a story, we wouldn't go back and put them in a wheelchair before that happened. Likewise, we shouldn't go back and alter other aspects of a character just because something about them changes. That is not WP:OR; it's the only sensible thing to do, whatever otherwise WP:RS might choose to do. As I said, if we can find a way to qualify it as I describe below, that's fine. But we are an encyclopaedia and we record things as they happened. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2022

I don't think you've really understood what I'm saying, here. It isn't the case that we are an encyclopaedia and we record things as they happened except that We treat fictional characters (and dead people) differently to how we treat living ones. You are apparently missing the principle underlying all of this: we treat all subjects according to the quality, reliable sources taken as a whole. If all recent, reliable scholarship about Woolf's Orlando came to be written using they/them pronouns, for example, then the Wikipedia article on that novel would also be expected to use they/them pronouns, even though not one word of the text of that novel might have changed in 100 years. That is just how WP:V works. You seem to believe that Wikipedia articles should do what you, personally regard as the only sensible thing regardless of whatever otherwise WP:RS might choose to do, but that view has no basis in policy and actually runs counter to the WP:5P. Newimpartial (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. But it actually isn't about WP:RS in cases like these. Can you point to one example of an article about a work of fiction that has been changed in the way you suggest because some sources choose to refer to a character in a way that the author never intended? WP:BLP articles get changed of course, because we refer to living people by the names they choose and the genders that they are. That simply doesn't apply to fictional characters. An author writes a piece of fiction, and a Wikipedia article should outline what that piece of fiction is about without introducing our own biases or those of some sources that may choose to do different. With Elliot Pasge we follow WP:BLP. With Viktor Hargreaves we have no such constraints, which allows us the flexibility to look at what the sources say and strike a balance between accuracy in the storytelling and other considerations that may exist. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I am unaware of any works of fiction where anything like Victor's transition has happened, before, and been covered by sources in the way this is being covered. Generally speaking, trans characters have been introduced within the ambit of a single fictional work; they have not usually been revealed as trans in the third installment of a serial. So I watch the sources as they break new ground - or at least, treat such a situation in a more visible way than ever before.

But cases where the RS refer to a character in a way that the author never intended? That happens all the time in criticism. I am not an expert in the criticism of Orlando, but I imagine it has meandered quite a bit in the last century and will continue to do so. Also, I think you are being a bit too pat in referring to a way that the author never intended in the case of Viktor, as though each season were a distinct work with distinct authorship that set down its "author"'s intentions with some kind of finality. As Tewdar pointed out (in a comment at the end of this section), retcon is an established practice in serial fiction - the reveal that a character is actually transgender (the way a real person can be) isn't even a departure from prior continuity the way retcon is, so the idea that we should treat a fictional past as being more immutable than the past of real live humans is known to be - well, it strikes me as an eccentric view, and it certainly hasn't been backed up by any kind of evidence or sourcing. Newimpartial (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Newimpartial. Most of the recent sources I see describe events from seasons 1 and 2 using Viktor's name. It's not just "one exception". Following the sources, we should use "Viktor" in most places and clarify using footnotes, parentheticals, or in-line explanation to resolve any confusion (within reason). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

As I said, the sources I see use "Viktor" in general discussions, not regarding specific plot elements. It is right to refer to him as Viktor now, but not when it could confuse readers as to what actually happened in the series. We could of course say * Marin Ireland as Sissy Cooper (season 2; guest season 3), a friend and love interest of Viktor (then Vanya) who takes him in when Viktor arrives in the 1960s and is hit by her car. She is also Carl's wife and Harlan's mother. That isn't really what happened, but if we insist on rewriting the plot, it at least indicates the nature of what happened. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That's not the case. For example, the Hollywood Reporter source cited above, this piece, and [https://collider.com/umbrella-academy-season-3-viktor-transition-elliot-page/ this piece, both in Collider, reference specific plot elements using Viktor's name. I do think his relationship with Sissy is one of the places where we need to reference Viktor's pre-transition identity, maybe with even more than the short parenthetical. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

