Talk:Agatha All Along (miniseries)

Title change.... again

So there is a new rumor floating around that the series will actually be called Agatha All Along. As such, I have preemptively created Agatha All Along (miniseries) and Agatha All Along (song). Assuming the reported styling is correct and "All Along" is not a subtitle, and obviously this does come to pass, Agatha All Along (which is the song currently) will need to move to the new (song) page I created so the non-disambiguated title can become a disambiguation page like Glorious Purpose. Additionally, if these title changes are part of an in-universe reason, in the long run once we see how it all shakes out, getting some commentary (possibly in the marketing section) about this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Woe, what mischievous joy! I figured they may just end up with this title or simply Agatha, though it seems all bets are off and each title may end up being a different era akin to WandaVision's sitcoms. Either way, it's good to keep an eye on all of these and to be prepared for whatever outcome. Some commentary on the various title changes and the connotations of it would definitely be beneficial. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I have a sneaking suspicion each episode is going to be titled differently. Like for episode one, which could have its own name, the series is named All Along, while episodes two and three are Coven of Chaos etc. It's going to definitely be a unique one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, for sure! I think we're up for their little trickery. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

And once more. According to the Disney+ page, it is now just called "Agatha", with no subtitle whatsoever. - Jasonbres (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 11 March 2024

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

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

---

Agatha: Darkhold Diaries → Agatha – Disney+ logo reveal Jasonbres (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Already done Moved to Agatha (TV series) per source and logo in article. The suggested Agatha is incorrect. Please, for future reference, include a source in the article when making such changes rather than making unsourced changes. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Trailblazer101 Shouldn't it be Agatha (miniseries) for consistency? -- ZooBlazer 23:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, you're right. Too many gosh darn titles! Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Aaaannndd the redirect moves didn't like working right away for the talk pages when I tried it right away so I had to go through a roundabout way of moving them, but it finally worked! Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

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

premise addition

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

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

Hulkling

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

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

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

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

how is that single article a reliable source when the relevant information was removed from the article? Delderd (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)