Talk:Agatha All Along

Move?

How do we feel about possibly moving this page to just Agatha All Along, given an argument can be made that this series has now surpassed the song in terms of notability and can therefore be regarded as the primary topic? This is what the all-time pageviews look like, in case there are recentism concerns. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it may be too early to tell since the show has only just finished airing. If it continues to be considerably more sought-after than the song when it isn't being released then I think we would have a stronger argument for the move. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

While I think it is mostly inevitable that this series becomes the primary topic over time, it may be a bit too early to make this call, as Adam pointed out, the series just concluded. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it perhaps time to revisit this? Glancing at the page stats of the series and the song, the series seems the primarily sought-after topic. Slinora (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be acceptable to move this article to be the primary target, given the viewership stats show it is more overwhelmingly sought after than the eponymous song. This would then make it a WP:ONEOTHER situation which would make the DAB page unnecessary as this article can easily point readers to the song article in a hatnote. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 02:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

We can start an RM to confirm that there is support for this, I think it makes sense at this point. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 17 October 2025

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Agent 007 (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

---

Agatha All Along (miniseries) → Agatha All Along – Per a previous discussion about this at Talk:Agatha All Along (miniseries)#Move?, I am starting a formal RM, proposing to move this miniseries to the primary topic because this is a WP:ONEOTHER situation where the TV series is the clear primary topic when compared to the song it is named after, "Agatha All Along (song)". Pageviews from the past 90 days show higher long-term interest and a strong view count for the series over the song. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 16:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Pinging participants in the prior discussion: @InfiniteNexus, @Adamstom.97, and @Slinora. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 16:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support, per nom. Centcom08 (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support, per nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support: It is clearly the primary topic now, based on the Pageviews Analysis. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom as well. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 13:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Vestrian24Bio 16:28, 24 October 2025 (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.

Removal of Scott Butler citations

A few days ago, NukeofEarl helpfully added a citation supporting Scott Butler's role in the article subject. Favre1fan93 and Trailblazer101 have been repeatedly reverting this addition, claiming that the last citation in the sentence supports all the content in the sentence and that all other citations in the sentence should be deleted. Except that, as NukeofEarl has already pointed out, they aren't doing that. They're just reverting the Scott Butler citation while leaving the other seven (yes, seven!) citations in that sentence untouched. NukeofEarl has repeatedly requested an explanation for this, but they simply ignore his question and keep on reverting him.

Favre1fan93, Trailblazer101, if you have a reason for removing that one specific citation, then provide it. But repeatedly reverting that citations while ignoring reasonable objections and repeatedly citing a guideline which you yourselves are blatantly disregarding is just disruptive editing. Martin IIIa (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Butler is supported by the next citation already. We don't need to have the same in-line citation twice in a row. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Read my post before replying to it. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I did. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I thought we already made our explanations quite clear in our reverts. The source the editor in question wants added is a primary source, which is not ideal, and they have ignored that an adequate citation covering this actor's inclusion in the series is provided at the end of the sentence to avoid excessive ref tags, per WP:CITEKILL. This seems more like NukeofEarly wasn't listening and is missing the point. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 17:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, read my post before replying to it. I already explained why posting exactly what you posted would be pointless and irrelevant, and the fact that you posted it anyway makes your "wasn't listening and is missing the point" accusation fall hilariously flat. Martin IIIa (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I did read your post, and I think you are also not understanding what is being contextualized here. If you're going to respond like that to each editor, then this is going to go nowhere.... — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 18:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Martin IIIa please stop telling us to read your post again, we have and we are responding appropriately. You seem to have completely missed the points that have been made. No one is saying that the entire sentence is covered by one source, I think there has been miscommunication about that. Each actor/character is sourced by the next citation after their name (so, using the citation numbers I currently see): Anweis is covered by citation 30, Boccaletti is covered by 31, Butler and Quon are covered by 24, and Lysenko is covered by 32/33. Butler is covered by the same citation as Quon, if we were to give him his own in-line citation we would have the same citation twice in a row which we usually avoid. So it is not correct to say that he is currently unsourced, and it is not correct to say that the whole sentence is covered by citation at the end and the others are additional/unnecessary. Now, the source that is covering Butler and Quon is not the best, so if we get a better one for both or either of them then I personally feel that we should use that. We can have a discussion here about whether we thank that YouTube interview counts as a better source or not. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Phew, half a dozen posts in and someone finally does something other than repeating the claim that Martin IIIa already addressed in his original post.

