Talk:List of Once Upon a Time episodes

Featured character column
It seems that User:Sonofaphrodite and User:75.51.91.117 believe the "Featured characters" column should be added, while some others do not. I'm getting tired of this popping up on my page, especially since no one seems willing to discuss. Personally, I see no problem with the addition (though it does take up quite a bit of space), seeing as there's columns on the List of Lost episodes article that have been unchallenged for years. I'm not quite sure why there's a problem with it here, since it's pretty much the exact same thing. Whatever the case, I'd like to get a discussion going to try to stop the problems here. Thanks. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it is irrelevant and unnecessary. - Jasonbres (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Should it therefore be removed at List of Lost episodes as well? What makes it relevant and necessary there, but not here?  Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Lost, for one thing, is a more popular show than this one. - Jasonbres (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're argument doesn't use anything that really supports your stand. All you've said is that "it is irrelevant and unnecessary," but didn't explain why.  Anybody could say the exact opposite, and it would be just as valid of an argument.  The fact that Lost was/is more popular has no bearing on the matter.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's irrelevant because I don't see how having the information would increase anyone's understanding of a particular episode, and I feel the same about the Lost page. It also falls under the banner of original research because it seems to be up to the discretion of the editor as to which episode corresponds to which characters, which may create problems later because the series won't necessarily follow the format of focusing on one character in particular. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Very true, I hadn't thought about that. I honestly don't care which way this goes, I just wanted to get some discussion out of it so that we can give people reasons why the column keeps getting removed.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well,I would like to note the format which LOST follows is that every single episode does focus on all of the characters, but at the same time, each episode focuses more on a certain character by showing flashbacks of their past in order to unravel more information about them so we can apprehend them better. That is what it is meant by the "Featured Characters" and I feel that there is an emptiness when that is not displayed on the "List of LOST episodes" and the "LOST (Season 1), LOST (Season 2), LOST (Season 3), LOST (Season 4), LOST (Season 5), and LOST (Season 6) pages. And the same for "Once Upon a Time" as well. The co-producers from LOST is using the same exact format: all of the characters are featured to keep the story moving, but each episode relates to one specific character because they want the viewers to understand them more and more throughout the series. And yes, maybe LOST is more popular than Once Upon a Time right now, but that is because Once Upon a Time is a new show which has just barely begun. As of now, only six out of twenty-two episodes has been shown for the first season, and if you haven't noticed, the show is already gaining very positive reviews. Who knows, maybe this show would be as popular as LOST, or better, once the first season has been completed. As stated above, you cannot say LOST deserves to have the "Featured Character(s)" section just because it is more "popular." Also, I believe this is explanatory enough as to how the "Featured Characters" section IS relevant. Sonofaphrodite (talk • contribs) 06:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because Lost did it doesn't mean this page has to as well. I agree that the argument that Lost is more popular doesn't actually mean anything, but that doesn't change the fact that the Featured Character column is actually irrelevant because it doesn't increase our understanding of the episode. The information provided by it is already covered (or can be) in the short summary. We don't need to illustrate the fact that a character is the focal point of the episode in order to understand anything more about the plot and the same information can be conveyed in the summary in only a few words. And as I mentioned earlier, there's no guarantee that the series will keep to this format and because there are no official sources to back-up the fact that an episode is about a particular character, there is the problem of original research because the original editor seems to be the one who has decided which episode is about which character. Just because it's self-evident doesn't mean it can be added unsourced. The same problem is apparent on the Lost page as well. Those are the reasons why I don't think the "Featured Character" column is needed:
 * 1) It doesn't enhance a viewer's knowledge of the episode.
 * 2) The information in the column is already covered in the summaries, which also take up a lot less room.
 * 3) It falls under the banner of original research, which is prohibited by Wikipedia. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying the episode is about a particular character, the flashbacks in each episode focuses on specific ones, which is what the "Featured Characters" is about. You're right, it is already summarized in a sentence or two, but what if somebody wants to know who is the character featured in the flashbacks without knowing what happened? There are ways to look at a certain point on a page without seeing another point, especially if there are so many words scattered together to catch something quickly. I've done it, so I would know. On that, here is one suggestion for a compromise. If you can think of another title for the section instead of "Featured Characters", such as "Character flashbacks" or something, but keep the same format that I was using for LOST, then why don't we do it? That way, people would understand more of what the section stands for and it won't violate any true resources in any way. And if the show doesn't follow the same format in the future, which I doubt will happen, well, then, I will take it as my responsibility to remove the section from all "Once Upon a Time" pages as soon as possible. Sonofaphrodite (talk • contribs) 05:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you know what, if you're not going to answer, well, you have until Wednesday to do so. If I don't see an answer before 10:00 p.m. on Wednesday, I am re-posting everything that I wish to do so and every time you take it down, I will just put it right back up again, and I don't care how long I have to do it. I have all the time in the world, so go ahead, take it down as much as you like. Because I always win any war. Sonofaphrodite ([[User talk:Sonofaphrodite|talk] 09:39, 11 December 2011
 * I don't think that's the best course of action here. That would fall under edit warring, and will only get you blocked from editing.  If you feel this strongly about it (and apparently you do), find an argument that works.  Wikipedia is a group effort, and right now, community consensus is to omit the column.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I made a suggestion for a compromise above, and I do feel strongly about adding in the section. Honestly, if they're not going to work with me, well, then, what am I supposed to do? That's just me, you either work with me or you don't, but if you don't, then I just do everything I can to get my way, I'm sorry, but I'm going to do whatever I want to do and it doesn't matter what anybody else says if they're not going to cooperate. Sonofaphrodite [[User talk:Sonofaphrodite|talk] 3:39, 12 December 2011


