Talk:Wicked (2024 film)

Title

Per the official logo, the title appears to be Wicked and not Wicked: Part One. Any opposition to moving this page? InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Corroborated by Variety and Deadline, though THR inconsistently uses both Wicked: Part 1 and Wicked Part 1. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOLDly moved. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Transfer the draft of the second part to the mainspace?

Shouldn't the draft of the second part be transfered to the mainspace too, since the filming of the first part has already begun and it is very likely that the second part is filmed with it in back-to-back? 31.154.220.89 (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear now that the filming of Part Two has wrapped as well. In the director's post here it's pretty clear in my opinion that he confirms the filming of the whole movie has finished, not just the filming of Part One... 132.70.66.9 (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

They were filmed like one big movie. Theres no filming pause between parts. Only the release is in two. So yes, when principal photography is finished, it's finushed for the whole big thing. --Blobstar (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

So, the point is that the draft of Part Two should be moved to the main space as well as Part One per WP:NFF, isn't it? 31.154.220.90 (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

How do we know for sure that filming for Part Two has begun? That Instagram post does not say anything about that, and this article seems to indicate that they were filmed separately. If there is a source confirming Part Two has been filmed, then yes, we can move the page, but otherwise, we can't infer this (WP:OR). InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Update: found this on the draft's talk page, which confirms filming had nearly been completed last July. It's unclear why the draft wasn't moved back then. Per [1] [2] [3], it also appears there is no colon in the title, so I'll be moving the draft to Wicked Part Two. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Title of second part

Traditionally everyone knew it as "Wicked Part Two", but it appears that the official title is "Wicked Part Two: For Good". Can anyone discuss how the draft should be titled when putting it in the main namespace?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes says that it is "Wicked Part One" here: [4]. HenryRoan (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge Parts 1 and 2 into one article?

Turns out the upcoming two-part film Horizon: An American Saga talks about both parts and it made me think we should merge Parts 1 and 2 of this film into one article as they very likely will share the same creative team and crew and similar cast members. This is not like Dune: Part Two which was filmed years after the first film. HM2021 (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article's title is Wicked (2024 film), not Wicked (2024 and 2025 films). Georgia guy (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. :Rotten Tomatoes says that it is "Wicked Part One" here: [5]. HenryRoan (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The article starts...

Wicked (scheduled for release as Wicked and Wicked: Part Two) is an upcoming American two-part epic musical fantasy film... This implies that despite the 2 separate parts and their release dates, it's still one film. Please watch this sentence. Georgia guy (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes says that it is "Wicked Part One" here: [6]. HenryRoan (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

HenryRoan, you made the same comment to all of the 3 newest sections of this talk page. Please make sure you understand each section's meaning before determining what to say in response. Georgia guy (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

What? This is a bizarre and highly unusual take, and would be unprecedented if we decided to go this route. I've reverted the edit a second time, which seems to be the work of a sole editor. Clearly, this BOLD edit does not have preliminary consensus.

1. This article is about Wicked, not Wicked: Part Two. Part Two will have its own article once filming commences, per WP:NFF. We never use a single article to cover two films at once, even if it's a two-parter, and even if it was filmed back-to-back. It also doesn't matter what acts the films are based on, or what the original intent was. We look at things from a real-world perspective, in which we have a film titled Wicked and a sequel titled Wicked: Part Two.
2. It's titled Wicked, not Wicked: Part One. Simply pointing to Rotten Tomatoes does not prove otherwise, but I'll get to that momentarily. The official website, press release, first look, social media, and logo all say "Wicked". This shouldn't be controversial... Wicked: Part One is the former name of the film, so I can't blame some sources for not being up-to-date. Rotten Tomatoes has not updated its page; so what? Firstly, we do not place WP:UNDUE weight on any single source, and secondly, you seem to be deliberately ignoring plenty of other sources. Numerous other database-type websites use Wicked, including: IMDb, BOM, Metacritic, TVGuide, Common Sense, and the Google Search knowledge graph. Rotten Tomatoes and The Numbers are the only outliers. It's the same scenario for news publications: CNN, People, Rolling Stone, Playbill, Time, Vulture, Empire, BBC, THR, Variety, EW, ET, Billboard, The Independent, Elle, IGN, TVLine, Inverse, Mashable, GamesRadar , HuffPost, ... need I go on? The only outlier I could find was Collider and Deadline.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