In the case of Collider, they preface the article by referring to Vanya's transition to Viktor, so people reading the article understand that prior to the start of season 3 Viktor was a woman. So it can be read in context. The issue for us is whether we can do the same, and if so how. It's a particular issue when referring to other characters and their relationship to Viktor. I am happy to refer to Viktor throughout as long as it doesn't mislead readers about what actually happened. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this discussion moving forward. As previously implied, I see this as a NODEADLINE situation where we have time to figure out the in-text language calmly (and I agree that more than a simple "then Vanya" may be required). Do the sources for Viktor use "then presenting as"-type language? I see that in this discussion, and I've seen it in other contexts, but I'm not sure whether I've seen it in RS in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I see this as a NODEADLINE... Except that people are going back and forth on an almost daily basis, so we do need to resolve it. I see the only real stumbling block now as being where reference is made in Sissy, Leonard, Grace and Harlan's character synopsis. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, we actually do retcon all some of the South Park episode summaries to refer to Tolkien Black, but then again, his name really was always Tolkien 😂  Tewdar  19:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's impossible to use the rules for real people in this case because of nature of Viktor. He never decided or understood that he is mail, as it happenes in real life. He just was not allowed to make this decision, exactly because he is a fictional character. The show creators and scenarists decided this for him, while before Elliot Page's announcement they probably even never thought that this can be an option for Vanya at any stage of her life. IKhitron (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Directed here from MOS:BIO. So.... if Warner Brothers (who now own Hannah-Barbera) decided 'today' that Fred & Wilma Flintstone are 'now' Fredericka & William (name & gender change), does that mean we'd have to 'erase' any mention of the names 'Fred' & 'Wilma' & that they were ever depicted as the genders, they're currently depicted as? GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has proposed to erase anything. The most interesting question for this hypothetical, I think, is if WB were to do such a thing, would the recent, reliable sources follow their lead? Newimpartial (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

This one refers to "Vanya", but with they/them/their pronouns, for the synopsis of seasons 1 & 2...  Tewdar  16:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the tv series. What was the name/gender during those first 2 seasons? GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Seasons 1 & 2: 'Vanya Hargreaves' (f) > Season 3: 'Viktor Hargreeves' (m). Some sources are also beginning to refer to 'Viktor Hargreeves' in seasons 1 & 2 now, even though that was not the character's name at the time.  Tewdar  18:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I see. I'd post more about it, but apparently one's not allowed. I thank you for 'not' closing my posts, btw :) GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion is certainly allowed, but it would be appreciated if you could refrain from referring to a trans or nonbinary character as "it". Oh, wait, that was a trans or nonbinary editor. Never mind. Newimpartial (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Ken George is suggesting we do that in Cornish now, to refer to non-binary people without putting 'they' on double-duty...  Tewdar  18:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing it didn't go down too well, though... 😂  Tewdar  19:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, though, 'it', with its universal use with inanimate entities in English, is unsuitable for this task...  Tewdar  19:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Came here from MOS:BIO. DEADNAME simply does not apply to fictional characters. Not because they are not BLPs, but because they have never been real people but elements in a story. It is absolutely not our place to rewrite any story. Any retroactive continuity requires reliable sources specifically supporting that that is what the creators intend; an off-hand use of a particular pronoun by a source or certain media outlets erring on the side of non-offensive will not cut it. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Re:Any retroactive continuity requires reliable sources specifically supporting that that is what the creators intend; an off-hand use of a particular pronoun by a source or certain media outlets erring on the side of non-offensive will not cut it. Agreed, with the caveat that a character coming out is not strictly a retcon situation - this is a normal plot development that happens all the time in real life as well as fiction. The standard isn't, though, what the creators intend; what matters is the state of the highest quality recent RS as a whole. But in general yes, we follow the sources not a specific rule IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I likely soon, will no longer be able to take part in this discussion. It's my recommendation that 'fictional characters' not be retconned. As that's a decision to be made via whatever gains a consensus? I will certainly keep watching, to see 'what' consensus emerges. GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to see the cage match between "fictional characters should not be retconned" and WP:V, but I don't think the former has much chance of leaving the Thunderdome. Newimpartial (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Ideally, I think we'd let this sit and check back in 6 months, 12 months, whatever, and see how RS were handling it. (In practice, I understand people will probably edit it back and forth endlessly.) One does wonder whether people who think we must only use the same names as are used in each episode are equally committed to ensuring that if a character is only addressed as "Mike" in Episode 1 of a show, and his name is not actually said at all in Episode 2, and he's only thereafter revealed to have the full name "Michael", the description of episode 1 has to say "Mike", the description of episode 2 has to describe his actions without naming him, and only after that can "Michael" be used...😂 -sche (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

We only "know" what we know as of each episode. Straightforward solution is to refer to Vanya as "she" and Viktor as "he" as that is also how we understood the character at the time. Before Viktor reveals himself, Vanya, after, Viktor. As for no spoilers, it's up to the potential reader to not read. Not our problem. I can't believe this discussion is as long and tortured as it is. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 06:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Irreverent

If I could distill this show into one word, it would be "irreverent". Not surprisingly, a lot of the critical literature uses the term, such as "irreverent comic book drama" or "irreverent superhero show". I really do think this word needs to be used somewhere in the article, and it's the one defining feature that drew me to the show, because if it did take itself (or the characters or story) seriously, it just wouldn't have worked, not just because superhero stories have been done to death and are frankly boring, but because at its heart, this show has nothing to do with superpowers, which is why it is so great. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Are there secondary sources that regular use the word? Or is it simply an opinion? -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Haven't looked too closely, but my guess is that it would be somewhere in between. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft for Season 4

This is a notice that there is a draft for Season 4 at Draft:The Umbrella Academy season 4 until such a time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)