 * That attitude will get you nowhere but blocked. Wikipedia is a community, we work by consensus. We are all trying to make the article as good as it can be. Consensus so far is to not include the Featured Character(s) column because it is just not needed. And now you're saying that you'll just add it no matter what anyone else says unless we cooperate. Answer us this, then: why should we cooperate with you when you refuse to cooperate with us. Consensus is against you. If you don't like it, try and find others who share your point of view and we will discuss it some more. Follow through on your plan will just get you blocked. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, fine, whatever, don't add the section. I'm just sorry that so many editors are completely idiotic that they can't tell how a page can look better. Actually, it's quite sad; no wonder there are so many bad grammar and spelling errors on Wikipedia. Sonofaphrodite 6:42 12 December 2011 I never watched "lost" so it would just confuse me. I don't see how it would help you understand this show any more. If you need a better understanding then read their individual stories, i.e. Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Hansel & Gretel, Cinderella.....  That would make more since. Thanks! stslough 1/4/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.145.109.66 (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why this is a problem. It doesn't take that much space, and people tend to remember episodes by characters shown in the enchanted forest plot. As wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, this should come in handy. Those who do not feel so, please reconsider. At least let it stay that way for a week or so. If you keep instantly removing the column, we'll never know the consensus Wictator (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I corrected the order of the conversation. I haven't edited the comments.
 * I haven't watch Lost, but I see a fundamental difference between the series regarding this column: in Lost (as far as I can tell), the episode features on a single character whose story forms the subplot of the episode, in OUAT, the column would feature several characters who end up forming the main plot of the episode. Honestly, it's a good idea. But in execution, the column ends up with too many characters in it. Rumplestiltskin, Regina, Snow, and James would end up in over fifty percent of the column. There's too many characters for it. And are we only listing who appears in the Enchanted Forest storylines? An argument can be made that the Enchanted Forest portions are a subplot, but they can't really be separated from the Storybrooke plot. The two are one and the same; events in Storybrooke are reflections and, in a way, a rehashing of events in the Forest. At this point, it's all covered in the summaries anyway.
 * I love the idea, I really do, but it doesn't execute well: it would clutter the list, there would be too many characters listed in the column, and I see the reason for the column in Lost is because the episode deals only with a single character. I might be wrong on that last point, but I believe the others still hold.
 * And a final note, consensus can be reached without the column's presence on the page. As long as everyone is watching the page and is aware of the discussion. ~ Ten Ton  Parasol  15:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