My edit was made in support of the version by HM2021. You appear to be forcing your edit into the article. Even your own sources do not agree with you when your People magazine reference states plainly: "The first teaser trailer for the movie musical Wicked: Part One debuted during Super Bowl Sunday, showing the first footage of Cynthia Erivo as the witchy Elphaba and Ariana Grande as bubbly Glinda. ". The version by HM2021 should be restored since you appear not be reading your own citations. HenryRoan (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

HenryRoan, contrary to your comment this section of the talk page is intended to be about the statement that it's still one movie, not whether the title of the 2024 part of the movie is "Wicked" or "Wicked: Part One". Georgia guy (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

InfiniteNexus just said the opposite when he stated that the topic is: "It's titled Wicked, not Wicked: Part One." HenryRoan (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

HenryRoan, that simply isn't the intended subject of this section of the talk page. It is intended to be about the consideration of the 2 films to be referred to as a single film, nothing else. Georgia guy (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It's about two things: your claim that the 2024 film is titled Wicked: Part One and not Wicked, and your argument that this article should cover both films at once (???). The second one is highly unusual and likely not feasible as we move closer to the release date; a combined article would not only be out of step with the standard practice for film articles, but would also be WP:TOOLONG and violate WP:NFF. As for the first claim, I've shown that Wicked is clearly the correct title, and perhaps the strongest piece of evidence comes from Universal themselves: Directed by acclaimed filmmaker Jon M. Chu (Crazy Rich Asians, In the Heights), Wicked is the first chapter of a two-part immersive, cultural celebration. Wicked Part Two is scheduled to arrive in theaters on November 26, 2025. (Hmm, no colon for Part Two? Will have to look into this later.) Thank you for pointing out the thing with People; I have removed the ones that confusingly use both titles within the same article. But even after that, the consensus among sources is still fairly clear.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up HM2021, who has nothing to do with this dispute. It seems like you're using them as a red herring, which is not okay. I went back in the article history, and you were the one who incorporated the "scheduled for release" wording; all HM2021 did was adjust the infobox to accommodate your changes. Please do not drag uninvolved editors into this. Your BOLD edit was made recently and without an explanation, and it has now been reverted. Per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, the purpose of this discussion is to lay out arguments for each side and determine which version to use. So far, your only evidence has been Rotten Tomatoes and an ad hominem attack. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Wicked Part One or Wicked Part 1

Users are disagreeing on how to spell the unofficial title of the movie. The important things are:

1. It doesn't affect how it is pronounced.
2. It is not the movie's official title; its official title is just "Wicked".

Georgia guy (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

It's unnecessary and shouldn't appear in the lead at all. Virtually all films with sequels are referred to by their numeric order as a nickname/shorthand, but this generally occurs in common parlance rather than formal publications (i.e. reliable sources). Also, films tend have lots of alternate nicknames, so we should generally avoid mentioning them unless they are extremely well-known, perhaps more so than the official title. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Cynthia Erivo blasting fan made poster, sub heading

I think a paragraph be made about this. 2A0A:EF40:736:CA01:3020:76DA:62F1:2C9F (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the current 3 large paragraphs and a blockquote AND an image/caption is already overkill. Mike Allen 00:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, of course it would have been HM2021 that added this. I really think they work at an entertainment PR agency. Mike Allen 00:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't work for a PR agency at all. HM2021 (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this Flyhighwithme567 (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Final "theatrical release" poster

Here is the final poster with billing block, but I can't find a high-res version. For now, we should reach a consensus to use this one here as it at least has the "Rated PG" certification" in line with final posters. The current one displayed on Wikipedia reads "This film is not yet rated" and was released early into marketing. WickedFanAccount (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

We need a high quality image released by Universal themselves of the version with the billing block. HM2021 (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That is fair. But for now, we should just the version that has the same image and the rating verification. The current one states the film is not rated, which is untrue. WickedFanAccount (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It's frustrating, but it's become a recent trend in recent years (especially since the pandemic) for studios to not release a version of the theatrical release ("payoff") poster with a billing block online, only in print for theaters and advertisements. (Disney is the last major holdout that continues to consistently include a billing block.) Versions of the poster with a billing block can sometimes be found online after intensive searching, though this has become increasingly difficult.

