Talk:List of Once Upon a Time characters/Archive 1

Linking
Should the links to characters (such as Snow White, Cinderella, etc.) be linked to their current locations? The Once Upon a Time characters have different character histories than what is currently linked. Perhaps the link should be included within the description (such as writing "The Once Upon a Time character is based on this character from this story/movie" and placing the link around the "this character" section of the sentence). This way, new articles could be created for the characters for the show (if they ever become notable enough to have their own article, of course). Kevinbrogers (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Frederick?
Where in the show was Prince James referred to as "Frederick"? Nowhere, that's where. The only "Frederick" that was mentioned on the show is when King Midas said, "Be careful, remember what happened to Frederick." implying that a guy named Frederick turned into a golden statue. - Jasonbres (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Then remove it from the article yourself and note for people only to re-add the info if they have a source. If you're not sure and think the info might be right, leave it in but add a citation tag to it. Contentious information that does not have a source can be removed from an article at anytime without discussion.207.237.208.153 (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Heading titles
I understand why the headings list both names, but I can see this is convenient, but problematic. Having the headings read as "Snow White (Mary Margaret Blanchard)" does list both of the character's identities, but it makes section linking difficult (Really a moot point as that can be solved by template:anchor). However, " Magic Mirror/Genie (Sidney Glass)" is just plain ridiculous. I can make some argument over which identity is parenthesized. But honestly, I just feel the parenthesis are unwieldy. I would suggest to pick a name (Enchanted Forest or Storybrooke) to go as the section heading, but then that makes it seem to me that one of the identities is more important than the other, when it really isn't. So, I'd like to do something to clean up the headings, but I can't come up with any good solution. Anyone got ideas? ~ Ten Ton  Parasol  23:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Recurring Vs. Other
Shouldn't King Midas and Cinderella each be in the recurring section? Midas has been in 3 episodes so far and Cinderella/Ashley as been in 2. Some character pages have a rule about the minimum number of episodes is considered recurring. I think in a show like OUAT, a rule should definitely be made because there's no telling when a character will pop up again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.180.114 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Bringing this back up: when is a character recurring and when is he or she an other? And why are we using recurring, why not supporting or secondary? I think supporting or secondary allows for a broader category and allows for a character who has been killed off and might not be making any more appearances. I guess I'll point out that primary is defined by which actors are labeled as starring. But putting who is guest starring obviously will not help determine who is recurring or even secondary or supporting. If the heading is recurring, a number of episodes seems fair. I'd go with five at this point, but as the series goes on that might not be the best course. Maybe a percentage or a sliding scale? If the heading is supporting or secondary, which is what I personally prefer, I would determine who goes under it by some mixture of recurring-ness (or whatever the word is) and how much they contribute to the story. But then I guess that is much more difficult to determine and probably requires much more consensus. I'm really trying to clean-up the page, (there's a draft here) some kind of response would be great. ~ Ten Ton  Parasol  02:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Errors in character descriptions
As you will see this article has been flagged as being too detailed. When someone eventually does trim it down, it should be policed for major factual errors. I just corrected some major mistakes in the section on Belle that suggest whoever added them either wasn't paying attention to the episode or let speculation get in the way of what is actually shown on screen. First, her father didn't kill her - she allegedly commited suicide. Second, Belle isn't in the mental ward, her Storybrooke counterpart is locked away in the basement of the hospital for reasons as yet unknown. Nothing on screen has indicated yet that this is "Belle" (as in a fairytale creature self-aware of her origins). 68.146.70.177 (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried to trim it, but it ended up being longer... Anyways, I tried to correct the major errors. I had to refer to Belle as, well, Belle because I have an issue with this whole "Storybrooke counterpart" thing. Saying counterpart makes it seem like the character in the Enchanted Forest and the character in Storybrooke are not the same character but they simply correspond to each other. That doesn't explain it very well though. So, it you see any other major errors, feel free to correct them yourself. ~ Ten Ton  Parasol  12:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Feedback on Rewrite
So, does anyone have any problems with the overhaul I did on the page yesterday? Anyone dislike the heading titles? Have a problem with the characters I cut out? The ordering of the characters? The categories (primary, secondary, tertiary other)? I'm letting people know about what's going on with the page. And I like to know what others think about it. I still have to add production (character creation, casting, makeup and wardrobe maybe, those types of things) and reception. Feel free to say something about the overhaul. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  18:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally have nothing against the changes. In fact, just reading through the page, I couldn't even name any characters that were cut, and I love this show.  Everything looks good to me.  I'd definitely support the addition of production and reception, and would be glad to help add those parts in if you'd like.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Fantanbulous! Also, I have a lot for production: I was collecting a link dump of interviews, bought some magazines, and I was putting together a transcript of the PaleyFest panel. I'm sure I missed a lot of interviews and what-not. I don't have a lot for reception, but I was going to find them through the reception sections of the episode articles. Feel free to add whatever you have though. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  19:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Ruby
Removed a factual error about Ruby and what was pure speculation to attempt to explain this error. If anyone has actual evidence that her real name is Liza, and Ruby is a nickname because of her clothes and makeup, please provide it and revert my changes. Her grandmother calling her "Liza" while saying she looks like a drag queen doesn't make it her real name any more than it makes her grandmother's real name "Norman Bates when he dressed as Norman Bates's mother." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.120.35 (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing forces you to see an issue clearly more than a bold IP that gets right to the point. I'm the one who kept adding it back in, but then I didn't see it the way you just explained it. Excellent point. Thanks for putting my head on straight. And thank you so much for all those other corrections! ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  20:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hints in names
The Storybrook versions of the characters have elusive hints in their names as to their actual selves: The Mad Hatter is Jefferson, as in Jefferson Airplane, who performed the song White Rabbit; Dr. Frankenstein is Dr. Whale, as in James Whale, the director of Frankenstein. If a reliable source can be found, this should be added to the article, but not until then. &mdash; Hex    (❝ ?!  ❞)   17:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Blind Witch
What is the source of the assertion that the blind witch character in "The Thing You Love Most" is meant to be the same character as the blind witch in "True North"? The appearance, age, and costuming of the two characters is quite different, and they are played by different actresses. If there is some source indicating that they are meant to be the same character, that really should be cited. If not, that section should be re-written. 98.246.241.216 (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The two Blind Witches are different, as confirmed by Jane Espenson. I've corrected the page to reflect that.Nyssie (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Character articles
If you don't want them to be all deleted/redirected/merged to the list, you've got to:
 * reference the content (with reliable sources)
 * provide proof of the independent notability of each character who was given a separate article (critical reception, merchandise, appearances in other works, etc)

It's not Wikia. I'm giving you 1 month to work on these articles. --Niemti (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This page is way to long
This page is way to long with no attempt to show any real notability of the characters. Encyclopedia pages should be more than just synopsis of fictional content. As it is most of the sections are way, way too long and it is hard to figure why some are nedded at all. It needs to be cut back everywhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Overall Content of the Page
The introduction to "List of Once Upon a Time characters" appear to be a synopsis of the whole series, getting off track to general goal of the page. I feel that the introduction should be transferred to the main page of Once Upon a Time. The page is getting progressively long and hard to navigate through. The content box should be smaller. I think the Content box should consist of the following: 1 Main characters 2 Recurring characters 3 Other characters 3.1 Season 1 3.2 Season 2 4 References

Although it is great that the character descriptions are detailed, I think with the length of the content and the fact that the series is continuing, the Main Characters' descriptions should be shorter, where the detailed descriptions should be in a new article, for each Main Character. The current descriptions are too long and shows no analysis of the character, but instead, discusses the plot of the character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krnchng (talk • contribs) 14:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What would really be good is if someone could come up with secondary sources that provide analysis. We do not need to list every scene that a character appered in, nor do we need to list how they interacted in all cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

What tense should this artilce use?
I think it would be best if we used the past tense throughout this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio
Please note that most of the text used here is a word-for-word copy from the equivalent articles at http://onceuponatime.wikia.com. As the character descriptions here are way too long and overly detailed anyway, the necessary pruning should be combined with a re-write to get rid of the copyvio. In addition, some real references to independent sources would be nice, too. --Randykitty (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have pruned some, but we have a long way to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Most other character articles take a note of being able to fit a character section to around three paragraphs with references. And the minor characters should be severely trimmed to those who matter (Geppetto, Maleficent, Ashley, Leopold and Eva, Regina's father, Maurice, Daniel, Milah, Mr. Smee) while the others could be mentioned in the other sections. Evilgidgit (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth, most of my attempts at trimming have been overcome by more additions of text. This whole article is truly unwieldy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Individual character articles?
I think it may be time to create individual articles for the main characters of the show as it is extremely large and the timeline descriptions could go on and on with new storylines being created. 82.27.228.229 (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Somebody did that once with each fairytale character separated from their Storybrooke counterpart and they ended up deleted. Rtkat3 (talk) 3:44, July 23 2013 (UTC)


