Talk:Once Upon a Time season 7

Deletion of this page

I am going to say this... Please do not delete this page. Announcements can be made at any time regarding the cast and other aspects for the upcoming season so this page needs to be up so information can be added as soon as it becomes available. I do not consider this "premature" because the show has been renewed for a 22 episode season as of yesterday. Please do not delete hours of work that some people may have put in. --Figfires (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see the links I posted on your talk page about creating new articles. It was renewed, yes, but that is not a definitely guideline that states that the article needs to exist. The episode table is entirely unsourced, and only three returning cast members have been announced, with two new ones, which is the only notable information left in the article. This fails the general notability guidelines; such information can easily exist at the parent article for now. The season article as it existed when you created it provides no new information that any other article has not yet provided. If you have any further questions, I recommend asking at the WikiProject Television. The local consensus, as well, is to create articles once the season has begun filming - this is not the case for this particular season just yet. Thank you for your work, but I recommend you read up on the guidelines and policies about creating articles first. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 02:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Use of the term soft reboot

Jumping ahead a few years in the same overall story is not a reboot. The show creator Adam Horowitz said "I hesitate to use the word reboot." A few sloppy article writers online misusing the term does not make this season a reboot. There is no such thing as a "soft reboot". That trendy term has unfortunately gathered a fanbase here on WP, but its use is unencyclopedic. The link softly rebooted is misleading and goes against WP:EGG, as it's either a reboot or not. That article says reboot means to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning. That has not happened here. If it has any of the same actors playing the same characters, as this does, it is not a reboot. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This now sounds like personal opinion and original research. It's your personal thoughts that the article writers are sloppy, it's your personal thoughts think that there's no such term, because you disagree with it. However, "soft reboot" is now reliably sourced with sources that have been used through the WikiProject Television for years, which definitively state the term. The article has its own set of rules, and is neither a guideline/policy or a dictionary entry. The parent article for the series actually uses the link Sequel#Soft reboot for "soft reboot", as does the article for the first episode of this season; it seems this content was removed after a self-determined "consensus" that was formed between three editors. -- Alex^TW 03:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, it can never be "original research" (in the sense it's normally used on Wikipedia, as in "no original research") to comment on the talk page in favour of removing content. This isn't a matter of personal opinion either -- it's enshrined in the policy itself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Your personal opinion has been recognized. -- Alex^TW 09:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not a personal opinion. It's the policy that you as a Wikipedian are expected to abide by. Read the policy page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said, your personal opinion has been recognized. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 10:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You have no answer to most of my points above. You can always find online articles to back up trendy terms. That does not mean they belong in an encyclopedia. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I'll answer them as best I can.

• Jumping ahead a few years in the same overall story is not a reboot. I agree. It's a soft reboot. It's a soft reboot because of the fact that the main storyline has changed within the same narrative universe, which is the definition of a soft reboot.
• The show creator Adam Horowitz said "I hesitate to use the word reboot." A few sloppy article writers online misusing the term does not make this season a reboot. That's why we're not calling it a reboot. And I answered your thoughts on the "few sloppy article writers online" - that's your own personal opinion.
• There is no such thing as a "soft reboot". Clearly you are mistaken, and I recommend that you research further into this topic - whether you are aware of it or not, does not mean it does or does not exist. A soft reboot is something that relaunches a media franchise with a new storyline while still retraining the continuity of that which came before it. For example, the revived era of Doctor Who can be considered a soft reboot - it introduced a new storyline when it returned in 2005, but still kept the continuity of the 1983 to 1989 series.
• That trendy term has unfortunately gathered a fanbase here on WP, but its use is unencyclopedic. Personal opinion again. You're going to have to gain a stronger consensus with outside views on not allowing its use on Wikipedia.
• The link softly rebooted is misleading and goes against WP:EGG, as it's either a reboot or not. Fixed that with the link provided in my last reply.
• That article says reboot means to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning. That has not happened here. If it has any of the same actors playing the same characters, as this does, it is not a reboot. And I've covered this already; several times, I think. Does that cover this?
• You can always find online articles to back up trendy terms. That does not mean they belong in an encyclopedia. Yet again, personal opinion. See my reply for you last declaration of it being a trendy term. Your personal opinion is irrelevant when it comes to article content, as is my personal opinion, as is everyone else's. Everything must be reliably sourced - this is.