Regardless, the theatrical release poster — by definition — is the poster used by most major theatrical chains and the "default" marketing image used by the studio. In the case of Wicked, it's clearly the one that was released earlier: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. In fact, the "keyhole" poster seems to be specifically for the early-access screenings. I'll go ahead and change the image. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Spot on! Which is why we should use this one for now since it at least has the rating certification. We will wait and see if a version with the billing block appears online. Can you do that for me @InfiniteNexus? I keep getting my edits reverted. We know for a fact that a version of this poster with a billing block is out there somewhere. WickedFanAccount (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

! ATTENTION ! We are on the hunt for THIS poster with the billing block if someone can find it. The poster controversey clogging search inquires is not helping. !! WickedFanAccount (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Should the Mattel doll controversy be merged into marketing?

Or should the poster controversy and the doll controversy be merged into a new section called controversy? Avienby (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say a new section called controversy and merge with the poster in the section above. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree wtih this, there has been enough controversy with the film to deserve its own section - having it under marketing currently is confusing I think Flyhighwithme567 (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's in the right place for now (under Marketing). "Controversy" sections should generally be avoided per WP:CSECTION. Popcornfud (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the current section under marketing is appropriate for the Mattel Doll issue. Marketing relates to the promotion of the film itself, while this is a separate business venture that wouldn't normally be linked to film marketing. Flyhighwithme567 (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Wicked Part I

I can't find any images revealing that this is how the movie is titled onscreen. Georgia guy (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Here you go: https://x.com/PopBase/status/1852455796157665527 HM2021 (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

New York premiere

On November 14, a premiere of the film was held in New York City.

However, the premiere is referred to as a screening by some publications, and a premiere by others.

According to Deadline Hollywood: "Wicked" New York Premiere (L-R) Jeff Goldblum, Jonathan Bailey, Cynthia Erivo, Ariana Grande, Marissa Bode, Bowen Yang, Ethan Slater and Director, Jon M. Chu attended the Wicked New York Premiere at the DGA Theater on November 14, 2024 in New York City.

BroadwayWorld, Women's Wear Daily, iHeart, and The Mirror (US) state that it was held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, hosted by Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour, with WWD referring to it as a "screening".

Most sources stated the Met as the venue for the event.

What should it be mentioned as in the #Release section, premiere or screening?

Ben | he/him (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

"Premiere" just means the first screening in a particular region. The world premiere was in Sydney; the domestic premiere was in LA; the theatrical premiere is scheduled for next week. To avoid confusion, we should just call the New York event a screening. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright then. Thank you!

Ben | he/him (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Wicked Part I or Wicked: Part I

I have been reviewing the edit history of this article, and I saw it was suggested that a discussion should be started on which on-screen title should be used in the lead. Since said discussion on this specific subject hasn't yet been created, I thought I'd make one. Pinging WickedFanAccount and Happily888, as this issue involves them. Mjks28 (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Also pinging InfiniteNexus, see his original edit summary here Special:PermaLink/1257645286. Per this link above https://x.com/PopBase/status/1852455796157665527 the "Part I" is titled on a separate line onscreen as a subtitle. And per WP:SUBTITLE, the standard separator for the title and the subtitle … is a colon followed by a space. Also, how the title is registered with the MPAA has no bearing on how it is stylized on screen, only for potentially helping determine official name, see WP:NCF for such examples such as Dune (2021 film). Happily888 (talk) 08:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Wicked Part I — The second movie does not have a colon, and this one shouldn't either. Also... see Wikipedia articles such as Back to the Future Part II, The Godfather Part II, A Quiet Place Part II, The Hangover Part II, Friday the 13th Part III, The Karate Kid Part II, Father of the Bride Part II, and Return of the Living Dead Part II. It is so unnecssary in this instance it isn't even funny. If anything, it should be Wicked ~Part I~ over a colon, but I think we should stick with simplicity. "Part I" is NOT a subtitle. WickedFanAccount (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  @WickedFanAccount Are there any reliable sources or guidelines that support this? Mjks28 (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Mjks28 That support what? WickedFanAccount (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  @WickedFanAccount That support "Part I" not being a subtitle, and therefore not needing a colon? Mjks28 (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