 * The characters lack individual notability. It is actually time to cut back on the wordiness and detail of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Other characters in alphabetical order
Apparently, some anonymous contributor has been doing the other characters section in alphabetical order even after I have put each on in order of appearance. It took me 3 hours to put each of them in alphabetical order. What do you contributors think of this? Rtkat3 (talk) July 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Alphabetical order makes more sense so that it is easier to access. Plus I believe that is the standard MOS for pages such as these... -- MisterShiney    ✉    20:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I offended you for putting them in alphabetical order. I thought it was more comfortable for the reader to view and read. I apologize if you spent a lot of time on it. 82.27.228.229 (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Alphabetical order makes sense. If someone wants to use the list to look up about a specific character, even if they know what show the character first appeared in, that will not tell them where to look, but alphabetical order makes the placement in the list obvious.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Length
Would it possibly be a good idea to create new articles for Main characters, Recurring/Guest characters, Other characters and Creatures and Races? The article alone is over 200 bytes now and with season three, it is going to be too long to manage comfortably. 82.27.228.229 (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I already responded to the "Individual' article section where somebody tried that and they ended up deleted. Of course there are a lot of people from the fairy tale world, a few from the "Land Without Color" (which is a black and white world based on the horror genre and it's witchcraft isn't strong like the one in the fairytale world), a few characters from Wonderland so far (the characters might be added when the spin-off begins), some characters from Earth, and we might have an expansion once we get familiar with Neverland once Season Three starts. Also, the creatures and races section was started so that we could put Pongo and the Wraith somewhere. Unfortunately, Wraith is a disambiguation link where it was briefly described as a type of ghost. Rtkat3 (talk) 5:09, July 24 2013 (UTC)
 * So do you think it would be beneficial to create articles not for individual characters but for the groups? My idea is have an article for Main, Supporting, and Creatures and Races. 82.27.228.229 (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that yet. Rtkat3 (talk) 7:54, July 25 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is way too long, but the solution is to cut out unneccesary detail, not to split it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. One list has already been split off today and should be re-merged here. Once upon a time, the article was halfway decent, but this edit brought back all the cruft and things have only gotten worse since. --Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I partially agree that the article is too long, but the intricate detail is needed because it links with past and future circumstances for each character's lives (why they did certain things, why they acted certain ways). But I agree that the article is too long and will only get bigger, and have attempted to create individual character articles for the main characters (much like Lost characters have their own pages as they follow the same storyline template) but it was deleted. If there were individual character articles then the main List of characters article could be heavily reduced and the supporting characters could be added again with only main details being added. I just dont want to cut down the storylines until they make no sense and think that individual articles for main characters would be the best solution, with briefer summaries here. OUATFan (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: Have now merged the two pages and reduced the page by 27,000 bytes. Will continue to concise the summaries for vital information. OUATFan (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yen Sid
Was that Yen Sid's hat that Mr. Gold revealed? Why was he frightened? If the Dark One is the most powerful dark magic being in all the known worlds, is there an equally powerful lightside? --76.175.67.121 (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Spoiler Alerts
Currently the "Status" being displayed on each character is a bit of a spoiler for people just beginning to watch the first seasons on Netflix or other streaming service.

Should this be move, removed or masked some how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.33.166.241 (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Some potential out of univese sources
A while ago, I collected a bunch of links for creation and conception of these characters. I'm not sure I'm going to implement them into the article myself any time soon, so I'm leaving them here. They're pretty old.


 * HuffPost
 * InsideTV
 * LA Times with Goodwin
 * EOnline with Dornan on Graham's death
 * EOnline with Espenson
 * Enetertainment Weekly with Sbarge
 * EOnline with Dornan about OUAT
 * KSite TV with Dornan on Graham's possible return
 * Parrilla on Regina
 * Daily Intersect with Sbarge on Jiminy
 * Poptimal with Ory on Ruby
 * Entertainment Weekly with Horowitz and Kitsis on OUAT
 * KSiteTV with Producers on the Queen being happy and what-not
 * TVFanatic with Espenson
 * TVFanatic with Ory
 * Insider with Bailey
 * TV Guide with Morrison
 * PaleyFest 2012

I haven't gone through them recently sure I'm not sure what's broken, what's actually relevant or what, actually. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  19:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

List is too long
The list is too long. The tertiary characters section needs to be trimmed ASAP. I say that we can get rid of the Tertiary characters section, but not delete all of those characters and move those who appear in more than 3 or 4 episodes into the secondary, and remove all those who appear in just one or two episodes in a very minor capacity. Thoughts? -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  22:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Since there is no opposition, I will remove characters that appear in 1 or 2 episodes with little or no impact in the story. Of course if one or more of these characters appear in future episodes with more impact, they can be readded. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  22:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Character Chart
The chart needs to be fixed. Ruby is not listed for season three, even though she appears in that season, while Zelena is listed as a main character for season two, even though Rebecca Mader didn't even join the show until near the end of season three (she's also listed as a main character in season three, but is actually just recurring). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.126.55 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on List of Once Upon a Time characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abcmedianet.com/web/showpage/showpage.aspx?program_id=003310&type=lead

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Giving characters their own articles
I propose that the primary characters in Once upon a Time get their own articles, since this list is getting too large. I'm open to suggestions.Robert Moore (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support— In particular, Baelfire (also known as Neal Cassidy), Red Lucas (also known as Ruby and by the nickname "Red Riding Hood"), and Pinocchio (also known as August Booth) should definitely have their own articles. (I never saw Once Upon a Time in Wonderland, but I would be inclined to suspect that Alice deserves her own article, too.) allixpeeke (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Merging both Once Upon a Time and Once Upon a Time in Wonderland Characters
I am opening this talk to discuss the merging of both of those pages. This is because both has connections. Will Scarlett, Robin Hood, Cora, Maleficent all are connected to the spin off series. Its better to merge both pages.

Besides that, both show exists in the same timeline, and that page is a waste. There are 2 Cora, 2 Will. We don't need that. Merge the stories with simple and summarise contents will do.

Naveenruben97 (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support—allixpeeke (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Consider deleting plot summary
The two-paragraph plot summary seems redundant. The main article for the show, linked in this article's summary, already has both general and specific plot information. It would also be a relatively easy cut for length, which I see is an ongoing issue. I'd make this edit myself, but I'm relatively new around here and I don't know if I'd be overstepping my bounds. Infiniteparentheses (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears that the aforementioned two-paragraph plot summary has since been exorcised. I agree that this is for the best.  allixpeeke (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Individual article for Emma Swan
The show is about to go into the fifth season in a few months and Emma has been shown to be one of, if not the most important character in the series. In my opinion it wouldn't hurt to consider giving her an individual article at this point instead of keeping Emma Swan as a redirect to this page. Almost all of the other main characters already have their own article, although it's because they aren't original characters, and Emma being one of the few original characters in the show doesn't have an article as of yet. I would like to hear some opinions for it and against it. Amducker (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: the character is surely notable, we can start writing a draft and adding independent sources to it, focusing primarily on Conception/Creation and Reception/Impact sections. The list is already too long. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  04:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: I agree. It did have its own article but was merged back into this one. Come to think of it, we should split up the primary characters and give them their own articles. This would make sense.Robert Moore (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I didn't even look at the revision history on Emma Swan and I didn't know that there was a previous article. Anybody know why it was deleted and merged back here besides the argument that it didn't have any reliable sources to show notability? I'm pretty sure we can find thousands of articles at this point that can be reliable sources for an article; news articles covering her becoming the new Dark One alone must be several dozen by now. If we do restore the article it would need to be original content, since the original AFD mentioned the fact that it plagiarized her Wikia page as a reason for deletion, although I don't know if that contributed to the most recent deletion that was performed last year. Amducker (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have started a draft in my sandbox. Please, feel free to edit it and to contribute to it. I have already added a brief introduction and the sections that I consider necessary for the article to meet Notability. Cheers! -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  01:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Emma has now an individual article. It still needs improvement though. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  22:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good article. I'll contribute to it when I have some extra time. Amducker (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see the character has an article. There are some other characters that are probably likewise deserving of having articles, too, in particular: Baelfire (also known as Neal Cassidy), Red Lucas (also known as Ruby and by the nickname "Red Riding Hood"), and Pinocchio (also known as August Booth). (I never saw Once Upon a Time in Wonderland, but I would be inclined to suspect that Alice deserves her own article, too.) allixpeeke (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Princess Leia
I think we should list "Princess Lea" as Emma Swan's fictional counterpart. Nineko (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, it has been decided not to, since Princess Leia was not actually Emma Swan's Enchanted Forest name (in fact, she never had one), but rather an alias used by Emma to conceal her true identity. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, since her original name was Emma there as well, though "Princess Leia" is how she got included into the book, so that's a name which was added to the fairy tale continuity. Perhaps it should be "Emma / Princess Leia" as Fictional name, and "Emma Swan" as Real World name? Kinda redundant, but most people in the Enchanted Forest didn't have a surname so it actually makes kinda sense. Nineko (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Since she didn't get the surname Swan until she entered the "Real World," I would say her "World With Magic" name should be listed simply as Emma and her "Real World" name should be changed from { {N/A}  } to Emma Swan. (I would not list Princess Leia at all, since it wasn't a name or even a nickname, but rather an alias.) allixpeeke (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Seperate articles
Okay, I really think it is time to start creating individual articles for at least the Primary Characters of the show. With the way things have played out in the latest episode, it is just going to get ridiculous trying to document all of the information. I have been attempting to concise it as much as possible but it is just going to get too much. Everytime I attempt to create individual artcles, they just get deleted though. Is anyone else with me here? OUATFan (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support—allixpeeke (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Duplication
The necessity of keeping separate lists is dwindling as there are more connections being made. Why do we have 2 entries for the Knave of Hearts, for example? One collective entry would be better. I realize there's a bit of a distinction with Paul McGillion portraying the first and Michael Socha portraying the second, but it's still basically the same character right?