adamstom97, the problem with your argument that Butler is covered by the same citation as Quon is that the reader has no way of knowing that is the case. In fact, the natural assumption upon seeing that every other cast member mentioned in the sentence has at least one individual citation is that Butler is unsourced. If you don't like putting two citations in a row, even when the transparent sourcing of the information depends on it, then why not just change the order in which the cast members are listed? NukeofEarl (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

No reasonable reader would come to that illogical assumption/conclusion. The claim is verified by the citation at the end of the sentence. There is no real issue here... If there was a better web ref that verified Butler only, then I would say we should use that, rather than the YouTube video or the shared citation. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 02:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

The current revision is exactly the same as it would be if the Scott Butler statement were unsourced, so I don't know by what stretch of the imagination you could claim "No reasonable reader would come to that illogical assumption/conclusion." Martin IIIa (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

If the statement were unsourced, there would be a citation needed tag there. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Actually, in such cases there is usually no such tag. Many editors even make a point of removing mid-sentence citation needed tags.

Your comment "No one is saying that the entire sentence is covered by one source, I think there has been miscommunication about that." prompted me to take a look over the Metacritic source, and it does in fact cover all the roles mentioned in the sentence. Which brings us back to NukeofEarl's original question: Why not just put the Metacritic cite at the end of the sentence and remove all the other citations? Martin IIIa (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Because we have better sources then that one. Ideally we would have better sources for all the cast members. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Here is a better source for Butler that supersedes the one we have attributed to him after Quon's name as well as the primary YouTube source. I'm adding it in. But to echo the other editors, if the tag after Quon's name was a more ideal source, the tag wouldn't be necessary next to Butler's name. See even in this article after Butler's sentence: Hannah Lowther, Tetra Lloyd White, Henriette Zoutomou, Holly Bonney, and Kim Bass. All four of these actresses are supported by the "MetacriticCredits" source, same as Butler and Quon, but we don't need to repeat the reference five times. WP:CONSECUTIVECITE, WP:REPCITE, and MOS:CITEPUNCT are all we are referring to and were following. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Moving the Title subsection to Marketing

@Adamstom.97 Happy to discuss this edit of course. Hopefully the textual changes are uncontroversial and fine to reimplement, but please let me know if you have any concerns about them.

I do firmly believe the subsection on the various title "changes" belongs in Marketing, rather than Development. It was confirmed in September 2024 that these were purely a marketing stunt, and the show had never actually undergone a title change during its creative development. It's also framed as such in the lead of the article. This is as far as I am aware a unique situation - with incorrect information announced and therefore reported during the series' development - but that in my view makes it all the more important to present it clearly in the article once the full picture is known. U-Mos (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

While it is a marketing stunt and it makes sense to be mentioned in the marketing section, I don't think all the title stuff should be removed from development. The title of the series is a pretty important "development" thing. I think it is fine as is, but we could also summarise the section and have the full details in marketing. Interested to hear from other editors as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I understand development to be 'the creative evolution of the series', rather than a more abstract 'the development of events in the public eye'. Those will often be basically the same thing, but here they're quite distinct. U-Mos (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I think for this instance it's best where it is in the article. Yes it was "marketing", but until that was revealed as the series was releasing, the public thought the series was known by these other names, so it's best to cover it in "Development". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand that - why would we choose a form that prioritises a press release chronology over cited information of the accurate circumstance? This is an encyclopedia, not a live blog. The series was never actually retitled. U-Mos (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

There'd still need to be parts of what is in this "title" section included in the development section, which at that point, having things split or duplicated doesn't make much sense. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

What parts would still need to be in Development? U-Mos (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

To give context and flow, it would need at least something like this (the bolded text) starting in the second paragraph of the development section: During a Disney+ Day event in November 2021, the series was officially announced with the title Agatha: House of Harkness. [...] Schaeffer was being credited as the series' showrunner by July 2024. Various other titles were revealed for the series as part of its marketing, before being confirmed in May 2025 to be Agatha All Along. All of this right there is aptly covered in the "Title" subsection while in development. I don't see the need to move it to marketing to then add this additional info back up to development. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, do you have any concerns with the current version? U-Mos (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2026 (UTC)