In all the articles you mention, the "Part II" is part of the official title name. In this case, similarly to Dune, the "Part I" isn't part of the official name (the movie is listed on the billing block and official copyright filings just as "Wicked") and if it were the official name this article would be at "Wicked Part I", however in this case the "Part I" isn't part of the official name and is therefore a WP:SUBTITLE. Happily888 (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You've listed examples of titles that omit the colon before "Part 1/I/One", but you've conveniently ignored works like Henry VI, Part 1; Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1; and Kill Bill: Volume 1. Heck, I'll even throw in an honorable mention to Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (Part One), which was the original title before the subtitle was removed prior to the film's release. As with subtitles in general, there is no clearly defined standard for what punctuation to use. By default, Wikipedia (and many other style guides, including Chicago and MLA) uses a colon unless another punctuation mark is explicitly used by the publisher, or if reliable sources overwhelmingly use another punctuation mark. The claim that "Part I" is somehow not a subtitle is not a serious argument, so I am not even going to address that. The sequel is Wicked Part Two, not Wicked Part II, so that point is also moot. With all this being said, in the end, it doesn't really matter. Colon, no colon — who cares? This is such a trivial matter that is certainly not worth our time and energy to dwell on. I suggest we focus on more substantive things like improving the article itself. I personally have no preference, but deviating from the norm would require consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

None of those examples use a Roman numeral. Anyway, I agree it's ridiculous to argue about. I am being accused of edit warring, when in fact someone came after my change to begin with and accused me of not starting a discussion, when in actuality, they're the ones who wanted to add a colon. WickedFanAccount (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Unrelated

@WickedFanAccount: I am just reaching out on this talk-page because you had pinged me in a conversation elsewhere (which is now closed). I found it odd that you had tagged me, and as far as I know I've never encountered you anywhere. Hopefully your issue was resolved, m8. Cheers!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead, FYI: WickedFanAccount has been banned indefinitely from Wikipedia for "outing" another editor by linking to an off-Wikipedia social media account. Mjks28 (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Yikes. Thanks for the heads up. I found it odd they were dragging me into their muddy situation. Cheers m8! DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Wicked ~Part I~

Once and for all, let us settle this. The name of the movie is Wicked, as shown by the billing block that Universal sent to theaters. However, there is no argument to be set for as to why we should exclude the tildes in the onscreen title. Wicked ~Part I~ is the onscreen/alternate title. that is the ENTIRE purpose of mentioning an alternate title. To show users how it appears on screen. (See FANT4STIC.) WickedFanAccount (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment: It should be noted that FANT4STIC was the stylization for the market of the film as well as the intertitle, while Wicked ~Part I~ is only used as the intertitle, and not in marketing. Mjks28 (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS is about Wikipedia's technical restrictions in naming conventions, it doesn't support use in the subtitle here. This is actually also WP:EW, continuing to revert to your preferred POV version, no matter who initially added that addition, is edit warring. In addition, claiming that your "edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. The discussion above is still ongoing and hasn't reached consensus yet, please discuss there on talk page in future, do not keep reverting to your version especially as it is contentious as a discussion is ongoing, or you will be blocked. Happily888 (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Ariana Grande or Ariana Grande-Butera?

I have noticed that editors have been changing Ariana Grande to Ariana Grande-Butera, then back to Ariana Grande, etc. I have started this discussion to reach a consensus on what to use. I have two propositions for what can be used:
1. Use Ariana Grande, but have a footnote explaining that she is credited as Ariana Grande-Butera
2. Use Ariana Grande-Butera Mjks28 (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

In the film's credits she has listed herself as Ariana Grande-Butera. That is how it should be listed. 70.160.176.13 (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

2. Per MOS:FILMCAST, "Names should be referred to as credited", which means Ariana Grande-Butera. There is minimal WP:SURPRISE with this name, since it is just an additional name attached to what she is commonly known as. It would be different if she chose to be credited as "Ariana Johnson", for example, but most readers would not think that Ariana Grande-Butera is someone completely different than Ariana Grande. There is a similar situation with The Lion King, where Beyoncé is credited as Beyoncé Knowles-Carter instead of Beyoncé Knowles. 193.44.11.94 (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 per MOS:FILMCAST, as it also clearly says that cast member names can also be referred by common name supported by a reliable source, and pretty much all sources in this article (even those referring to how her name appears in credits) are using "Ariana Grande" when referring to her as opposed to "Ariana Grande-Butera", showing this to be the WP:COMMONNAME. This is an obvious common sense case where her common name should be used as its more recognizable than her full name, which has already been noted in a footnote. Happily888 (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