Hope that answers everything! -- Alex^TW 03:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

All this is still based on some online writers using a trendy term, and using it in an erratic, inconsistent fashion. Your new link softly rebooted is even more of an WP:EGG, as season 7 is not a sequel. I don't know why you're so determined to use the term when other words like "reset" work better and are much more accurate. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It's up to them how they use the term, not us; we only report on what they give us. The usage of the term isn't erratic or inconsistent at all - it is a soft reboot, that's it, that's how they use the term. A definition has been supplied. The link is less of an egg link, as it directly links to a section that explains what a soft reboot is, and per MOS:PIPE (which WP:EGG is a subsection of), If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them somewhere that makes sense - they are expecting to be linked to content about "soft reboot", and so they are. If you think the content should be moved to another article, then by all, means suggest it. It's your personal opinion that the term shouldn't be used; it's my personal opinion that it should be used, that so happens to be backed up by sources that are independent of anyone's personal opinions. -- Alex^TW 03:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The use of the term is very inconsistent across the board. Your own sources disagree, at least one calls it a straight "reboot". I call that a sloppy use of the term. But do the majority of sources covering Season 7 call it a "soft reboot"? Does the term meet WP:WEIGHT? I doubt it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/OnceABC/status/916412659200856070 Esuka323 (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This Twitter post is good evidence of the point that these terms are marketing buzzwords. To quote another user Daß at Talk:Reboot (fiction), By that criteria, it seems to me that a soft reboot is just a regular sequel. If it maintains continuity, where is the "reboot" part? I'm in favor of describing a soft reboot if that's something definable and different from a normal reboot, a remake or a sequel, not if it's just a marketing buzzword for one of these things. Season 7 has no discarding of continuity from the previous seasons. It just jumps ahead in time. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I am inclined to agree with Gothicfilm. The use of the word in this context is not consistent with our own article. At best it is potentially confusing to readers and at worst it is perpetuating the misuse of terminology. We are under no obligation to incorrectly apply the word just because media commentators have. MOS:#Contested vocabulary states to "Avoid words and phrases that give the impression of straining for formality, that are unnecessarily regional, or that are not widely accepted." I think it is fair to say this is a textbook example, because the word is being used in a non-regular way. Betty Logan (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• (Replying to the implied question "should we use the term") Heck no "soft reboot" is one of those recent buzz-terms that people who want to sell a product like to use. As Mr. Plinkett has pointed out, it's basically what marketeers use for "in-continuity remakes" like The Force Awakens and the 2015 Vacation, but it also apparently carries the (more intuitive?) meaning of an entry in a series that all but ignores previous continuity because audiences didn't respond positively to that continuity. In this case, it appears to be a creative decision to introduce a time skip in the story, concerning which we don't know whether the creators were motivated by negative reaction to what came before, even though this term carries that connotation. Confusingly ambiguous terms like this should be avoided, especially when it seems like they are being used by marketeers with the deliberate intention of causing such confusion. The one exception I can imagine would be deep down in an article (never the lead), and always attributed inline. Cases like this obviously don't meet that criterion at all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