LOST characters also appeared in other people's flashbacks, but it's always clear which character the main focus is on. There are some episodes of OUAT with a dual main focus but usually it is not (and there were episodes of LOST that focused on multiple characters). Even in episodes like the Beauty and the Beast one, the focus was clearly on Rumplestilskin and not Belle because of what was happening in the real world. Anyways, I think there should be a "Featured Character" section and since no one can agree and it's not that big a deal, I think it should be put up to a vote, and at a certain date, the votes will be counted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.180.114 (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Number of Episodes
I posted this as well in the Once Upon a Time main article talk. The number of episodes is listed with a source, but the person who posted that either used a different source or misread that source. The source says that HAPPY ENDINGS has been extended to 22 episodes, but nowhere on the page does it say that Once Upon a Time has 22 episodes, nor does it say that ABC ordered the first 9 episodes (on the other page). I make a motion these be deleted or sourced properly (if that can be done). Aswed123123123 (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's true, the source says nothing of a specific number. This page, generally accepted as correct information, specifies 22, though they don't say where they obtained the info. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I still haven't really heard any verifiable info on this, so I'll give it a tiny bit more time, but I've put tags up for unverifiable info. I will try to get in contact with thefutoncritic to see where they got their info. Aswed123123123 (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent trailers confirm that there are indeed 22 episodes, but I have no idea how to source that, or even if it's usable as a source. --Kitsunegami (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure either, it is indeed 22 episodes for the first season. I take back my arguments on the subject.Aswed123123123 (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Air Dates and Sourcing
Air Dates were listed for the rest of the season that were sourced by sharetv.org. I dont consider this to be reliable. It lists the season as being on in April and an episode will air every week from March 4 to April 29. The Futoncritic is a more reliable source or zap to it.com, these deal with everything tv related and press releases. When ABC released the press releases you can add the air date then. Don't be adding guess dates. Dont add projected air dates, the futoncritic has projected air dates listed, they are guessing the listing for the rest of the season, dont add projected ones wait until they have been confirmed by a promotional video or press release.

And when sourcing source from sites that would be very reliable. the futoncritic is reliable and zap to it.com is also. Liam74656 (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree. Would you consider chevronone.com to be reliable?  I'd never seen it before, but it appears that a few things on this page have cited it.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at chevronone.com and it looks reliable. I looked at spoilertv.com and it said it used contributions from other users. Also, abcmedianet.com is an ABC site and is supported directly from ABC so that can be used.

I only make these suggestions as I don't want everything on this article to be deleted because of non reliable references. Liam74656 (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright. I figured chevronone.com would be, but I just wanted a second opinion.  I agree 100% with your evaluation of spoilertv.com.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant sharetv.org not spoilertv.com the second time I posted. Sorry about that, my mind is all over the place today. Spoilertv.com reliable, sharetv.org not reliable.

Spoiling Plots
Some of the plots for the upcoming episodes give away WAAAY too much for a preview plot. I do not want to be spoiled so I think only press-released plots should be put in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.180.114 (talk) 01:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think after the episode airs a line or two should be added about what happened to that character in the episode on the main episode list page and when you click into the episode a detailed episode description is there. Go to Desperate housewives season 6 or 7 and you can see what I mean.Liam74656 (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not censor plot details simply because they may be considered spoilers. When looking in at a section that obviously contains plot information or summaries, it's just common sense to expect to be spoiled. See WP:SPOILERS. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand for after an episode has aired, but if hasn't yet, then the descriptions should be very minimal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.180.114 (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Season Pages
I know it's a little too early, but how about we create season pages ASAP? 76.116.112.84 (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't usually work on television articles. But I'm of the opinions that the season pages should be created after there is sufficient information and real-world commentary or production info. As of right now, I don't believe there is enough for season pages. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  22:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I could develop a season one page sometime this weekend. I found a lot of production info while developing the pilot episode article.  Ruby  2010/  2013  04:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as there's sufficient notability creating a season page is fine. Ruby's done good work on some of the Fringe pages so I'm not opposed. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool! I'm not opposed to season one. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  13:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Season Two Premiere Date
There are number of edits taking place claiming that season two of Once Upon a Time will be premiering in September, this claim has never been properly sourced. Please do not add any specific date until you have a verifiable source. Per WP:CRYSTAL. LiamNolan24 (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Season Four
Since it was announced that "Smash the Mirror" would be a 2 hour episode, the numbering of the episodes isn't entirely correct anymore. Currently "Smash the Mirror" is episode 408 and 409. But the truth is that 409 is the episode "Fall". A tweet with picture by Adam Horowitz that announced the episode title of 409 "Fall" clearly shows this: https://twitter.com/AdamHorowitzLA/status/520999807285219329. In my opinion this should also be reflected on the Wiki-pages, which should give "Smash the Mirror - Part 1" and "Smash the Mirror - Part 2" the same episode number (408) and number in the entire series would be just 74. --ReHo20 (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)ReHo20