"also says" is not something for you to edit-war over, Happily888, when you are choosing to ignore the first line of MOS:FILMCAST: "Names should be referred to as credited". When she is credited as "Ariana Grande-Butera" in the film, that's what the article must say. The accompanying note exists to help readers understand that. The IP is right that the COMMONNAME argument would have made sense with a credit like "Ariana Johnson", but not in this case. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: MOS:FILMCAST states "Names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source" (emphasis added) not just "names should be referred to as credited" as you are purposefully misrepresenting it as. Anyways, you should have discussed this first on the talk page as I have been requesting you to instead of continuing reverting. Happily888 (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The sentence has an "OR". The sentence is not "Names should NOT be referred to as credited BUT by common name supported by a reliable source". And as stated above, your COMMONNAME argument does not hold merit here, and hence, the first part of the statement "Names should be referred to as credited" holds value. Also, *you* are the one who reverted first, against WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO without waiting for WP:CONSENSUS to form. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, it seems like we're not going to reach consensus here. I've started an RfC below. Happily888 (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The box office needs updated.

Both the Financial Information and Box Office Mojo say that it has now grossed $194 million dollars. Kevin871997 (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Kevin871997, please keep in mind that we are an encyclopedia; we're not the news. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Holding space for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Holding space is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holding space until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mungo Kitsch (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Ungainly sentence in lead

Current:

It is the first of a two-part film adaptation of the stage musical of the same name by Stephen Schwartz and Holzman, which was loosely based on the 1995 novel by Gregory Maguire, which in turn is based on L. Frank Baum's 1900 novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, its sequels and its 1939 film adaptation.

This is a super-long sentence and bogs down the lead with needless specifics.

Proposed trim:

It is the first of a two-part film adaptation of the 2003 stage musical Wicked based on the 1995 novel, which is in turn based the Oz books and the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz.

Save the detail about dates, authors, movie sequels of the preceding works for the article body. Popcornfud (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I think authors of the *film* should be named before the authors of the musical, novel, etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Which film? The principal authors of the Wicked movie ("directed by Jon M. Chu and written by Winnie Holzman and Dana Fox, with songs by Stephen Schwartz") are stated up front in the lead sentence. Popcornfud (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the challenge to WP:OFTHESAMENAME: of course this isn't a policy, it says so right at the top of the essay. It's just a set of arguments and explanations for why this change is made. Disregarding those arguments by virtue of the essay not being policy isn't itself a convincing argument against them. Popcornfud (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Should Category:Film productions suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic be used in article?

Moved from User talk:JDDJS § Wicked (2024 film)

 – Happily888 (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your deletion of the category Category:Film productions suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic from Wicked (2024 film); this category is correctly applied as per its lead it categorizes all films which had their production suspended or delayed. Clearly, from #Pre-production section, this production has obviously been delayed. Happily888 (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Pre-production is not production. They were not even cast yet. That category is for films that either started or were ready to start filming. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Just saw that you reverted this again, please don't WP:EW. I understand that production refers specifically to filming, however the category includes films which were both either having filming suspended or delayed, the latter of which is the case for Wicked. I'm linking to the pre-production section, not because I’m referring to pre-production, it is however because information about original production dates prior to delay is in that section and the section therefore contains information about production. The film was originally supposed to enter production in late 2020 as it was originally set to be released in November 2021, however filming was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This is the appropriate category for this case, the other category Category:Films postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic refers to the films release dates being changed but not to a delay in production dates. Happily888 (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to start a discussion on the talk page about this. I'll respect any consensus established. But you're not going to convince me that it's an appropriate category. It was nowhere near production at that point. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: I have moved this discussion to here. Happily888 (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the category is appropriate. It caused a change of directors, and the studio stated that a delay was caused by the pandemic. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ssilvers How is that not already covered by the category films postponed by the pandemic? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it should be only one or the other. Happily, above, argues that this category is more appropriate than the "Films postponed" one. As I understand his argument, the "Films postponed" cat is for films already in the can whose release dates were postponed, while the "Film productions" one for films whose production was not completed, and were suspended or pushed back due to the pandemic. If this is wrong, please explain why. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Social Media Early Reactions

There has been a dispute regarding the inclusion of this sentence in the critical reception subsection:

"Early reactions were positive, with praise directed toward the performances of Erivo and Grande, the adaptation from stage to screen, and the visuals." https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/wicked-first-reactions-it-will-exceed-your-expectations/

It has been reverted once again after @TropicAces and myself have removed it. This is non-notable as the source is just a collection of social media reactions by those who have seen the film earlier, mainly influencers, tastemakers and critics who then later published actual reviews for the film (later cited further in the section) and not a mere "Twitter reaction" to it. It is also just a mere repetition of the sentences before and after it. It is redundant and fluff. We already cited a lot of actual reviews from publications, this sentence is not needed at all. QubeChiba (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

First of all, TropicAces removed it citing "let the sources does (they probably meant speak) for themselves". Since the sources already "does" for themselves and are not synthesized (at least not in its most recent form), it does not in any way support what you wrote.