It occurs to me we might be better served if we did 3 sections rather than 2. One for characters who have exclusively appeared in the original OUAT, a second for characters who have only appeared in Wonderland, and a third for characters who have appeared in BOTH series. Ranze (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to the opinion that Once Upon a Time characters and Once Upon a Time in Wonderland characters should be fully integrated, but that a small notation should be included for those characters that only appear in Once Upon a Time in Wonderland that they appear only in Once Upon a Time in Wonderland. allixpeeke (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Cut the unneeded detail
This article has way, way too much detail. We do not need point by point coverage of every character. Wikipedia is not meant to be a plot summary. The details in this article are way too specific for an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Cut 13,000 bytes of information from Primary characters section to help. OUATFan (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It might be "too specific" for a paper encyclopedia, but it doesn't seem "too specific" for an electronic encyclopedia. If the article is "too long," then lengthier entries should be split off into separate character articles.  allixpeeke (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Is Neal Cassidy a main character
There have been attempts to move Neal Cassidy to being a main character. I figured the issue should be discussed. It seems like he is such, as he is closely connected with Emma and Mr. Gold, who are two of the top three characters, and he manages to have connected with most plot points in some way or other.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I consider him one of the main characters. allixpeeke (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * We don't get to decide who is a main character and who isn't, that would be original research. If he's credited as starring cast in the show's credits, then he's a main character, otherwise he's not. It's that simple. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * nyuszika7h, I never meant to imply that Wikipedians get to "decide" which cast members are main cast members. Obviously, that's decided by the production company.  Rather, I consider Baelfire to be one of the main characters precisely because Michael Raymond-James was a main cast member in the third season.  Apologies for not saying so from the start.  allixpeeke (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The Worst Place
Hey guys and girls, I'm opening this section is to talk about the Worst Place and the characters involved in it. Currently, characters like Blacktooth and Captain Silver is mentioned to be in the Worst Place. After the recent episode (Ruby Slippers), it can be confirmed that the River of Lost Souls is a portal/gateway to the Worst Place. This is further confirmed with Emily Brown (Auntie Em). Her mug was spiked with water from that river and after she physically melted, she was send to the river. Her tombstone was later shown to be cracked, meaning she is now in the Worst Place. In another episode (Devil's Due), Hades did mention that the River of Lost Souls is connected to that world. Does this means that Milah and Gaston is too now in the Worst Place? I think so, but I'm still having doubts and require opinions from other users. Anyone as any theories as how this river/world (Worst Place) works? Cause it's been mentioned before that when the tomb is cracked, it means the soul is trapped in the Worst Place. Naveenruben97 (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Nicknames
Yesterday, over the course of three edits, I took nicknames and parenthesised them. For example, I took "Red Lucas/Red Riding Hood/Wolf" and rendered it "Red Lucas ('Red Riding Hood' and 'The Wolf')"I thought these were fairly reasonable edits. After all, "Red Riding Hood" is not the character's name; it's a nickname. Likewise, "Evil Queen" is not Queen Regina's name; it's a nickname given to her by her subjects. Et cetera. The way the page was set up previously, one might (if she or he did not bother to read the paragraph below it) assume that the Huntsman's name actually was "Huntsman"; or that "Wicked Witch of the West" was part of Zelena's actual name, as opposed to a nickname. But, in making the following edit, one can see clearly that that is not the case: Not only is this nice- and clean-looking, but it's easier to read, too. (Note that I left "Dreamy/Grumpy" alone, since both Dreamy and Grumpy were real names of the character, neither being a nickname. Note also that I only made edits to the "Primary characters" section and to the "Secondary characters" section; although I do believe similar edits should be made to the "Guest characters" section for sake of consistency, I never got around to that section.) Over the course of these edits, I also made a few other, minor changes that I didn't think any would find controversial. For example, I changed Belle's "Land With Magic" name from "Belle" to "Belle French", since French (her maiden name according to the article about the character) was the name she used back before marrying Rumplestiltskin in the "Real World." Controversial? Methinks not. Also, I changed certain instances of "{ {N/A}  }" to "{  {unknown}  }" where appropriate. The "{ {N/A}  }" template is completely appropriate for instances where a character doesn't have a separate "Real World" name from her or his "Land With Magic" name; but in those instances where a character does have two names but where only one of those names is known, the "{  {unknown}  }" template is more appropriate. Take, for example, the dwarfs. Grumpy's "Real World" name is Leroy, Sneezy's "Real World" name is Tom Clark, and Sleepy's "Real World" name is Walter. All good. And since Stealthy died in the "Land With Magic," he never had a "Real World" name; thus, the "{ {N/A}  }" template is completely appropriate for him. But Doc, Bashful, Happy, and Dopey did have "Real World" names separate from their "Land With Magic" names…it's just that we don't know what those names are. Since they did have "Real World" names, their "Real World" names are not not applicable—in other words, they are applicable, but thus far unknown. Thus, although I left the "{ {N/A}  }" template in the space reserved for Stealthy's "Real World" name, I replaced the "{  {N/A}  }" template in the spaces reserved for the "Real World" names of Doc, Bashful, Happy, and Dopey with the more-appropriate "{  {unknown}  }" template. Both templates exist for distinct purposes. Is it controversial to actually use both templates for their distinct purposes? Again, methinks not. Feel free to peruse the culmination of my three edits here. I trust that the vast majority of you will agree that my edits constituted an improvement, that they made the page easier to read and helped to remove unwanted ambiguity. Just now, I returned to the page, as I wanted to go ahead and make the same improvements discussed above to the "Guest characters" section. But, I see that Naveenruben97 has, over the course of three edits, reverted my three edits. Naveenruben97 provided the following two edit summaries:"please don't make the page messy. It's already organized as it is"and"unorganized and messy. Please stick to the format"Now, to be fair, I definitely did not make the page "messy." Again, I invite all to peruse the culmination of my three edits here. Scroll down and see for yourself. Firstly, the page, as a whole, looks virtually identical as it did prior to my edits; my edits were entirely confined to the "Land With Magic" name cells and the "Real World" name cells. Secondly, my edits, if anything, made the page less messy. After all,"Name/Nickname/Nickname"seems to me much messier (and slightly more difficult to read) than"Name ('Nickname')"When Naveenruben97 says that the page is "already organized as it is," I have no choice but to agree. But, every page on Wikipedia—indeed, every page on the Internet—is "already organized as it is." Even the most unorganised page one can find is "already organized as it is." To say that something is "already organized as it is" is not the same thing as saying it is organised well, and it's certainly not a justification for retaining an inferior organisation over a superior organisation. Saying the page is "already organized as it is" in no way comments on which form of organisation is superior. When Naveenruben97 claims that my edit was "unorganized and messy," I must say, in all fairness, that I definitely did not make the page either "unorganized" or "messy." I have already noted above that my edit did not make the page messy, but I wish now to make the point that I, likewise, did not make the page unorganised. Yet again, I invite all to peruse the culmination of my three edits here. Scroll down and see for yourself. Firstly, the page, as a whole, looks virtually identical as it did prior to my edits; my edits were entirely confined to the "Land With Magic" name cells and the "Real World" name cells. Secondly, my edits, if anything, made the page more organised. After all, when names and nicknames are separated from one another by nothing but a series of slashes, the reader is forced to figure out for her- or himself whether she or he is reading a series of names (as in the case of "Dreamy/Grumpy"), a series of nicknames (as in the case of "Huntsman"), or a series of names and nicknames (as in the case of "Killian Jones/Captain Hook")—then, the reader must figure our which names are actually names and which names are nicknames. But, when nicknames are parenthesised, the reader faces no such issues. It's easier to read when nicknames are parenthesised because the brain processes immediately which names are actually names and which are actually nicknames. And this is why the parenthetical system of organisation I instituted with my three edits is superior to the unorganised series-of-slashes system that was used prior to my edit (and which has now been restored by Naveenruben97). Naveenruben97 ends by saying, "Please stick to the format". I agree that all three sections ("Primary characters," "Secondary characters," and "Guest characters") should stick to the same format, but I believe it would have been better to bring "Guest characters" in line with the superior format I'd implemented in the "Primary characters" and "Secondary characters" sections, rather than reverting the "Primary characters" and "Secondary characters" sections so that they conform with the inferior format that was still rearing its unfortunate head in the "Guest characters" section. In conclusion, I encourage readers to weigh in on whether my edits were an improvement to the page as I claim, or whether my edits were marked by messiness and disorganisation, as Naveenruben97 claimed. I likewise encourage Naveenruben97 to consider the points I've made here, and to revert her or his own edits, thereby restoring the page to the state it was in when I left it. I further encourage Naveenruben97 to aid me in editing the "Guest characters" section to bring in it line with the clean-looking and easy-to-read system of organisation I had bestowed on the "Primary characters" and "Secondary characters" sections. Respectfully yours, allixpeeke (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Nicknames for OUAT list of characters

