Talk:Wicked (2024 film)

Is this draft needed??
It's pretty much the same film as Wicked (2024 film). Georgia guy (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Title
Per the official logo, the title appears to be Wicked and not Wicked: Part One. Any opposition to moving this page? InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Corroborated by Variety and Deadline, though THR inconsistently uses both Wicked: Part 1 and Wicked Part 1. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLDly moved. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

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


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


 * They were filmed like one big movie. Theres no filming pause between parts. Only the release is in two. So yes, when principal photography is finished, it's finushed for the whole big thing. --Blobstar (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So, the point is that the draft of Part Two should be moved to the main space as well as Part One per WP:NFF, isn't it? 31.154.220.90 (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How do we know for sure that filming for Part Two has begun? That Instagram post does not say anything about that, and this article seems to indicate that they were filmed separately. If there is a source confirming Part Two has been filmed, then yes, we can move the page, but otherwise, we can't infer this (WP:OR). InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: found this on the draft's talk page, which confirms filming had nearly been completed last July. It's unclear why the draft wasn't moved back then. Per , it also appears there is no colon in the title, so I'll be moving the draft to Wicked Part Two. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Title of second part
Traditionally everyone knew it as "Wicked Part Two", but it appears that the official title is "Wicked Part Two: For Good". Can anyone discuss how the draft should be titled when putting it in the main namespace?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Rotten Tomatoes says that it is "Wicked Part One" here: . HenryRoan (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge Parts 1 and 2 into one article?
Turns out the upcoming two-part film Horizon: An American Saga talks about both parts and it made me think we should merge Parts 1 and 2 of this film into one article as they very likely will share the same creative team and crew and similar cast members. This is not like Dune: Part Two which was filmed years after the first film. HM2021 (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article's title is Wicked (2024 film), not Wicked (2024 and 2025 films). Georgia guy (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. :Rotten Tomatoes says that it is "Wicked Part One" here: . HenryRoan (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The article starts...
Wicked (scheduled for release as Wicked and Wicked: Part Two) is an upcoming American two-part epic musical fantasy film... This implies that despite the 2 separate parts and their release dates, it's still one film. Please watch this sentence. Georgia guy (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Rotten Tomatoes says that it is "Wicked Part One" here: . HenryRoan (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * HenryRoan, you made the same comment to all of the 3 newest sections of this talk page. Please make sure you understand each section's meaning before determining what to say in response. Georgia guy (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What? This is a bizarre and highly unusual take, and would be unprecedented if we decided to go this route. I've reverted the edit a second time, which seems to be the work of a sole editor. Clearly, this BOLD edit does not have preliminary consensus.
 * This article is about Wicked, not Wicked: Part Two. Part Two will have its own article once filming commences, per WP:NFF. We never use a single article to cover two films at once, even if it's a two-parter, and even if it was filmed back-to-back. It also doesn't matter what acts the films are based on, or what the original intent was. We look at things from a real-world perspective, in which we have a film titled Wicked and a sequel titled Wicked: Part Two.
 * It's titled Wicked, not Wicked: Part One. Simply pointing to Rotten Tomatoes does not prove otherwise, but I'll get to that momentarily. The official website, press release, first look, social media, and logo all say "Wicked". This shouldn't be controversial... Wicked: Part One is the former name of the film, so I can't blame some sources for not being up-to-date. Rotten Tomatoes has not updated its page; so what? Firstly, we do not place WP:UNDUE weight on any single source, and secondly, you seem to be deliberately ignoring plenty of other sources. Numerous other database-type websites use Wicked, including: IMDb, BOM, Metacritic, TVGuide, Common Sense, and the Google Search knowledge graph. Rotten Tomatoes and The Numbers are the only outliers. It's the same scenario for news publications: CNN, People, Rolling Stone, Playbill, Time, Vulture, Empire, BBC, THR, Variety, EW, ET, Billboard, The Independent, Elle, IGN, TVLine, Inverse, Mashable, GamesRadar+, HuffPost, ... need I go on? The only outlier I could find was Collider and Deadline.
 * InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My edit was made in support of the version by HM2021. You appear to be forcing your edit into the article. Even your own sources do not agree with you when your People magazine reference states plainly: "The first teaser trailer for the movie musical Wicked: Part One debuted during Super Bowl Sunday, showing the first footage of Cynthia Erivo as the witchy Elphaba and Ariana Grande as bubbly Glinda. ". The version by HM2021 should be restored since you appear not be reading your own citations. HenryRoan (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * HenryRoan, contrary to your comment this section of the talk page is intended to be about the statement that it's still one movie, not whether the title of the 2024 part of the movie is "Wicked" or "Wicked: Part One". Georgia guy (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * InfiniteNexus just said the opposite when he stated that the topic is: "It's titled Wicked, not Wicked: Part One." HenryRoan (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * HenryRoan, that simply isn't the intended subject of this section of the talk page. It is intended to be about the consideration of the 2 films to be referred to as a single film, nothing else. Georgia guy (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's about two things: your claim that the 2024 film is titled Wicked: Part One and not Wicked, and your argument that this article should cover both films at once (???). The second one is highly unusual and likely not feasible as we move closer to the release date; a combined article would not only be out of step with the standard practice for film articles, but would also be WP:TOOLONG and violate WP:NFF. As for the first claim, I've shown that Wicked is clearly the correct title, and perhaps the strongest piece of evidence comes from Universal themselves: (Hmm, no colon for Part Two? Will have to look into this later.) Thank you for pointing out the thing with People; I have removed the ones that confusingly use both titles within the same article. But even after that, the consensus among sources is still fairly clear.
 * I'm not sure why you keep bringing up HM2021, who has nothing to do with this dispute. It seems like you're using them as a red herring, which is not okay. I went back in the article history, and were the one who incorporated the "scheduled for release" wording; all HM2021 did was adjust the infobox to accommodate your changes. Please do not drag uninvolved editors into this. Your BOLD edit was made recently and without an explanation, and it has now been reverted. Per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, the purpose of this discussion is to lay out arguments for each side and determine which version to use. So far, your only evidence has been Rotten Tomatoes and an ad hominem attack. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)