Talk:List of worlds in Once Upon a Time

London, England
London, England cannot be placed in the Real World category because it has never been established as a location in Our World. Bae did say that he want to go to a land without magic, but for people in that land, even Victorian England, Land Without Color and 1920s England can be considered as worlds without magic.

For us, we can say these worlds has magic because we are witnessing it, but for it's inhabitants, they don't consider their lands has magic.Take a look at Victorian England where Alice claims there's another world called Wonderland. Her family thought she was crazy and eventually it led her to being kept in an asylum. As for the Land Without Color, Victor Frankenstein does not believe in magic and claims his land is more towards "science". Even Arendelle (a realm in Fairy Tale Land) has inhabitants which aren't familiar with magic. The Duke wanted to exposed Ingrid because of her magic.

Mainly, London, England cannot be placed in the Real World category because of the strong presence of magic. It is called the Land Without Magic for a reason, and that is magic cannot be present. Yes, there have been many who used magic in Our World (Zelena, the Dragon, Merlin, the Apperentice, Cruella, Ursula) but these inhabitants brought magic over to Our Land. It's called imported magic and the Shadow is a mystical and magical creature which cannot be brought over freely. The Shadow is something like the Chernebog from 4x12. The Chernebog is powerful yet it requires magic to exist. After it stepped outside of Storybrooke, it faded from existence but the Shadow did not, because London, England isn't from the Real World.

We need to look in their perspective as inhabitants from their land. It's easy for us as we are watching the show, but those inhabitants are living in it, and they wouldn't know about everything in their surrounding now would they?

Naveenruben97 (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There couldn't have been a way for the Darling siblings to get from an alternate London, England to the Land Without Magic. Maybe there were just some magic sightings there when we first saw the Darling Family. How else would they get back to their London without the known world-transporting techniques? --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rtkat3, I saw your message on my talk page. I don't think I ever mention anything about Dorothy? XD but as for the Darlings, actually, it has been stated in the show (not really sure which episode) that after Bae was taken to Neverland, Wendy and her brothers also travelled to Neverland to save Bae, but instead they came across Peter Pan and Wendy was imprisoned and John and Michael was forced to do Pan's bidding. Then, when they started to age, Pan haltered their age to prevent any growth. Pan later send them both to the Land Without Magic to find the heart of the truest believer (Henry). They came to Our World roughly sometime before 1983 as that time the Evil Queen cast the curse. They never aged because of Pan. about 30 years later, they came to Storybrooke etc and sometime at that time Regina reversed her curse which send everyone (except Emma + Henry) back to their respective worlds. Hopefully this can solve your doubts. Thanks for listening Naveenruben97 (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Stolen Content
Does anyone noticed that most of the content from this page is a copy with some rewrite from Once Upon a Time Wiki. Even the places without a canon name have been taken from the wiki. Their work should be credited. 79.91.102.199 (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, firstly, I'm not sure about those. I have edited the timelines for the worlds and realms. but those are done by me without plagiarizing from the Wikia page. I have occasionally edited both this Wikipedia and Wikia pages, so I add what I add from either sides. However, taking names or plagiarizing from any pages, including Wikia pages is not allowed. So about the places without a canon name, mind telling me which ones are the ones so I could remove them, rename them if it's really significant or quote the sources of the names taken from the Wikia pages. Thank you for you concern and I hope to get your reply soon. Do help send me the links as well as it can be added into references as sources if the names are taken from the Wikia page. Naveenruben97 (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Major Rewrite
I have reorganized the article to include a categorization above the individual lands; I've separated major settings from realms of story, and I also made a separate section for the worlds that are normally visited in spirit only. The only grouping that the show ever gave a name are the "realms of story," so we should discuss if anyone recalls an in-universe cosmology that was ever given, or has different ideas about how to sort it.

In addition, I am planning to rewrite the article extensively. Currently, I believe its contents rely too heavily on plot summary, which is better suited to character and episode pages. The article also contains minutiae of specific locations, which I think is unnecessary. This page should focus on the literary origins of the worlds, sourced information on production and writing aspects, and critical responses.