Hello and I had read your message on the talk page.

Firstly, I understand your intentions of putting the nicknames into columns, but this page has been using its own style/format since the beginning and had been doing it like that. We use this style : Red Lucas/Red Riding Hood/Wolf as its used in their history section. It's like a title that these characters used on the show as it progresses.

Regina for example goes by as Regina Mills in her earlier life but then she became the Evil Queen and has never been reffered as Regina again by majority of the inhabitants.

Another example is Cora. She is Cora Mills and after her banishment to Wonderland, she becomes the Queen of Hearts and is referred as that during her time in Wonderland.

Anastasia is another example. After she came to Wonderland, she married the Red King and became the Red Queen and later the White King.

Besides that, these titles are not really nicknames as its official titles given to the characters. Nicknames are as follow :

1) Emma who uses Princess Leia when she came to the past Ehcnhanted Forest. She uses it as an alias and is not an official name nor title she has. The Savior or The Dark Swan is also some titles which isn't an official thing as that isn't something she is based as. These titles refers to who/what they became later in life. Like Killian Jones became Captain Hook after Liam's death and decides to leave the King.

2) Hook uses another alias Prince Charles as well. That is also a nickname or alias. Something fake.

Nicknames can also be considered as short form names. Example: Lilith Page. Her nickname is Lily or Prince David who's nicknamed as Charming.

Therefore, in the columns, we only put their original names and sometimes nicknames like this : Lilith "Lily" Page or place the nickname in a reference way like Charming.

And I say again, that way is more organized as some characters don't have names and only titles. The Huntsmans, Red King etc. titles are as important their name as it is used by them and the inhabitants as well. It's a systematic way which had been used and followed throughout the years.

I however would like to apologize if you feel offended or hurt in any way when I said your edits are unorganized nor messy. It's just that it's better and better organized when " / " is used in between of the names and titles.

Edit : I forgot to mentions or reply to these stuffs. 1) Belle French. I understand your intentions here, but her Real World name isn't Belle French. During the First curse, it was never known what her name was but when Regina turned Belle to her cursed self, she is Lacey, but I will agree 100% with you to but Belle Frech but in the Land With Magic column as that's her name back in her land.

2){N/A or Unknown.I know you are trying to tell that they have a Real World counterpart but we have chosen N/A} instead of the other because we will never know their counterpart unless stated otherwise. Besides that N/A} is easier as there are some characters which we don't know whether they were in the Real World during the first curse, such as Glinda, Blackbeard, King Midas so {N/A fits perfectly for all the characters in the list. In the history section, it's already noted that they were brought by the curse, so us viewers have to assumed that they had a Real World counterpart. Entirely, we don't know if they even had a counterpart. Take a look at Jefferson or Granny. Both got their same names from their land as their counterpart and Regina chose to use her own name as her counterpart, meaning not entirely everyone got a new persona during their time in the Real World. So, if we put "Unknown" it's kinda speculation that we are trying to say that they had a counterpart. Naveenruben97 (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The N/A in some areas showed that the character doesn't have a counterpart. For some of the names with slashes, it had to be done with some characters who had other alias like Peter Pan being an alias of Malcolm, Anastasia (not confirmed to be the same one from Cinderella) is the real name of the Red Queen, and Will Scarlett having become the Knave of Hearts during his time in Wonderland. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Rtkat3, Would you agree with me that my aforementioned edits made the page easier to read and helped to remove unwanted ambiguity. Would you agree that, when nicknames/titles are parenthesised, the brain is able to immediately process which names are actually names and which are actually nicknames/titles, and that this constitutes an advantage that the series-of-slashes system lacks? Best, allixpeeke (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Naveenruben97,You write, "Firstly, I understand your intentions of putting the nicknames into columns."I did not put them in columns. I left them in the column they were already in, the "Land With Magic Character" column and the "Real World Character" column.  What I did was parenthesise nicknames so as to distinguish them from names.You write, "Besides that, these titles are not really nicknames as its official titles given to the characters."I cannot comment on Once Upon a Time in Wonderland as I've not seen it.  But I can comment that Evil Queen was never an official "title" Regina held.  Her titles included Queen and Her Majesty; Evil Queen was a nickname, and one with which she wasn't all too happy.Maybe on Once Upon a Time in Wonderland, labels such as Red Queen and White King really were titles (again, I'd have to see the show to know), but if they weren't, then they, too, would be nicknames.That said, even if Evil Queen were a title, I would still argue that it merits being parenthesised for the same reason that nicknames should be parenthesised: viz., titles do not constitute a character's actual name.You write,"Nicknames are as follow : 1) Emma who uses Princess Leia when she came to the past Ehcnhanted Forest."No, Princess Leia is not a "nickname."  It's an alias.  Unlike the nicknames on the show, the name "Princess Leia" was used to conceal Swan's true identity.  By contrast, nicknames (e.g., Prince Charming, Captain Hook) are used to help accurately identify the individual so nicknamed.The distinction is quite merited, since I see no reason to include non-nickname, non-title aliases in this list at all.  The list is here to help readers identify characters, and while inclusion of nicknames and titles can aid a reader in identifying characters, aliases designed to conceal a character's true identity do not aid the reader in identifying characters.  For this reason, claiming that Princess Leia was Swan's "nickname" makes as much sense as claiming that Henry Mills was Peter Pan's "nickname."  Would you agree?You write, "The Savior or The Dark Swan is also some titles."Dark Swan is a nickname she had briefly, not a title.You write, "These titles refers to who/what they became later in life. Like Killian Jones became Captain Hook after Liam's death and decides to leave the King."Captain Hook is a nickname, not a title; Captain is a title.You write, "Hook uses another alias Prince Charles as well. That is also a nickname or alias. Something fake."<p style="text-indent:20px">It is not a nickname at all; it is an alias.  Nobody actually calls Jones "Prince Charles"; they do actually call him "Hook."  Similarly, nobody actually calls Pan "Henry Mills."<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "And I say again, that way is more organized as some characters don't have names and only titles."<p style="text-indent:20px">And some characters don't have nicknames or titles.  But that fact doesn't somehow make the slashed conflation of names/nicknames/titles more "organized."  Every point I made above still stands, regardless of whether some characters have nicknames, titles, both, or neither.<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "The Huntsmans, Red King etc. titles are as important their name as it is used by them and the inhabitants as well."<p style="text-indent:20px">And if someone were arguing to eliminate nicknames and titles from the page, this was be an excellent counter-argument.  But no one is arguing for that position.  Of course nicknames and titles are helpful for readers wishing to identify characters, and that's why I did not exorcise a single nickname or title from the page.  (Indeed, if one takes a gander at my three aforementioned edits, one will see I actually added a couple.  I.e., in the case of Tinker Bell, I added the nickname "Green"; in the case of Rumplestiltskin, I added the nickname/title "The Dark One"; in the case of Queen Guinevere, I added the title "Queen"; in the case of Isaac Heller, I added the title "The Author"; and in the case of Merlin, I added the nickname/title "The Sorcerer."  Of course, you undid all of that.)<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "It's a systematic way which had been used and followed throughout the years."<p style="text-indent:20px">Tradition does not constitute a sufficient argument.  Slavery was legal in many of these United States since they obtained independence, and yet I'm sure you would agree with me that that is not a valid argument for not abolishing slavery.  The fact that one method of organisation has been used since the beginning, therefore, is not an argument against adopting a better method of organisation should one come along.  Rather, the two methods of organisation must be compared and contrasted with one another on their own merits, regardless of tradition.<p style="text-indent:20px">It is true that the method hitherto employed here is "systematic," but so too is the system I propose.  Therefore, it is irrelevant to bring up the fact that either one is systematic.  The pivotal point here to consider is which one is easier to read, which one helps the reader to more quickly distinguish actual names from nicknames and/or titles.  And, in consideration of that point, the clear advantage falls on the system of organisation I proposed.<p style="text-indent:20px">To make the case all the more accessible to our readers, allow me to indulge in posting the two systems side-by-side:


 * <p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "I however would like to apologize if you feel offended or hurt in any way when I said your edits are unorganized nor messy."<p style="text-indent:20px">I greatly appreciate you writing this. It shows character, and I deeply respect that.<p style="text-indent:20px">Don't worry, I wasn't offended or hurt.  I was, more than anything else, shocked by your assessment.<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "I understand your intentions here, but her Real World name isn't Belle French."<p style="text-indent:20px">I never said it was.  My sole claim with regards to Belle was that her "Land With Magic" name was Belle French.  I agree entirely with you that her "Real World" name should be listed simply as Lacey.<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "I know you are trying to tell that they have a Real World counterpart but we have chosen N/A} instead of the other because we will never know their counterpart unless stated otherwise."<p style="text-indent:20px">That's precisely why it should be denoted with the {  {unknown}  } template.  Until such time as the show reveals to us their "Real World" names, their "Real World" names are applicable but unknown.  The {  {N/A}  } template ought only be used when, to our knowledge, there is no "Real World" name (as in the case of Maleficent or Blackbeard, e.g.).<p style="text-indent:20px">I reiterate what I said before:  Both templates exist and serve specific functions; therefore, it would be foolhardy of us not to utilise them accordingly.<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "So, if we put 'Unknown' it's kinda speculation that we are trying to say that they had a counterpart."<p style="text-indent:20px">You misunderstand me, I think.  I did not say we should use {  {unknown}  } for every character, nor even, for that matter, every character that might have been brought over by way of curse.  That, you are right, would involve speculation.  Rather, I am arguing that we should use {  {unknown}  } solely for those characters that we know got brought over in the curse but of whom we do not know the "Real World" name; for all other characters, I am arguing we should keep the {  {N/A}  } template.  (For example, we know Dopey was brought over in the curse, and we know that his "Real World" name wasn't "Dopey," but we don't know was his "Real World" name was.  Thus, he would get the {  {unknown}  } template.  But since Maleficent's name was still Maleficent in the "Real World" and since we don't know if Blackbeard was brought over to the "Real World" by way of curse, both of them would retain the {  {N/A}  } template.) Sincerely yours, allixpeeke (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the Evil Queen is a title, not a nickname. She is also credited as the Evil Queen in some cases, mainly in flashbacks in the official ABC's res release. Majority of these "nicknames" that you call are titles as the characters are credited as so in press releases. For example, Anastasia (from the Wonderland show) was credited as the Red Queen and her real name was never credited. But here in the list, we add her real name first then followed with the ( / ) to indicate her other counterparts. You see, to simplify this, these nicknames or titles aren't just nicknames or titles, they are actually counterparts, someone or something that they become (already mentioned this). That's why we place the ( / ). If we put them in brackets : Regina Mills (The Evil Queen), it is wrong as it is trying to say that that's her nickname as for Prince David's case, it is Prince David (Prince Charming). Now, the difference here is Charming is a nickname done by Snow White but the Evil Queen is a counterpart based on the original fairytales. The creators changed it in Charming's case. In the episode "The Evil Queen", Regina herself called her the Evil Queen, she mentioned something about "The Queen is Dead, long live the Evil Queen" or something like that. Other thing with brackets is that the list becomes longer (horizontal). When we use ( / ) we do it like this : Red Lucas/Red Riding Hood/ Wolf but if brackets come in order, then Red Lucas (Red Riding Hood and The Wolf), there are additional words such as "and" and "The" which makes their counterparts column longer than it is. The aim was to make is simpler and shorter.

Besides that, I know that you are trying to tell the viewers their name and what is their counterpart (nickname in your case), that's what we already had done with the ( / ) system. Their original name is placed first (if they have) and then followed with their other counterparts listed following their timeline. Like Regina, she was Regina Mills and then she became the Evil Queen, so we list it like so : Regina Mills/Evil Queen so readers can see that her name is Regina. Other than that, in the history section, it's already been mentioned about their names and counterparts, bolded.

Other than that, what I tried to explain recording The Saviour or Dark Swan are counterparts which does not exists and are stuffs created either by fans or just a way of talking among the characters in the show.

As for the Dark One or the Sorcerer, those aren't really counterparts, so it isn't needed. There had been plenty of Dark Ones, if we put one for Rumple, then we have to put one for Emma, Hook, Zoso Nimue etc as they all had been Dark Ones throughout the timeline of the show. The Sorcerer is also another which isn't a counterpart, it's a figure of speech, all practitioners of magic can be called as sorcerers, namely Merlin, Rumple, Jafar etc. The Author is also not a counterpart, there's plenty of Authors, it's basically a job. A counterpart is something that only one character possesses.

Besides that, yes I know that you want to put Unknown for those that you think have Real World counterparts like the Dwarves, but if we put that, it will be speculation. You see, there had been some who did not have counterparts when they were brought over by the curse, some like Jefferson and Granny. Both uses their EF counterparts and Regina also used her EF name. So, it cannot be said confirmedly that the others bonded by the curse actually had counterparts in the Real World. That's why N/A is a much easier template to use as it's means they don't have one nor not confirmed of a such.