 * Hello, the article that this would affect is Once Upon a Time (season 4), not this one. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Refer to this conversation, where all of this has already been talked about. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Table of contents location
Template:TOC right is being used to change the standard article layout. The TOC of this article is not unusually long, and does not create an excess of white space, and it should not be used here. Per Template:TOC right, "it should not simply be used for aesthetics since it tampers with the standard appearance of articles." The only time it should be used, is in articles with an unusually long TOC. Per the Manual of Style/Lead section: "Avoid floating the table of contents if possible, as it breaks the standard look of pages." Having the ToC floated to the right on this article is a clear violation of the Manual of Style. Additionally, floating it to the right won't even avoid excess white space for some users, for example, me. My browser settings make the box that follows the ToC too long for the ToC to fit to the right of it, hence the same amount of white space is still present whether the ToC is located on the right or the left. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Table width
I'm currently having the same convo on another page, but I wish to remove the adjustments on the individual season episode tables that confine and add unattractive, space consuming lines to the writing column. There are no official regulations concerning the matter that I know of, and the only justification for them I've seen is conformity and symmetry, which I could care less about. What are your thoughts? Let me hear from you. Thanks, LLArrow (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm confused when you say that you could care less about them, which would mean you wish to keep them? Thanks, however, for taking this to discussion. I've insisted on implementing conforming widths for most/all pages that I edit, as I've found it's mostly an unwritten agreement between editors, instead of a strictly formal regulation. If less width is required for the writers column, it is easy to simply change the column widths, adding space to on particular column and removing from another. My personal view is that it is the lesser of two evils - space-consuming lines and neat columns, or awkwardly different columns and thinner space-reducing rows. However, I would also be interested in the view of other editors. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I wrote I could careless about conformity and symmetry, not the actual tables. LLArrow (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Exactly - you could care less about them? If you could care less about conformity and symmetry, that means you want to keep conformity and symmetry? I'm confused. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Allow me to recontextualize my point. I would rather there be the smallest number of lines in the columns as possible, even if that comes at that price of conformity, season to season. LLArrow (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Special nr 8
Recently, a special has been added to this page, which appears to be aired on December 13, 2015. I can't find anything about this online, nor in the cited page. Can anyone add a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:4D2C:8200:55D4:E3:3776:AB4C (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It has aired, and hence does not need a source. You merely need to look up on Google "Behind the Magic: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" (quotation marks included), and you'll find multiple listings for it. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 00:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Onlyinclude table transclusion... thing
On the main article, Once Upon a Time (TV series), there is a problem with one of the tables coming over. I used to edit Wikipedia a lot, but this whole setup is new to me. The problem is, it's super borked on the main article, but looks fine here. I tried to fix it, but I don't feel like learning all of that just to fix one problem that could be fixed by the regular editors who likely already know how the whole thing works. I was just gonna copy the table out of here and paste it in there, but this new feature is there for a reason, and I don't want to cause MORE work. Rau J (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The home media table shouldn't be transcluded over to this page, especially the "Episodes" section. I've removed the "onlyinclude" tags on the List of Episodes page for said table. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 02:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Number of Episodes for Season 5
The episode list still says that Season 5 is 22 episodes. However, this no longer seems to be the case. Back at SDCC, Adam and Eddy originally specified that the split would be 10/12, so that the 100th episode could air as the Spring premiere. However, then ABC asked them to do an extra episode during the first half of the Season, "The Bear King", so plans changed. Originally they were going to count "Smash the Mirror" as two episodes, but then they went back to considering it one episode, as it is technically all produced under 408. Adam has tweeted several times since the end of October that Season 5 will now be 23 episodes, with 12 episodes airing for 5B. It looks like when "The Bear King" was added, that didn't change 5B being 12 episodes long as originally planned:

https://twitter.com/AdamHorowitzLA/status/659260312244215808 https://twitter.com/AdamHorowitzLA/status/674841621444165632 https://twitter.com/AdamHorowitzLA/status/674864535639973888 https://twitter.com/AdamHorowitzLA/status/692593287836729344 https://twitter.com/AdamHorowitzLA/status/693533694376562688 https://twitter.com/AdamHorowitzLA/status/693567901140393985

Jane Espenson also confirmed 23 episodes, when asked:

https://twitter.com/JaneEspenson/status/666026144416665601

And here's Adam clarifying in an article that "The Bear King" was an extra episode:

"Horowitz: When we were asked to do the additional episode, it wasn’t part of the initial plan to make it a two-hour story, but what we did do is, we found what we hope is a really engaging story for both of the episodes — and there is a connective tissue between them, but they tell two separate stories. But one pushes right into the other one and kind of takes a left turn a little bit, but we think it’s a lot of fun."

Source: http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/once-upon-a-time-hades-100th-episode-emma-saves-hook-1201640947/

So should the episode count be changed to 23 episodes, or if this isn't concrete enough, list the episode count for Season 5 as "TBA"? I can understand why so many would be confused, after what happened with "Smash the Mirror" last Season.

Update! 2/7/16: Adam is now specifying that there will be an episode produced as 523: https://twitter.com/AdamHorowitzLA/status/696224077049044992

Another Update: Since this topic isn't getting any feedback here, I have moved it to the Season 5 talkback page, where it might be more appropriate. 69.122.183.181 (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Behind the Magic: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Special Clarification
I noticed there's an editing war, in regards to whether to list the "Behind the Magic: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" special or not. AlexTheWhovian says that because TheFutonCritic originally listed it as a Once Upon a Time special, that it counts as one. However, TheFutonCritic made a mistake, and has since removed the special from Once Upon a Time's listings, and has moved it to the ABC Specials listings:

http://thefutoncritic.com/showatch/once-upon-a-time/listings/

http://thefutoncritic.com/showatch/abc-special/listings/

If you read the actual press release, then you would know that ABC themselves never labeled the special under the Once Upon a Time banner:

http://thefutoncritic.com/listings/20151201abc01/

The only connection to Once Upon a Time is that Ginnifer Goodwin narrated it. As someone who watched the special, clips from the show itself weren't even used. The special's press release is also not included on ABC's press site page for Once Upon a Time, further showing that ABC does not consider the special as a Once Upon a Time special:

http://www.disneyabcpress.com/abc/shows/once-upon-a-time/press-releases/

Just thought that I should share my two cents and clarify what the special actually is. There seemed to be some confusion.69.122.183.181 (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Redundant Production Codes
I'm seeking consensus to eliminate the the needless "Prod. code" category on each season table. While it is used to draw designation to subtle episodic semantics (i.e. season four's "Smash the Mirror" being two entities, according to production), this one example is seemingly the only reason the "Prod. code" column was created for the series. A bulleted note could function in the same capacity, while freeing up space (and removing a redundancy). What say ye? LLArrow (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised (actually, not really) that you decided to go ahead with this. Aren't you a big fan of gaining consensus before moving on such major edits? Or is that only when others disagree with you? Because I see no consensus here. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 21:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would probably have waited for comments, but WP:SILENCE is a weak form of consensus. Anyway, I have no strong opinion on this, but it seems reasonable, like excluding director if it's the same for all episodes (though if that only applies to one season, it may still be included to line up). nyuszika7h (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Went ahead after asking for comments and zero submitted. LLArrow (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A solid consensus for your edits. /s Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 22:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Glad you agree. LLArrow (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Season 6 Episode count
When I heard that OUAT would go back to 22 episodes after a strong 23 episode previous season, I wondered why. After months of me thinking that there was 22, someone changed it to 23, it was reverted back to 22 for a few days, then 21, now 25, will someone please tell me what's going on? OUATLover6 (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe the 23 and 25 counts were simply IP editors changing it to what they want; 21 seems to have been added under the impression of a given source, but if it included this before, it doesn't seem to now. I've reverted it back to the currently-supported 22. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 07:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless I've missed a quote in the article? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 07:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Kitsis and Horowitz confirmed in the given sourced interview that "The Song in Your Heart" is the penultimate episode of the season, therefore making the season 21 episodes in total. Reverting back to reflect that. LLArrow (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Kitsis' exact quote, "And what's fun about it is it's the penultimate episode [of season six,] so the musical actually kicks us off into the finale." Not much to mistake there... LLArrow (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Where does that state 21? Where does it state that it will be the musical 20th episode? Or is it WP:OR that "The Song in Your Heart" will be the musical episode based on its title? It's certainly not in the given source. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 21:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It's stated in several sources in the season 6 article that "The Song in Your Heart" will be the musical episode. LLArrow (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Which I can't seem to find right now, but know they exist. I'm not presumptuous like some editors and do original research Alex. However, I can't wait for Adam to release the next title page stating it's the finale and I will most certainly say I told you so. I might even hire a prop-plane to write it across the sky in letters. Chow. LLArrow (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why we have WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TVUPCOMING (i.e. we don't add the year to the header unless episodes have aired in that year, even if we know it's going to air in that year). We only add information if and when we have a solid source for it, that explicitly states and supports the content being added. Your arrogance is extremely unbecoming, and you wonder why editors take a negative tone towards you. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 06:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Since this discussion was just slighted at the behest of an ubiquitous ruler, allow me to make my appearance perfectly clear on the matter. I have not been able to find the article stating my previous claim, but will add it when I do. LLArrow (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'll be, a personal attack. And here I thought that was above you Alex. PS, I never wonder. LLArrow (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I made no personal attack. I made clear observations, explained by the post on your talk page. Confront the topic at hand. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 08:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I see, so when I suggest an editors actions are "ridiculous" I'm attacking another editor, but when you call me "arrogant" it's passive and well-meaning... I see you Alex. I see you. And so does everyone else. LLArrow (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Back to the topic, LLArrow; provide a source. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 23:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Nope. You've rendered this conversation inert with intoxicating hypocrisy. I will no longer engage, unless a respectable editor joins the fray. LLArrow (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well. Any further unsourced additions that you add to these articles will be rapidly reverted and swiftly reported. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 04:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Does it make you feel powerful and valid to say things like that?. Rhetorical question. I know the answer. LLArrow (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Just understand that, as an editor who has no regards for essays, guidelines or even policies, your edits will have consequences that are entirely the fault of yourself. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 09:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sensing some classic "projection" telltales... LLArrow (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Once Upon a Time episodes. 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://deadline.com/2015/05/2014-15-full-tv-season-ratings-shows-rankings-1201431167/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004225412/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/10/02/sunday-final-ratings-once-upon-a-time-the-simpsons-bobs-burgers-adjusted-up-666-park-avenue-60-minutes-adjusted-down-final-football-numbers/150988/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/10/02/sunday-final-ratings-once-upon-a-time-the-simpsons-bobs-burgers-adjusted-up-666-park-avenue-60-minutes-adjusted-down-final-football-numbers/150988/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Once Upon a Time episodes. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141002083532/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/09/30/abcs-sunday-sees-big-increases-in-final-national-ratings/308937/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/09/30/abcs-sunday-sees-big-increases-in-final-national-ratings/308937/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Episodes in season 4
According to sources (DVD for season 4, Rotten Tomatoes, Netflix, IMDb), the fourth season consists of 23 episodes (not 22 as stated in the article now). There are parts 1 and 2 in the episode Smash the Mirror. This should be changed in the article. EDIT: It's mentioned in the article that "A solid consensus has been built to display this as 22; please discuss this before changing it." Where has such consensus been reached, against all the outside sources? Cary (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)