--DavidK93 (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Your edits are alright but as for the timelines and locations, it is really important to this page. The characters list is to place timeline of themselves throughout the show, here we set the timelines of everything that happened in the particular world/realm and also list out all locations involving the specific worlds. If we focus on only the literary origins of the worlds, sourced information on production and writing aspects, and critical responses, then this page wouldn't really mean much as many users/readers wants to know more about the world, it's history and it's locations involved in the show, not just about sources, key origin of the worlds etc. Thanks Naveenruben97 (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I like your idea of rewriting the list. This would clear up the confusion about how it should be detailed, plus we don't need to have that much information, just as long as it is consistent within the scope of the series.Robert Moore (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The page
[Conversation copied from my talk page. , since everyone else has been pinged, I thought I should include you as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)] Actually, only some locations name is taken from there, the rest, like major names, it's content, the timeline were all done by the users. Naveenruben97 (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And? Sorry, I don't know what you are trying to argue. You still can't do "thank yous" in a headnote. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, if that's the problem, then why get rid of an entire page for that? You could have just got rid of the "disclaimer" thing rather than getting rid of all the work done. Naveenruben97 (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Edit (some stuffs which I wrote on my talk page on your message, better place it here) Actually, only some locations name is taken from there, the rest, like major names, it's content, the timeline were all done by the users. Majority of the content has it's source, the main issue is some locations which has same names from the WIkia as it's taken from there by some users, like "Hideout Cottage" of a such. Everything else was done by us without the WIkia, so it's really irritating, especially when all the timelines were done by me and some other users and then the page is now gone for that. Basically, some materialls does sometimes comes from that page, but that page also uses relevant sources from the show and other articles, so it's still canon informations AND not fan stuffs. Everything on the page is based on the show, if it's lacking sources, then sources can be placed, but as of now, there are already sources. Naveenruben97 (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan page. Stuff needs reliable secondary sourcing, and it needs to matter. The content you want, that's what Wikia is for. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

And I think you don't really understand what I said, so I'll try to explain the situation. Mainly, the problem all started after I placed the thank you part at the top of the page. Personally, I'm sorry as I did not know that that was not allowed. Secondly, I only did that as certain names is referred back to that page.

For example, I'll give a situation based on the show. There's a scene where Dorothy comes to Oz and hides out at a cottage away from the Zelena, the Wicked Witch. Now, that hideout cottage does not have a proper name, therefore we placed it as Hideout Cottage and in the description, we place it as the cottage where Dorothy hideout. Then, as for the Underworld, the Underbrooke section. It has been mentioned many times on the show that the location was based on Storybrooke, but we did not know how to placed the locations. We referred back to the wiki to see how it's done. It's placed as "Underbrooke Town Hall" or "Underbrooke Mansion" etc and these names are actually names used on the show, it's just that we didn't know how to place them. All the names used are used in the show, sometimes referred in conversations and sometimes shown as it's actual name. Mainly, the stuffs that we borrow from the wiki, we use the relevant sources.