IMPORTANT : Due note that using stuffs from past histories is not a valid point here. Do not use slavery or any of a such. Those are for the better for the world. This is just a Wikipedia page, don't go as far as that. Naveenruben97 (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Naveenruben97,<p style="text-indent:20px">I find much of this irrelevant to my point.   Even if Regina, in her capacity as monarch, did officially title herself "Evil Queen" (as opposed to merely referring to herself by the nickname granted to her by her subjects), I would still argue that it merits being parenthesised for the same reason that nicknames should be parenthesised: viz., titles do not constitute a character's actual name.  Even if nicknames are somehow automatically elevated to the status of titles when they are included in press releases, I would still argue that they merit being parenthesised for the same reason that nicknames should be parenthesised: viz., titles do not constitute a character's actual name.  I fail to see exactly how Evil Queen is a "counterpart" to Queen Regina; they are not two separate persons resembling one another, neither in appearance nor in function, nor are they copies of one another; both labels reference the same exact person.  But, even if the nicknames and titles are more than "just nicknames and titles," I would still argue that they merit being parenthesised for the same reason that nicknames-that-are-just-nicknames and titles-that-are-just-titles should be parenthesised: viz., neither nicknames-that-are-more-than-just-nicknames nor titles-that-are-more-than-just-titles constitute a character's actual name.<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "Other thing with brackets is that the list becomes longer (horizontal). When we use ( / ) we do it like this : Red Lucas/Red Riding Hood/ Wolf but if brackets come in order, then Red Lucas (Red Riding Hood and The Wolf), there are additional words such as 'and' and 'The' which makes their counterparts column longer than it is. The aim was to make is simpler and shorter."<p style="text-indent:20px">(1)  Yes, it is true that the lines would be slightly longer horizontally, but that's a good thing since the additional space makes it easier to read.  "Red Lucas/Red Riding Hood/Wolf" is all squeezed together, and that's why it's harder to read and looks less organised.<p style="text-indent:20px">(2)  If"Queen Regina ('The Evil Queen')"looks too long to you, how about"Queen Regina ('Evil Queen')"?  If"Will Scarlet ('The Knave of Hearts' and 'The White King')"looks too long to you, how about"Will Scarlet ('Knave of Hearts' and 'White King')"or even"Will Scarlet ('Knave of Hearts'/'White King')"?  I find all of these better than"Will Scarlet/Knave of Hearts/White King"because the series-of-slashes model squeezes everything in too tightly, makes it more difficult to read, and makes it a bit ambiguous as to which terms constitute names on the one hand and which constitute nicknames/titles on the other.<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "Besides that, I know that you are trying to tell the viewers their name and what is their counterpart (nickname in your case), that's what we already had done with the ( / ) system. Their original name is placed first (if they have) and then followed with their other counterparts listed following their timeline."<p style="text-indent:20px">A "counterpart" is an entirely separate person who merely resembles the first, especially in function.  A single person is not a counterpart to her- or himself.  For example, the Wicked Witch of the West is not a person who happens to merely resemble Zelena, whether in appearance or in function; rather, the Wicked Witch of the West is Zelena.  For another example, when Rumplestiltskin turns from a human into an imp, he's still the same person with all the same memories, all the same lust for power, all the same cowardice; being imbued with dark magic did not make him a separate person.<p style="text-indent:20px">But, for sake of discussion, let's pretend you said title/nickname instead of counterpart.  You're saying here that the present system already addresses the issue I'm bringing up because the first label in the series of slashes is the character's actual name and that the rest of the labels in the series of slashes constitute titles and nicknames.<p style="text-indent:20px">The problem should be clear when you consider (1) "Huntsman," (2) "Dreamy/Grumpy," and (3) "Malcolm/Peter Pan/Pied Piper."  (1) "Huntsman" is not a name.  The way the list is currently constituted, any reader who chooses not to read the character descriptions may incorrectly infer that "Huntsman" is the character's name.  (2) Unlike "Evil Queen" or "Wicked Witch of the West," Grumpy is not a nickname/title; it's the character's actual name.  If you are correct that the list implies that the first label in a series of slashes is a name and that the rest of the labels in a series of slashes is something other than a name (nickname, title, whatever), then "Dreamy/Grumpy" incorrectly implies that only "Dreamy" is the character's name, that "Grumpy" is something other than a name.  (3) The same issue exists with "Malcolm/Peter Pan/Pied Piper."  "Peter Pan" is just as much the character's name as is "Malcolm," while "Pied Piper" is either a nickname or title.  Yet, if you are correct that the list implies that the first label in a series of slashes is a name and that the rest of the labels in a series of slashes is something other than a name (nickname, title, whatever), then "Malcolm/Peter Pan/Pied Piper" incorrectly implies that only "Malcolm" is the character's name, that "Peter Pan" is something other than a name.<p style="text-indent:20px">There is only one way to exorcise this ambiguity, and it is to adopt my recommendation.<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "As for the Dark One or the Sorcerer, those aren't really counterparts, so it isn't needed."<p style="text-indent:20px">Of course they are not counterparts; none of these are counterparts.  Here's an example of an actual counterpart: Isaac Heller and Henry Daniel Mills.  Here's why they are counterparts: they are two separate persons who perform the same function (viz., the function of the Author).  (I have not seen Once Upon a Time in Wonderland, but assuming the two are separate persons who resemble one another, they, too, would constitute counterparts.)<p style="text-indent:20px">If "The Sorcerer" should not be listed next to "Merlin" (despite the title "The Sorcerer" being used throughout the series to denote the character prior to our learning that his actual name was Merlin) on account of "The Sorcerer" not being a counterpart of Merlin's, that's like saying that "The Evil Queen" should not be listed next to "Queen Regina" on account of "The Evil Queen" not being a counterpart of Queen Regina's.<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "There had been plenty of Dark Ones, if we put one for Rumple, then we have to put one for Emma, Hook, Zoso Nimue etc as they all had been Dark Ones throughout the timeline of the show."<p style="text-indent:20px">Now that is a solid argument.  You're absolutely right: we should not include the title "The Dark One" for Rumplestiltskin, and for the exact reason you gave.  (We could, if we wanted, still include the nickname given to Rumplestiltskin by Hook (viz., "The Crocodile"), but you have convinced me that we ought not include Rumplestiltskin's title (i.e., "The Dark One").)<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "The Sorcerer is also another which isn't a counterpart, it's a figure of speech, all practitioners of magic can be called as sorcerers, namely Merlin, Rumple, Jafar etc."<p style="text-indent:20px">I cannot comment on Once Upon a Time in Wonderland characters (e.g., Jafar) as I've not seen that show, but I do believe the only character in all of Once Upon a Time that was ever referred to as "The Sorcerer" was Merlin.  In fact, until the character's name was revealed in the fifth season, the character was exclusively called "The Sorcerer."  The only reason "The Sorcerer" is not a counterpart of "Merlin" is the same reason "Evil Queen" is not a counterpart to "Queen Regina," viz., a counterpart is a separate person altogether.<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "The Author is also not a counterpart, there's plenty of Authors, it's basically a job."<p style="text-indent:20px">Yes, a job title, in short, a title.  Not a nickname, not a counterpart, but a title.<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "A counterpart is something that only one character possesses."<p style="text-indent:20px">A counterpart is a different character altogether.  The only time I recall one character possessing another is when Rumplestiltskin enslaved Belle, but that doesn't make Belle Rumplestiltskin's counterpart.<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "Besides that, yes I know that you want to put Unknown for those that you think have Real World counterparts like the Dwarves, but if we put that, it will be speculation.  …  So, it cannot be said confirmedly that the others bonded by the curse actually had counterparts in the Real World. That's why N/A is a much easier template to use as it's means they don't have one nor not confirmed of a such."<p style="text-indent:20px">Are you saying that you think it is possible that when Dopey was brought over by the curse, his name was still "Dopey"?<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "IMPORTANT : Due note that using stuffs from past histories is not a valid point here."<p style="text-indent:20px">Since when is an analogy rendered "invalid" on account that the analogy compares a present argument to an historical argument?<p style="text-indent:20px">Whatever.  If you don't want the analogy to use "past histories," then I will instead use a hypothetical scenario instead of an historical scenario.<p style="text-indent:20px">Let's say that tomorrow, a new country is formed.  Let's call it Ruritania.  And let's say that the king of Ruritania, in his first act as ruler of an independent nation, makes the enslavement of redheads a legally protected institution.  And let's say that for the next twelve centuries, there is absolutely no change in Ruritania's laws pertaining to slavery.<p style="text-indent:20px">Then, one day (let's say March of the year 3217), a Ruritanian subject named Rothbarditron comes along and proposes to the sitting king that he abolish slavery.  If the king responds to Rothbarditron by saying that enslavement of redheads is "a systematic way which had been used and followed throughout the years," would we consider the king's argument for not abolishing slavery sufficient?  No, because tradition does not constitute a sufficient argument.<p style="text-indent:20px">Now, is that better?  No references to history.<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "Do not use slavery or any of a such."<p style="text-indent:20px">Do you understand why I used slavery in my analogy?  It's because it's a safe bet that you and I both agree that slavery should not be protected by government.  If I had chosen a more-controversial topic, such as abortion, I run the risk of alienating you.  You might be pro-life or pro-choice, and while tradition does not constitute a sufficient argument in favour of either the pro-life position or the pro-choice position, partisans on either side might still get hung up on the issue and fail to see the big picture, viz., that tradition does not constitute a sufficient argument.  Since opposition to slavery is not controversial, since opposition to slavery is near universal in modern, industrialised societies, I felt safe assuming you would agree with me that slavery is a crime against nature, and that, thus, you would be able to focus on the meat of my argument against appealing to tradition.<p style="text-indent:20px">But, since you ask that I do not use slavery in my analogy, I'll have to think of another topic that we probably agree upon.  How about murder?  Assuming you agree with me that murder is a crime against nature, this analogy will work:<p style="text-indent:20px">Let's say that tomorrow, a new country is formed.  Let's call it Ruritania.  And let's say that the king of Ruritania, in his first act as ruler of an independent nation, makes the murder of redheads a legally protected institution.  And let's say that for the next twelve centuries, there is absolutely no change in Ruritania's laws pertaining to murder.<p style="text-indent:20px">Then, one day (let's say March of the year 3217), a Ruritanian subject named Rothbarditron comes along and proposes to the sitting king that he abolish all legal protections of murder.  If the king responds to Rothbarditron by saying that murder of redheads is "a systematic way which had been used and followed throughout the years," would we consider the king's argument for not abolishing legal protections of murder sufficient?  No, because tradition does not constitute a sufficient argument.<p style="text-indent:20px">Now, is that better?  No references to history or to slavery.<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "Those are for the better for the world."<p style="text-indent:20px">I have no idea what you are trying to say here.<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "This is just a Wikipedia page, don't go as far as that."<p style="text-indent:20px">Don't go as far as what?  Arguing against the validity of appealing to tradition?  And why not?  Because this is Wikipedia?  Appeal to tradition is no more valid on Wikipedia than it is anywhere else.  Indeed, Wikipedia's very existence qua electronic encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone in the world bucks tradition. Respectfully yours, allixpeeke (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Basically, I am done fighting with you. After seeing what you did in the Universe and Worlds page, this argument is now pointless. Why I say? Because you did exactly what I did. Another user completely changed the format and you undid it because u thought the previous format that we had been using is superior (meaning better than the lastest). Now although I agree with you on that, the reason why you arguing with me is because of the same thing that you did. I undid your edits as the previous format that had been used is better. Firstly, giving an opinion on changing a format is always allowed, but you just changed everything without even discussing it. That's already wrong. Secondly, this page has been following another Once pages formats as well. The main page, the seasonal pages (season 1,2,3,4,5) and also the main Wonderland page all follows this format. We don't put stuffs like Regina Mills (Evil Queen) or Regina Mills (The Evil Queen) or any brackets of a such. Now your angry because I change your format, but you undid another's user's format as well, so don't keep scolding me for doing the same. I am mentions many of my points yet your still not listening (reading) it and keep putting another stuffs that are completely not relevant to this argument topic. You have to understand one thing, their names are important, yes. Their counterparts are also important. This isn't a show where characters has only one counterparts. This is a fairy tale show based on many fairy tales, mythologies, legends etc. this is also taken from Disney media stuffs and these counterparts are also taken and aluded into the show. So we use (/) to show those other counterparts besides their original names. As for those who has no names, in the history sections it has been mention that they are nameless. For example, the Witch (DunBroch). It's mentioned that she's a nameless old women (or something like that). But not all are stated like that as we are not always available to edit the articles. So instead of keep insisting to change the page to your way, how about you just help us fill in this missing histories and other stuffs that are in need of help. Naveenruben97 (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "you just changed everything without even discussing it" – It's fine to do that, but it's also fine to revert it. See WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. – nyuszika7h (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

