Talk:Agatha All Along (miniseries)

Requested move 11 March 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Agatha (miniseries) by User:Trailblazer101. (like, as for me, I'm not the mover, I'm just closing the already-completed RM.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Agatha: Darkhold Diaries → Agatha – Disney+ logo reveal Jasonbres (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Moved to Agatha (TV series) per source and logo in article. The suggested Agatha is incorrect. Please, for future reference, include a source in the article when making such changes rather than making unsourced changes. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Trailblazer101 Shouldn't it be Agatha (miniseries) for consistency? -- Zoo  Blazer   23:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right. Too many gosh darn titles! Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Aaaannndd the redirect moves didn't like working right away for the talk pages when I tried it right away so I had to go through a roundabout way of moving them, but it finally worked! Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

premise addition
I think the premise should also mention Scarlet Witch's death in MoM. Think about it, the Scarecrow said (in Journey Back to Oz, mind) that "When an evil witch dies, all her magic dies with her." How else would Agatha be able to break free of her containment? Visokor (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable source stating this is the case? We cannot add it just because you think that is the reason. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Hulkling
All we have is a single source from an outdated article where the information was later removed. If we’re going to be making claims we should have more than that.

Most likely the author just read that the actor was playing Locke’s boyfriend and said he was Hulkling. It’s just speculation and rumor.

The reason why people keep removing it is because it’s false. Delderd (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * As per the prior discussion on this, it was determined that while the source removed the information, the editor's note it provided did not justify ruling out the removed information as somehow incorrect. WP:Verifiability not truth applies in this case, as the claim is supported by this reliable source. Random Twitter "scoopers" are NOT WP:Reliable sources and cannot be used to verify what you are changing. Similarly, sources directly citing information from an unreliable source (ie the Twitter account) are also unreliable due to WP:FRUIT. For now, this is the most reliably sourced information we have, whether it remains accurate in the end or not. We go by what the sources state. No reliable sources have come out reporting/confirming this is not the case, either, so if all you have to go off of is your own belief and some random Twitter account, the WP:STATUSQUO remains in place unless you convince others to change the current consensus. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * how is that single article a reliable source when the relevant information was removed from the article? There are numerous other articles saying the character is undisclosed. Delderd (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * And here's the author herself admitting it was a mistake. Delderd (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Now, that is a reliable source we can actually go off of. Had you provided this earlier rather than repeatedly reverting back to your preferred version (which, mind you, is against the WP:Edit warring policy), we could have come to this conclusion sooner and easier. I have restored the information of the actor playing Billy's boyfriend as that is still sourced by the article originally and not denied by the author, and that at the very least should not have been removed in favor of saying it is an undisclosed role, though I have kept the Hulkling mention hidden for now given the other cast roles turned out to be accurate. It is always better to be proactive in providing evidence sooner rather than later in a collaborative setting, as the many reverts could have been averted earlier. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Rebranding
Please see what to add from this. Kailash29792 (talk)  09:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I believe everything that is relevant to this article is already included, but I have added this source as a better one than what we had. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Good decision, as it is straight from the horse's mouth (the horse being Winderbaum). Kailash29792 (talk)  12:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)