Another one is the timelines. The timelines are written after an episode airs based on what was shown on the series. Everything happened, and some does have sources. If we are gonna add sources for everything, there might be over 500 sources as the show has a lot of things happening, that's why the timeline is extremely long. Not that it was taken from the wikia. I know WIkia is a fan page, but we take names if those have relevant sources. I never knew that I was not allowed to place the thank you at the top. I was just try to say that we sometimes refer to the Wikia for informations, but the informations that we refer too are legitimate and correct stuffs. It's something like the characters page for Once Upon a Time, but based on the locations. Naveenruben97 (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the page has so much in the way of timelines and lists of locations, including many with only fan-given names. All of that isn't needed in the article at all, let alone as copied from Wikia. Instead, we can have a well-sourced article that cites individual episodes and interviews from the writers and producers in explaining the significance of the worlds. --DavidK93 (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The timelines isn't a problem. It's been like that for other pages as well. Even the characters page has histories/timelines. Mainly, my problem is "what is the main issue or problem"? You kept saying (Drmies) all kinds of reasons for the deletion of the page. First you said because of the "thank you", then there's you saying that it's a fandom page and then about the sources. We already have some relevant sources. There are pages that don't even have sources yet Tthey exists. What is the main reason that this page is deleted? Can I know that? Naveenruben97 (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Another thing that I have to say is "not saying that everything is copied from Wikia" ALRIGHT! Firstly, the only thing copied from there are the minor locations, which are about only 4/5. The major worlds and realms name are official names to the show and the timelines are not copied. How can you copy timelines when it's the same for everything?! Timelines and locations are important to the page, that's why it's there. Interviews by the creators are in the main ONCE page. Naveenruben97 (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Again you're misrepresenting me, as if I have given different arguments at different times. The Wikia warning was inappropriate but that's not a reason for deletion. That it's a page full of fan trivia is--see WP:NOTEVERYTHING. As for the sourcing, and I think you and DavidK93 don't understand this, secondary sourcing can prove something is worthwhile including. That primary and secondary sourcing can prove something is correct is another thing. NOTEVERYTHING is quite clear: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful". And what do we have here? 80k on fictional worlds in a fictional TV show, filled with such verbiage as "Known locations include" followed by a list of "known locations"; still, I'm glad the unknown locations weren't listed. And look at something like "Oceanic Realm"--it's one sentence followed by four paragraphs of plot summary (read, "original research") whose very topic sentences indicate plot summary--"Sometime ago", "Sometime later", "During this time", "More than 30 years later". So it's poor writing, original research, plot summary, fan trivia, etc. And you're asking "why was it deleted? Was it this or that?" And the answer is "yes". Because these kinds of articles typically suffer from all of that, and all of it points to, derives from, the basic fact that this is not encyclopedic content, which is proven by the fact that reliable secondary sources don't discuss this. Because it does not matter. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you think I don't understand about secondary sources. If I update the article, I intend to include information from primary sources (i.e., the show itself, such as when characters explicitly state the name of their location or region, or an on-screen caption provides information) and secondary sources (interviews and producers' Twitter feeds, for example, where they make statements about the cosmology or other relevant information).  If there's something you think I'm not grasping here, please clarify.  I do think the article as written is an indiscriminate collection of information, and a better article on this topic would be much shorter.--DavidK93 (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Those things you mention aren't secondary sources, nor are they (Twitter feeds) reliable. Whatever the producers have to say about these worlds is irrelevant: it does not prove that it matters. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to restore the earlier pages that weren't copied from Wikia, since I personally wrote the page on my own.Robert Moore (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: There seem to be a few misconceptions going on here, so I will contribute my thoughts.
 * Wikipedia is not a fansite, it is an encyclopedia.
 * The point of encyclopedia articles is not to explain every facet of something. Encyclopedias explain only the most important aspects. The US Civil War lasted 4 years. It will not take you 4 years to read the encyclopedia article about the Civil War. This is because we've condensed 4 years into a relatively brief article by noting only the most important aspects. By contrast, this "Worlds" article is twice as long as our article on the US Civil War. This suggests that someone might be missing the mark on what is and isn't appropriate content.
 * Wikipedia does not exist to replace the experience of watching the series.
 * Articles about television series should focus on real-world information, not in-universe information. This is codified in the opening paragraph at our Manual of Style for Television, which unfortunately few people bother to read. The entire Manual of Style represents established consensus for how TV articles should be structured. So where is the real-world content?
 * One of the reasons why we do not like plot summaries in excess of 700 words for film articles and 500 words for standalone television articles is because they may constitute copyright violations in the form of "derivative works. While the cruft haven Wikia may not have a problem with this, Wikipedia does. So when we start documenting the in-universe locations and noting who interacted there, and what relevance they have to the various storylines, and so forth, we run the risk of of creating the equivalent of an unlicensed companion text a la The Official Batman Batbook.
 * Many editors seem to forget that we have certain quality goals set for articles: Good Articles, Featured Articles and Featured Lists. Articles should be written with these goals in mind. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The "thank you" was a minor issue - OR/NOT/etc was a more pressing problem, and one more difficult to overcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Side note--is something like this, Firebird (Once Upon a Time), notable as a standalone? It's been a while since I got into the thick of that; I wouldn't be surprised if every fart on TV was now notable. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems marginal, but WT:TV would be the best group to ask. The fact that there are some reviews suggests that it might meet the GNG. At least that article has real-world content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I decided to remove the setting section from the main article, since this page has become a subject of conversation, and moving the page to the main one would add to problems which is why there is no redirect to the section. I hope that we can bring it back without having to copy other sources.Robert Moore (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Basicly thank you Drmies for fully explaining the problem. You see, when you and Nikkimaria redirected and practically got rid of the page, it kinda was in a way, made me angry as most of the work was gone. You guys could have had a warning or nomination of the page. Cause, in that way, some of us, mainly me could save the works into my laptop as I did most of the work, as well as other users.