nyuszika7h : yeah I know, but the edits was a complete change of format, so that's why I reverted the edit. I (and others before) were following just a simple format. And this user is fighting back because I reverted the edits and so I'm explaining here the reasons. Also, he did the same on another page when another user changed the entire format, so if he could do that as its a complete format change, why when I do so, it's a big problem? Naveenruben97 (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Naveenruben97,<p style="text-indent:20px">We weren't "fighting." We were disagreeing on the main points (i.e.,  (1)  which format is easier to read and quicker for readers to easily comprehend?  (2)  should we stick with tradition merely for the sake of sticking with tradition or should we only stick with tradition when tradition is actually better?) and going off into irrelevant tangents (e.g.,  (1)  are they technically titles or nicknames?  (2)  what constitutes a counterpart?) with one another.  At all times, we spoke cordially with and retained mutual respect for one another, and as such, I do not regard our exchanges as "fighting."<p style="text-indent:20px">You say that discussing this matter is "now pointless" on the grounds that I did the same thing on the worlds page that you did here.  It is true that I did the same thing on the worlds page that you did here, but that doesn't make anything I said about readability, ambiguity, and ease of comprehension "now pointless."  If you wish to cease arguing in defence of your position (i.e., that we should keep the traditional format because it's traditional and because you believe the lines being slightly-less-long horizontally is better), you're free to cease arguing in defence of your position.  But keep in mind that the reason I started this discussion was to ascertain a consensus.  As I initially wrote to the Wikipedia community,"Feel free to peruse the culmination of my three edits here. I trust that the vast majority of you will agree that my edits constituted an improvement, that they made the page easier to read and helped to remove unwanted ambiguity. &#8230; In conclusion, I encourage readers to weigh in on whether my edits were an improvement to the page as I claim, or whether my edits were marked by messiness and disorganisation, as Naveenruben97 claimed."I still hope to see people weigh in on this matter.<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "Firstly, giving an opinion on changing a format is always allowed, but you just changed everything without even discussing it. That's already wrong."<p style="text-indent:20px">As nyuszika7h correctly pointed out, it was not.<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "Secondly, this page has been following another Once pages formats as well. The main page, the seasonal pages (season 1,2,3,4,5) and also the main Wonderland page all follows this format."<p style="text-indent:20px">Just because something works on those pages doesn't mean that it works here.  But, if you care to know, the reason it works on those pages is because those pages are listing rolls, not character names  .<p style="text-indent:20px">Moreover, your case is further weakened by citing those examples, since those examples include more spacing than is employed on this page.  Recall that one of the main reasons you prefer the traditional format is that you think inclusion of the spaces widens the list horizontally too-significantly.  According to you, "Other thing with brackets is that the list becomes longer (horizontal).  &#8230;  [T]here are additional words&#8230;which makes their counterparts column longer than it is. The aim was to make is simpler and shorter."  Nevertheless, your examples include some of the additional horizontal length about which you express worry.<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "Now your angry because I change your format, but you undid another's user's format as well, so don't keep scolding me for doing the same."<p style="text-indent:20px">(1)  I am not angry, and I am a bit offended that you would say I am.  Indeed, I have not been angry even once during this entire exchange.  Please do not accuse people of being angry when they are not.  As I previously said to you, "Don't worry, I wasn't offended or hurt.  I was, more than anything else, shocked by your assessment. "<p style="text-indent:20px">(2)  I have never "scolded" you for undoing my edit.  To the contrary, I have simply and consistently maintained that my edit was an improvement and encouraged readers to consider for themselves which of the two organisational systems is better.  If you're going to present arguments to the Wikipedia community as to why you believe the traditional system should be maintained, it is only fair that I be permitted to present arguments to the Wikipedia community as to why the superior system should supplant the traditional one.<p style="text-indent:20px">(3)  It seems that you are trying to insinuate that, since I believe Talijaqueline's edit (which coincidentally was a massive overhaul of the entire page structure) was a detriment to the page since it removed the clear elucidation of which realms were in which lands that had existed prior to her or his edit, that that somehow proves that my edit (which coincidentally involved just a minor change to the formatting in just the character names column) was also a detriment to the page.  I am sorry, but that is faulty reasoning.  It is quite possible for Talijaqueline to introduce a detrimental edit (in an entirely separate article) without rendering my edit (in this article) somehow also detrimental.  (Indeed, if we were to suppose that Talijaqueline's detrimental edit did somehow render my edit also detrimental, we would have to suppose that it somehow also rendered other Wikipedians' edits detrimental, perhaps even all Wikipedians' edits—an absurd supposition, as I'm sure you'll agree with me.)<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "You have to understand one thing, their names are important, yes. Their counterparts are also important. This isn't a show where characters has only one counterparts. This is a fairy tale show based on many fairy tales, mythologies, legends etc. this is also taken from Disney media stuffs and these counterparts are also taken and aluded into the show. So we use (/) to show those other counterparts besides their original names."<p style="text-indent:20px">(1)  Google "counterpart."  You'll see the following definitions:
 * a person or thing holding a position or performing a function that corresponds to that of another person or thing in another place.
 * one of two or more copies of a legal document.
 * You're misusing the term counterpart.<p style="text-indent:20px">(2) I agree with you that these other names (nicknames, titles, counterparts, whatever you want to call them) are important and must be included.  That doesn't explain why parenthesising them is inferior to slashing them.<p style="text-indent:20px">As I already said,"And if someone were arguing to eliminate nicknames and titles from the page, this was be an excellent counter-argument. But no one is arguing for that position.  Of course nicknames and titles are helpful for readers wishing to identify characters, and that's why I did not exorcise a single nickname or title from the page.  (Indeed, if one takes a gander at my three aforementioned edits, one will see I actually added a couple.  I.e., in the case of Tinker Bell, I added the nickname 'Green'&#8230;"So, clearly, I agree that these other names are important and must not be removed.<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "As for those who has no names, in the history sections it has been mention that they are nameless."<p style="text-indent:20px">As I've said previously,"The way the page was set up previously, one might (if she or he did not bother to read the paragraph below it) assume that the Huntsman's name actually was 'Huntsman'&#8230;"I also said,"The way the list is currently constituted, any reader who chooses not to read the character descriptions may incorrectly infer that 'Huntsman' is the character's name."Obviously anyone who takes the time to read the Huntsman's description will see that "Huntsman" is not the character's name but rather his title.  The reason putting-his-title-in-quotation-marks is superior to not-putting-his-title-in-quotation-marks is because those who do not bother to read the character descriptions may incorrectly infer that "Huntsman" is the character's actual name.<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "yeah I know, but the edits was a complete change of format, so that's why I reverted the edit."<p style="text-indent:20px">(1)  It was not a "complete" change of format.  99.9% of the page was still formatted exactly the same as it had been.  My edit only affected the names column, and moreover there was no loss of information or usability in my edit.  My edit constituted a minor, yet beneficial, change.<p style="text-indent:20px">(2)  Even if it had been a "complete change of format," that is not a reason for undoing it.  It should only be undone if it is a detrimental change in format.<p style="text-indent:20px">To state the matter more clearly, a change in format can be a good change in format or a bad change in format.  Bad changes in format should be reverted; good changes in format should not.<p style="text-indent:20px">Therefore, the question to consider shouldn't be whether or not this was a change in format—obviously it was a change in format (albeit a minor one).  Nor should the question to consider be whether or not this was a complete change in format.  Rather, the only question we should consider is whether this was a good change in format or a bad change in format.  If my edit constituted a bad change in format, then it should be reverted, and if my edit constituted a good change in format, then it should be brought back.  That is the only question worth considering, and if a majority of Wikipedians reach a consensus that my edit did constitute a bad change in format, I'll gladly drop the issue.  In the meantime, I'm still hoping to see them weigh in.<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "I (and others before) were following just a simple format."<p style="text-indent:20px">The format I suggested was just as simple as the format you promote.<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "And this user is fighting back because I reverted the edits."<p style="text-indent:20px">I am not "fighting" you.  What I am doing, Naveenruben97, is what editors are supposed to do.  I am (1) avoiding an edit-war by (2) raising a discussion on the talk page in hopes of (3) generating a consensus.  I am doing this by (1) putting forward reasonable arguments in support of the position that a more-readable, less-ambiguous format should supplant the traditional format and (2) inviting the Wikipedia community to weigh in on whether it agrees with me.  Moreover, I have (1) handled the discussion with dignity by (2) never once resulting to insults or remarks that are in any other way degrading and (3) always maintaining a respectable, quiet, yet confident tone.  Thus, I don't believe I deserve to be denounced for my conduct; if anything, I deserve praise.<p style="text-indent:20px">You write, "Also, he did the same on another page when another user changed the entire format, so if he could do that as its a complete format change, why when I do so, it's a big problem?"<p style="text-indent:20px">It seems you may be bundling two separate premises into one.  I have never rejected the premise that my edit should be reverted if it was a detriment to the page.  The only premise I have rejected is that my edit was detrimental to the page.<p style="text-indent:20px">I did not undo Talijaqueline's edit simply because it was a format change.  I do not care that it was a format change, and I do not care about tradition.  According to my edit summary, here is why I undid Talijaqueline's edit:"Undid revision 715976832 by Talijaqueline (talk) — Previous system of organisation was superior in that it clearly elucidated which realms were in which lands"That is why I undid the worlds edit, not because it was a change in format nor because it bucked tradition, but because it effectively uncategorised which realms were in which worlds, thereby making it more difficult for readers to quickly ascertain which realms were in which worlds.  With Talijaqueline's edit, readers would have to read the entire article in order to ascertain which realms, e.g., were in Fairy Tale Land; with my reversion, readers could find all of the Fairy Tale Land realms quickly and easily by looking in the Fairy Tale Land section.  (If you wish to make a corollary to this page, one can, but it would favour undoing your reversion.  Your reversion requires readers to have to read the entire article in order to ascertain which names are titles/nicknames; reverting your reversion would allow readers to quickly and easily discern which names are actually names and which names are actually titles/nicknames; they wouldn't have to read all the various character descriptions to find out.) Respectfully yours, allixpeeke (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Dual identities
Since they are literally split in two, should Dr. Henry Jekyll/Mr. Edward Hyde and Regina Mills/Evil Queen be treated as the same or separate characters? --72.67.36.85 (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Queen Regina
Queen Regina/Evil Queen definitely needs to be listed in main, not recurring. She is portrayed by a series regular and was the main antagonist of the season up until E14 and then returned for the two part finale. That is definitely main. She has a many, if not more, appearances than Rogers. Scream4man (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Huge disagree, the character is a recurring character, despite being played by Lana Parrilla. The character was not meant to be a main. The same goes for Josh Dallas, who played Prince James and King David (Wish Realm), Jared Gilmore who played Prince Henry (Wish Realm), Ginnifer Goodwin who played Queen Snow White (Wish Realm). The characters were not mains. 115.132.44.192 (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works though. A main character is determined by how their actor is billed. Lana Parrilla appears in about 16 episodes as the Evil Queen and is billed as starring. We can't decide those things. I agree we could say James and the Wish Realms, etc. are minor because they have like two appearances but the Queen was a part of the starring cast. Scream4man (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Page size
This page currently has 446,177 bytes of wiki-markup - that's far to big. What's the best way to split it? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the main issue is that the formatting is taking up too much space in the article. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Separating guest characters into another article, to start. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't have to separate the sections into different pages to reduce the bytes. We can just reduce the amount of summaries written in each character. Long summaries are not needed. Some characters have more than 20 sentences of content, which can be reduced. Also, cast pictures is not necessary for every single cast in the page, plus some are repetitive due to the cast playing different versions of the characters. An example would be Lana Parrilla, who playes Regina, the serum version of the Evil Queen, and the Wish Realm Evil Queen, and all 3 sections have her picture, it would be better to have her picture for the main version. Perhaps the main ones and some heavy recurring ones would do. 175.143.228.68 (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What we really need is both splitting and the reductions that you talk about. While this article without splitting is outrageously too large, splitting the main sections would still leave articles that are very large. I'm not sure if there are too many images, but the length of descriptions for each character certainly uses more bytes. There might be formatting issues which I recommend be fixed by using the find and replace tools, but I don't see how this article could get to a decent size without splits. More than half of the detail would have to be cut out, and I would rather information was preserved if possible, although there may be some details we could do without or that aren't strongly supported. Onetwothreeip (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm currently shortening the content in the main cast to reduce the size, and the same should and can be done for recurring, guest, creatures, and novel characters. Plus, this is a Wikipedia page, for removing a huge chunk of information would be better as it is not Wikia. As long as the characters are all listed, with a brief description and content, the page should be fine. An example would be this page: List of Lost characters. This show has a lot of characters, but their page is short and simple, although I would recommend to still cut the content. If we can get rid of all unnecessary cast pictures, and contents, the page size can be brought down, as like I said, we are not Wikia, so we do not need to list every single thing that has happen to these characters. 175.143.227.185 (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Each image only takes about 80 characters, and there's 100 images, so removing every image would only reduce the article size by 8000 bytes. That's really not much when this article is at least 330,000 bytes too large. Without any splitting that would require removing a large majority of information. I would strongly recommend reading Article size. Notifying who have expressed interest. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

