Talk:Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt

Starring or not starring

I'm getting tired of watching this go back and forth with no discussion other than the comments on the edit. Let's actually discuss this. We currently list all 7 "starring" actors as starring, as opposed to 4. There is a difference (other than the placement of these names during the episodes, beginning or end) between the four "starring" roles and the other three "starring roles": Ellie Kemper and Tituss Burgess are in every episode of season one. Carol Kane and Jane Krakowski are in 9 episodes and 8 episodes, respectively. However, all four of these actors are credited in every episode, regardless of whether they're actually in the episode. Meanwhile, Sara Chase (8 eps), Lauren Adams (9 eps), and Sol Miranda (8 eps) are only credited in the episodes in which they actually acted. Their names are absent from the credits if they are not in the episode. I believe that this gives weight to the idea that only the four in the opening credits are actually "series regulars." Additionally, in watching the season on Netflix, I did tend to view the three mole women as more of a "sideshow." In some cases, their only presence in the ep. is a short flashback. Now, whether these actors are starring or not, whether they're meant to be series regulars or not, etc. we can argue all we want about those things, but I do think that we need to come to a decision and stop edit warring. I'm in favor of setting it as just the four in the opening credits as "starring" and "main cast" but acknowledging the other three separately from recurring guest stars, with an explanation surrounding the circumstances of their roles. Thoughts? - Rmaynardjr (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not edited based on personal interpretations. The FACTS are that the actors are credited as starring roles, and must be reflected on the article as such.

The fact they are only credited on episodes they appear are the direct result of their specific contracts - actors that are credited every episode even if they do not appear are still paid, while ones that aren't are not. There are many, many shows that credit actors in this manner as a cost-saving measure to avoid spending money pointlessly.

- Wattlebird (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I get that my interpretation is mine and doesn't really matter in terms of editing Wikipedia. However, I think this still warrants a small section explaining this discrepancy. Whether the article ends up the way I explained it or not, that doesn't really matter to me. What I care about is developing an article that reflects that while all of these actors are starring, there is a clear division between the four in the opening and the three in the credits. If we do that, that will hopefully stop the edit warring. That's all I really care about -Rmaynardjr (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Rmaynardjr's reasoning is sound. What is this supposed "source" that the other three bunker women are starring roles? None of them have references about their casting except the "thefutoncritic" which is a source so old it calls the show Tooken and explicitly states that Kemper and Burgess are stars, and that Chase and Adams have been merely cast with no mention of Miranda. JesseRafe (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

In the end credits, the other bunker women are always listed as "starring", never as "guest-starring" or "co-starring". - Jasonbres (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so how about this then. In the Cast section, we list the four "main" actors. Then this: "Additionally, the three other women from the cult are featured in several episodes and are credited as starring only in those episodes." Then we list the three women, then we do the recurring cast. That puts them in the main cast section, but does keep them separate from the other four. As for the infobox, my instinct would be to only include the four currently listed, really just because the infobox is used as a means of quickly getting basic information about the show and links to related pages. Consider the average viewer: they've seen every episode on Netflix, so they've seen the opening credits. They've seen the four names, and while they might not remember those names, they probably remember that there were four of them. The viewer probably skipped the credits. If that viewer now goes to this wikipedia page and sees seven names as "starring," they'll think they missed something. It might be more confusing that way. So, only four in the infobox, and all seven listed in main cast, separated by the above statement. I'm more than happy to alter that statement if anyone has suggestions. How about that? - Rmaynardjr (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I definitely think the infobox should have only those names. Even if a source were found that said all 7 starred, only these four would be considered "above the title" were it a film. In the main text, some sort of demarcation, but the fact of the matter is these were not significant roles. Especially as their "appearances" were often one-scene flashbacks. That may be too objective, but Chase, Adams, and Miranda were not stars of this show, and had very little to do with its storylines or plots. The actresses are insignificant and the roles were incidental in all but a handful of episodes. Putting them in the infobox or listing them with the main four is ridiculous. JesseRafe (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@JesseRafe So, should we use the format I described above? Rmaynardjr (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

A less verbose way of saying it, maybe. I don't like them being in the "main cast" rather than recurring, though, maybe I'm the only one, even with that caveat. The caveat itself draws a lot of attention to it, and that's the whole rationale to why they shouldn't be so prominently listed, it's rather salient that they're (except the one and only for one episode at that) static characters. But I agree with your fundamental point, that it is the viewer/reader to be considered and listing with too much focus is distracting. Maybe where they are in the recurring section with an asterisk/footnote saying that they are "starring" in the episodes in which they appeared? (But that would need to be sourced, too.) JesseRafe (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

They are credited in the credits of applicable episodes as "starring," but our notation in the article is "Main cast." Tough question. How about putting them at the top of the recurring list and adding the sentence "She is credited as "starring" in the episodes in which she appears." It's short, gets the point across, acknowledges her "starring" appearance without putting her in the main cast. Is that agreeable to all? Also, the "source" here is simply the episodes themselves.