But I would like to ask, you say most of the sources are not reliable and are like fan stuffs, then I would like to ask, what about this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scream_Queens_characters or even other list of characters pages where it's just thousands of words of stories? If ours has a problem with that, then what about all the other pages? Naveenruben97 (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * In a perfect world, every episode of every series would have a page on Wikipedia. In a perfect world, every song on every album would have a page on Wikipedia.  In a perfect world, every book would have its own page, every school would have its own page, every human being would have her or his own page. I realise that that will be a hard sell for most people, but it doesn't change the fact that I believe all of these things would exist in a perfect world. Likewise, in a perfect world, every fictional character would have her, his, or its own page.  Likewise, in a fictional world, every fictional land or sea or planet would have its own page. Again, I think that would be a hard sell, although knowing that doesn't change my belief. I know I'm not going to get my way on that matter, and I won't even try. But, I think it is an easy sell to say that we do need a list of the kingdoms and worlds that exist in this series.  Even if the list is not as long as this one, some listing is useful for researchers who come to Wikipedia in order to research the show.  And, anything that is useful should be included. In the very least, we need a list that tells us that King George's Kingdom, King Midas's Kingdom, Prince Eric's Kingdom, the giants' kingdom, Hamelin, Nottingham, Sherwood Forest, and the Infinite Forest are in the Enchanted Forest, and that the Enchanted Forest is also known as Misthaven.  In the very least, we need a list that tells us that Agrabah, Arendelle, Camelot, DunBroch, the Enchanted Forest, and Poseidon's Boneyard are in Fairy Tale Land.  In the very least, it needs to let us know that Storybrooke is in the Land Without Magic.  In the very least, we need a list that tells us that other lands exist, too, among these being Wonderland, the Land Without Color, Neverland, and Oz.  In the very least, it needs to inform the reader that all of the aforementioned lands are in the World of the Living.  In the very least, we need a list that tells us that other worlds, too, exist, among these being the Netherworld, the Underworld, Mount Olympus, and the Worse Place. Now, maybe we want to be bold and add a short paragraph about each world, and maybe even a sentence about each land.  But, in the very least, we need a list of their names, a list such as:
 * World of the Living
 * Fairy Tale Land
 * Agrabah
 * Arendelle
 * Camelot
 * DunBroch
 * Enchanted Forest (also known as Misthaven)
 * King George's Kingdom
 * King Midas's Kingdom
 * Prince Eric's Kingdom
 * Giants' kingdom
 * Hamelin
 * Nottingham
 * Sherwood Forest
 * Infinite Forest
 * Poseidon's Boneyard
 * Land Without Color
 * Land Without Magic
 * Storybrooke
 * Neverland
 * Oz
 * Wonderland
 * Netherworld
 * Underworld
 * Mount Olympus
 * Worse Place
 * Look at that nice list. It's so simple and clean!  Hell, if y'all are dead set on not having this article, y'all could at least upload this simple, clean list to the main Once Upon a Time page.  After all, there should at least be some mention of the setting of the show there. Look, in a perfect world, this article would mention every known in-universe tidbit about the various worlds and lands in the series, but I know I'm not going to get that.  And, I'm okay with that.  I'm okay with not having the Agrabah marketplace, the tavern, Wandering Oaken's trading post, Morgan's stable, the gingerbread house, granny's house, Mulan's home, Rumplestiltskin's house, Ruth's sheep farm, the seven dwarfs' cottage, Any Given Sundae, Mary Margaret's apartment, Dark Star Pharmacy, Mr. Gold's Pawnbreaker & Antique Deals, the Storybrooke post office, etc., etc., etc. on the list.  I'm not going to shed a tear if the consensus is that all that minutia is left out. But we should at least have a list of settings.  Why?  Because these settings have, in most cases, cultural significance that extend beyond the series.  Take Wonderland, for example, or Mount Olympus.  None of us can deny that they have significant cultural significance, and since Once Upon a Time is a series that incorporates these culturally-significant fictional places, thereby contributing to their cultural significance, they clearly merit encyclopædic inclusion.  