In the five months since I raised the matter the article has been educed from to 446,177 bytes 421,395 - less than 6%. That's simply not enough, and something much more radical is needed. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I welcome the reductions in size that have taken place, but I still favour splitting the guest characters section out. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I very much disagree with the recent WP:SPINOUT of List of Once Upon a Time main characters and have reverted it (and redirected the spinout back here). As noted in my edit summary, "the main characters should absolutely be covered in this LoC. If need be, spin out the creatures (but they'd likely get AfDed soon)." Rather than spinning out non-NOTABLE things, consider trimming them or remove them entirely. List of Once Upon a Time guest characters is already at AfD for exactly this reason. Also, the coding of the LoC table makes up the bulk of list size, and personally speaking, I find it hard to read and navigate for such long-runing shows. Consider going back to the basic sub-headers. – sgeureka t•c 15:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I WP:BOLDly redirected List of Once Upon a Time creatures back to this LoC "as WP:Alternatives to deletion and because of complex WP:COPYWITHIN issues - this fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOTPLOT, nothing mergeworthy". I hope this redirect sticks, or if recreated, that it at least attempts to address the reasons for redirection. – sgeureka t•c 16:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Character duplicates
I see that Hook is listed twice under different descriptions, both played by the same actor. One is listed as seasons 2-7 and the other is listed as seasons 6-7. I did not watch the latter seasons of the show, so I'm not sure what's going on here and whether it warrants a separate character description. Could someone either clarify why they're separate or merge them into one character? Jojopeanut (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you had bothered to watch the series till the finale, you would know that the actor plays an alternate version of the original character (Hook), hailing from the Wish Realm, and this character was the main character for the seventh season and was cursed to Rogers in the LWM. 115.134.46.190 (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)