Second of all, we have always used sources that explain/do review roundups. It is obvious that this source consists of critical publications such as Vanity Fair, Variety, IndieWire, etc. so the fact that it is "social media reactions" does not mean that it is redundant to utilize this article that collected these reactions from reviews and well-known publications. On the contrary, it saves us from the synthesis you are poorly trying to add and at the same time supports the reception sentence in the lead. ภץאคгöร 10:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Aaand your attempt to add synthesis for I-don't-know-how-many-times has been reverted again. ภץאคгöร 16:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Critical reaction

I don't think it's appropriate to quote cast members Chenoweth and Menzel, who appear in the film and each have a 2nd conflict of interest in that they want to remain on good terms with Schwartz and Holzman. Similarly, Maguire has reason to promote the film, and I would not include his reaction. Lorna Luft's is also not really a "critical response", though she does not seem to have an obvious conflict of interest. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm on the fence on whether or not to include Idina's and Chenoweth's reactions, but we should absolutely include Maguire's reaction. While of course it's possible he's lying, as the original author it's extremely relevant what he thinks of it.

It might be a good idea to create a different section to include reactions from relevant people who are not professional critics to distinguish them. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC on whether credited name or common name should be used

When referring to Grande in the article, should her credited name or common name, i.e. should "Ariana Grande-Butera" or "Ariana Grande", be used? Happily888 (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Please see the previous discussion above. Currently, both names are equally valid to be used, as per MOS:FILMCAST which states Names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source. Clearly, "or" means that either of both the options could be used, not that only the credited name should be used. Additionally, whether "Ariana Grande" or "Ariana Grande-Butera" is used, an efn note can be used to explain how the name is credited.

The common name "Ariana Grande" is already supported by the reliable sources in the article, in fact it is significantly more commonly used in sources than "Ariana Grande-Butera" and is much more recognizable for readers. Compared to the benefits of the credited name, which are that it appeared in the credits and that it is her birth name, referring to her by her common name seems much more beneficial to readers and the article. Happily888 (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Please also note that her "common name" is also *in* her credited name. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Ariana Grande, with footnote, (Summoned by bot). Since policy gives us the licence to choose either common, or credited name, it seems absurd to pedantically list the credited name, when common is so much better known and more used by sources and those who go to see the film. As Happily888 says in the discussion above This is an obvious common sense case where her common name should be used as its more recognizable than her full name, which has already been noted in a footnote.Pincrete (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Ariana Grande-Butera in cast listings, i.e. in the infobox, lead, and cast section; elsewhere, Ariana Grande elsewhere (but either is acceptable). Grande is not the first person to do this; Beyoncé did the same with The Lion King (2019 film), and we use her full name everywhere; the "compromise" approach I've suggested would be similar to Huerta's situation in Black Panther: Wakanda Forever. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Ariana Grande-Butera Using her full name as credited seems unlikely to confuse any normal readers (but seems to be irritating some fans). There are times where using the common name might reduce confusion but don't think this is one of them. Clarity over brevity. This is an encyclopedia, stability is good. Using the name as credited (rather than stage name or married or whatever other name) keeps things stable. I see no reason not to use the name as credited. -- 109.76.129.67 (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  How exactly is a name that no one ever uses to describe this person clearer than the name that almost everyone uses habitually? I'm certainly not a fan (at least 2 generations too old for that), but I simply would not recognise the name, and would assume it was someone else/some relative. Pincrete (talk) 06:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You would assume someone listed as Ariana Grande-Butera is a relative of someone named Ariana Grande?? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This is encyclopedia, it should aim to be consistent and follow it's own rules unless there is a really good reason to do otherwise and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to make an exception. No special reason to ignore the credits has yet been shown. If the common name could be "Bad Bunny" and I would recommend using the name they were formally credited as in the film "Benito A. Martínez Ocasio" (perhaps a footnote if editors believe clarification was necessary, but when the name is already wiki-linked that too seems redundant). -- 109.76.130.148 (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't disagree with you. My comment was to Pincrete. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Allegedly

Hey, someone added the word allegedly to the article and I don't think it belongs. Can you guys look into this OABritton (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)