A shiver went up my spine and I got a sudden, unexplainable urge to clarify that I was invited here by a message immediately above my own on WT:MOSFILM. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm quite sure you were. -- Alex^TW 09:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It would have been less confusing had they wrapped the show last season and launched this series as a spin-off. It has all the hallmarks of a spin-off over a remake. It's set in the same universe and retains the existing timeline, just further in the future. The setting is in Seattle, while characters from the previous seasons exist in some form in Storybrooke and the Enchanted Forest. They introduced some new characters and kept a few old ones in this setting and made Adult Henry the new protagonist. But as it stands I see the show as a creative/soft reboot and would support that should it be pitched here by people. Esuka323 (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Esuka323: That rationale seems to be different from that of the sources under discussion (which, I gotta agree with GF, look like they are just clumsy) and comes very close to WP:OR territory: how you and I see the show, as a soft reboot or a time-skip or a de facto spin-off, is irrelevant on Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not about how you or I view the show, I agree, it's about how the sources offered to support the case offered by Alex to keep the information on the page. But when you understand the rationale behind why websites like Entertainment Weekly, Deadline and others are calling it a reboot of some sorts, it doesn't hurt to discuss how they have come to that conclusion. Because the show at present is a play by play of the first season with a fresh perspective, new characters and a new twist to drive the narrative. Many of the arguments offered to date are personal ones about how I, you, and other users in this discussion view the show. Esuka323 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think my interactions with the show itself before seeing this discussion consisted of two or three references to it in YouTube video essays I have watched over the years. I don't have a view of the show, and am basing my argument solely on what I think works for a general reference work describing content like this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I think we should revisit this when Gothicfilm produces some sources to support his point. Until then I would hope that everything can remain as is. Although I support the point raised by Alex that the show is a soft reboot(Based on the shows content and the media calling it that) should sources that offer a counter view be produced I'm willing to discuss alternatives. Esuka323 (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:BURDEN. If controversial content is challenged, the burden is always on those wishing to re-add it to find reliable sources to justify its inclusion. The actual text of WP:BURDEN implies it applies only to content being verifiable or not, but in reality there are other concerns in cases like this, since it's a given that under one or another definition of the polyvalent marketing buzzword "soft reboot" this topic is a soft reboot. The same is true of The Empire Strikes Back, which actually did ignore a lot of the continuity of the original Star Wars. It's a near certainty that some reliable sources could be found that refer to Empire as a soft reboot, but that doesn't mean we should. The reason I cite WP:BURDEN is that you seem to think Gothicfilm needs to cite a reliable source for his talk page claim that "soft reboot" is a marketing buzzword that doesn't mean anything significant, but this is a given, and while it could be sourced (the Mr. Plinkett review I cited above, The Star wars Awakens, is in fact a more-than-reliable-enough source for this talk page argument), it is inappropriate for you to say that it needs a source. (This is actually related to what I tried to explain to Alex further up about WP:NOR, which states that "original research" of a kind such as arguing that a term should not be used in an article because it's a meaningless marketing buzzword is not covered under that policy.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it's only reasonable for both sides to present sourced points for a more balanced discussion. I don't think calling a soft reboot a 'marketing buzzword' qualifies as an argument and it certainly isn't one that supports the removal of sourced information from the page. It's nothing more than personal opinion and could easily be challenged as such. Bring forward points to support it please. Esuka323 (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is not balanced if you are rejecting policy based arguments as "not qualifying as arguments" and ignoring the sources presented in favour of the those arguments (if you want a link it's here, but I'm not going to rewatch the entire video just to find the moment in question for you). And discussions on Wikipedia are never meant to be "balanced" the way you seem to think: the burden is always on the party wishing to add or preserve contentious content to get consensus to keep it in. So far Betty, you and I are the only three outside parties to comment on this issue and two of us think the term should not be used. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Let me be blunt. I won't support an argument based on conjecture. This isn't conjecturepedia. Until an argument is put forward with evidence to back it up with, such as what Alex has done and then some. I'm in support of keeping things the way they are. Because as things stand Alex is supported by virtually every TV media website out there, quotes from the showrunners/creators, and the official twitter account of the show. GothicFilm is supported by his own opinion, and two other users. If asking for more information is unreasonable, I see no way we can have any sort of discussion as the only argument to support the 'It's not a soft reboot' claim is opinion. Because of that, I'll hold back and keep this page on my watchlist and hope something of note is posted.Esuka323 (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:IDHT. You won't last very long here if you ignore what other editors say. No one here is actually arguing that "It's not a soft reboot", so we don't need sources to back that claim up. (Technically, even if we were arguing that, we wouldn't need sources unless we were arguing to include that claim in the article.) Everyone here except Alex and you is arguing that the phrase "soft reboot" is a marketing buzzword that doesn't actually mean anything tangible (it is used to describe plain sequels, in-continuity remakes like Star Wars Episode VII and Vacation 2015, sequels that largely ignore the continuity of previous installments, etc.) and so should not be used in the article: it therefore doesn't matter if you or Alex can locate reliable sources that do use it. By these super-broad non-definitions, of course it's a soft reboot, but so was season 6 and season 5 before that; it's just a different "kind" of soft reboot. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm just here to give my thoughts on the term "soft reboot", not necessarily the specific context here which I don't really want to get into. Hope this helps: I dislike the implications of the term "reboot" in these situations, and the ridiculousness of the term "soft reboot", but even I have to admit that it has quickly become the common term used throughout the film and TV industry. My interpretation of the term is that a "soft reboot" carries out the function of a reboot (freeing up the story, potentially new cast and crew, etc.) without actually technically breaking continuity (for example, the new Star Trek films are widely considered to be reboots with their own story, new cast, and very different style, but they are technically in-continuity sequels to the previous films, so they are a "soft reboot"). I don't know how that applies to this situation, but hopefully my perspective can help bring some clarity to this issue. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to reboot or "soft reboot" a series to take a story in a new direction or bring in new cast or crew. "Soft reboot" is just a trendy marketing term referring to the Season 7 jump ahead in time (with several of the same characters/actors and no disruption to the continuity). Per MOS:#Contested vocabulary, WP should not promote the use of disputed words, particularly not in the lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• (NB I was pinged above) Another reason why using "soft reboot" is bad is that it's not descriptive. Wherever there's talk about soft reboots (on Wikipedia, in WP:RS etc.), invariably a lot of people will weigh in on what they think a soft reboot is, or what shows they think have soft reboots, and have a cherry-picked assortment of sources to back their opinion -- because there's no clear definition. When we put the term on the page because it falls in the talk page majority's ballpark of soft reboot, or because the producers said so, what information are we really giving the readers? We should write for the readers in terms they will understand, and not just think they understand. Daß Wölf 00:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Rapunzel / Tremaine