For us to not at least have this list on Wikipedia would be us failing to fulfill Wikipedia's encyclopædic principle. Now, I do believe that a short paragraph is merited for each of the worlds (e.g., informing readers that the Netherworld is a world between life and death) and for some of the lands (e.g., informing readers that the Land Without Magic is the real world or that Fairy Tale Land is a world divided into realms ruled by different rulers).  Yes, I do believe that short paragraphs for some of the locations is warranted (especially insofar as said short paragraphs incorporate secondary sources explaining the show's contribution to their cultural significance), but even if no one agrees that said short paragraphs are warranted, in the very least, I hope we can at least agree that a basic settings list is itself warranted, even if said list merely appears on the main Once Upon a Time page in a section about the show's setting. Respectfully yours, allixpeeke (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I like this idea a little better. At least it'll clear up the confusion and keep it within the context of the topic. Robert Moore (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * allixpeeke : Hey, I like your format and I agree in some way, the worlds should be listed. But, you forgot Kansas. It's been confirmed that Kansas is a world of it's own in the Magic Universe, as well as Edwardian London, Victorian England and 1920s England :) Naveenruben97 (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What should appear on the main Once Upon a Time page is best discussed at that talk page. But whether this series incorporates culturally significant places or uses entirely original locations, that in itself doesn't mean that this page merits inclusion. Our criteria for inclusion isn't that an article may be useful to someone, but rather than it meets our policies (including but not limited to WP:NOT). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's an example of what I think the section on "Agrabah" should look like (with references included, but not properly formatted):
 * Agrabah is a desert sultanate based on the nation of that name created by Disney for the 1992 animated film Aladdin. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/18/political-ignorance-and-bombing-agrabah/)  It is located in Fairy Tale Land and is separated from the Enchanted Forest by a desert.  Agrabah was first mentioned on Once Upon a Time in the first-season episode "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" and was a major flashback setting in the spinoff series, Once Upon a Time in Wonderland, first appearing in its second episode, "Trust Me."  Agrabah is home to characters associated with the story of Aladdin, including the Genie of the Lamp and original Disney character Jafar, as well as several original characters from Once Upon a Time in Wonderland, including Cyrus, his mother Amara, and his two brothers.
 * And that would be it. No plot summaries, no list of locations.  Just an explanation of the basic nature of the location as depicted in the fictional work, with a focus on episode references and fictional characters identified as such.  This would take the section from 501 words (in the version online yesterday) to 125 words.  And rather than abridge or consolidate the existing content, it completely replaces it.  I'm very happy with this, and would propose it as a starting point for developing a model for appropriate article content on this topic.  --DavidK93 (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear DavidK93, I think that paragraph looks good. But, some might complain that it, too, should be shortened. They may say, for example, that "and is separated from the Enchanted Forest by a desert" is too "in-universe." In a perfect world, that information would remain in the paragraph, but if it's a choice of losing just those words or losing the list as a whole, I would definitely choose losing just those words. Further, as long as Agrabah is located on the page in a subsection of the Fairy Tale Land section, it would be redundant to say "It is located in Fairy Tale Land." Thus, that whole sentence could be removed if need be, bringing the word count down to 107. Best, allixpeeke (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree; that sentence could be removed. --DavidK93 (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)