There needs to be a discussion on the Rapunzel / Tremaine issue. Per MOS:SOB, we should avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link. Hence, the best to to display this is Rapunzel / Lady Tremaine, which matches the format of every other character listed in the cast section of this article, rather than Lady Rapunzel Tremaine, which appears to display as one single link. And most definitely not as Lady Rapunzel Tremaine, the other way that's been attempted to link the character. -- Alex^TW 04:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Except putting Rapunzel / Lady Tremaine would show that she went from Rapunzel to Lady Tremaine. Her surname is Tremaine per marriage to Marcus, and it's mentioned in the episode that she took the surname from her husband, and she's also credited with the surname "Tremaine", the closest we can do is Rapunzel Tremaine cause splitting it with a "/" means splitting her full name into two. We did this with other characters, but never splitting up their full name. Examples are like Regina Mills / Evil Queen. Her full name is Regina Mills, and she got the title of Evil Queen, which fits the "/" format, unlike the Rapunzel / Lady Tremaine. 115.132.44.244 (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I recommend you suggest why we ignore the guideline linked in the second sentence of my initial post. -- Alex^TW 01:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, "the closest we can do", I'm merely just suggesting a way to reduce the number of links in her name from 3 to 2 without actually splitting her name up. It's just wrong to split up a name of a person, even though she's just a fictional character. 115.132.44.244 (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I vote for Lady Rapunzel Tremaine or Rapunzel Tremaine. As the anon pointed out, Lady Tremaine is not a title she went on to have like the Evil Queen, it's her surname. She was referred to Rapunzel multiple times, so what else would we refer to her as here but Rapunzel Tremaine? Saying Rapunzel / Lady Tremaine makes it look like two different characters. Scream4man (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Drizella and Anastasia Tremaine

While I have been against putting Tremaine as their last name until official confirmation, I think it's safe to assume after One Little Tear. Rapunzel confirmed that Marcus's last name is Tremaine and she inherited it from him. Thus, Drizella and Anastasia would have also inheritied this last name, as they are neither one married, and both of their parents had this surname. Scream4man (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Recurring and guest

So, Eudora appears in 2 episodes and is categorized here as recurring, while Emma, Belle and Granny all appear in 2 episodes as well, but are under guest. Should this be changed? 188.250.20.124 (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)