Talk:Famous in Love

Production codes

First question – what is the source of the production codes listed in the episodes list at the article? (Does this series list the production codes in the end credits of each episode?...)

Second question – as it looks like the show will air in the same order as the production codes, do the production codes even need to be listed in the episodes table? (On this question, put me down for "No" – prod. codes should only be included in the episodes tables if the episodes air in a different order than the production order (as shown by the production codes)...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed them as they are "made-up" (i.e. just season + episode numbers). —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The Futon Critic is a reliable source that gets its production codes from the network; as such, they are not made up. Just because they look like they're just season and episode numbers doesn't mean they are. Even the photos of the episode scripts had 101, 102, etc. Unless there are sources that support the other version, there is no reason to remove this. You not liking it is not a valid reason to arbitrarily remove valid info. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Now, whether or not they should be listed at all because the episodes are aired in production order is a valid discussion. I'd have no problems removing the production codes column entirely if that consensus is reached. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I've always wondered what benefit production codes provide. Even if episodes are aired out of order, to me that doesn't seem like anything notable unless there's a notable reason for it—like episodes that end up out of order because of network interference, similarity to real-world events (like terrorist attacks or mass shootings), creative decisions that are sourced, etc. Even in those cases, that could be handled by a note or by prose in the "Production" section, which would actually provide more high-quality info than simply expecting readers to parse the production codes and notice if and when some are out of order. As with the below quote from TVPLOT, they seem to fall into the minutiae category. —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

They're definitely not "trivia" – in the case of many sitcoms, which are often aired out of order (in some rare cases, even months or years out of order!), prod. codes can help viewers figure out the proper episode order to follow continuing storylines (i.e. they're sometimes critical info to allow people to follow "plot"). There's a reason that most episode guides, going back to the earliest days of the internet and usenet, contained prod. codes... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

In the case of episodes being aired in production order, using your view, IJBall, I'm thinking it would be "okay" to list them if one of the episodes had a production code like 999, though not because of a separate special, but because of a special in that specific season, such as some Nickelodeon series. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it would be OK to list them once, 1) you get a "funky" prod. code (that only really seems to happen with the Nick and Disney shows), or 2) episodes start airing out of production order. But we had an earlier discussion about this at WT:TV in regards to The Good Wife, and the consensus was basically that there was no reason to list prod. codes if the episodes always air in the production order (as they did in the case of The Good Wife). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Guest actor names listed in plot summary

With respect to not having actor names in the plot summary section, that is covered by this part of MOS:TVPLOT: Avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, technical detail, as well as any information that belongs in other sections, such as actors' names. —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before, and there is no consensus to not include guest actors in episode summaries (that's specifically why they're aren't included in the list you just quoted). In fact, I am in the camp that thinks they should preferentially be included in episode summaries, as it makes verifying guest actors far easier (per WP:V), than the "guest list cast dump" that is done in the 'Cast' lists at some articles, and which is a verifiability nightmare IMO... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

One follow-up question, though: Does Famous in Love just list guest actors (i.e. without the role)? Or do they credit both the guest actor and the role? If the latter, then I'd like to see the role included along with the actor... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

One more thing: It's probably also better that guest cast be included in the episode summary itself here – e.g. "Alexis later had a late-night rendezvous with Dakota (Ana Mulvoy Ten)..." I know we've been doing the list thing for the Nick and Disney shows, and that's probably fine for them, but here it's probably better if we follow more standard formats seen elsewhere. That also allows us not to have to list every credited guest star when it's not necessary... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying when it says actors' names there, it specifically doesn't mean guest actors' names? That's... odd. Because I would think if that were the intent, it would say "main cast members' names" or something more specific. I feel like this one show's Talk page is probably not the best place to hash this out but you're touching on why I don't think we should include guest actor names period—unless, say, it's momentous enough that there's secondary sources commenting on the guest starring role, like when a "big name" does a guest stint, or the actor's role is clearly recurring (in which case there can be a "Recurring" section in the "Cast" section which would indicate that Dakota is played by Mulvoy-Ten): where do you draw the line? We're not IMDb, so... Also, from a practical point of view, it makes calculating plot summary lengths tricky and god knows those don't need any help being longer. LOL

To somewhat answer your question re: guest cast listings for this show particularly, IIRC they just list cast name, because I remember thinking: "Okay, so who is this Jason Antoon person playing?" —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That's unusual! I can't think of another (1-hour) drama where they don't list the character names along with the actors names in the end-credits for guest cast... Based on that, I think I might actually agree that we should just keep guest cast out – I don't think there's any particular utility in listing guest actors without their roles included. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I know with Nickelodeon shows, where it seems to be a little common with some shows not to show who the guest star actors portray, Nyuszika7H has it show in parentheses which characters those actors portray in their first appearance and then for succeeding episodes, he just has the actor names. This shows that those are not the official character names and we are just using the common name, I think. However, I wouldn't be against removing them in this article, and we could just mention the guest stars in a prose either in another section or a sole section dedicated to listing guest stars, by order of credits and appearance, where we show who they portray and the episodes they've appeared in. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you give examples of this? Maybe I'm misreading but it sounds like they're using just actor names in plot summaries after the initial mention of both and that seems really wrong, because in terms of plot you would refer to the character, not the actor. Or do you mean they have the guest cast as a separate section at the end of each plot summary and only refer to "Character Name (Actor Name)" in the actual summary text once? Anyway, "actual summary text" is why I don't think guest cast should be listed as a separate section in the plot summary because, well, it's not part of the plot. If that's going to become a common thing (which, as I'm sure you can tell by now, I don't think it should), then the episode row template itself needs more parameters/fields... which is not necessarily a bad idea since shows like 13 Reasons Why and Switched at Birth use the plot summary field for non-plot-related stuff too. Of course, if I were being hardcore, I would say that extra info is not necessarily of note.

Also, if I recall correctly, listing episode counts/appearances is warned against in WP:TVCAST.

@IJBall: I can think of several... it seems much more "old school" at this point to list character names alongside the actors playing them. Uhm... let's see... The Originals just lists cast names for non-main credited cast, even for fairly well-established characters. Actually, I would say for 1hr dramas (that's what I watch the most), using character names is more an exception... or at least for guest cast credited at the front of the show, usually singly on screen or in pairs. In the end credits, there probably are more occurrences of (even more minor) character names (or designations e.g. "doctor" "partygoer" "nurse" etc.) listed... maybe because there's more space or a recognition that people who don't make the start credits are less well-known so you wouldn't necessarily be able to tell who was playing who? —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry – I'm thinking specifically of end-credits in what I was saying. You're right that in most 1-hour dramas, the guest/recurring cast listings after the show's opening credits are nearly always just actor names with no characters. A number of shows (though, of course, many do not...) list (guest) cast in the end credits (in some cases, listing the guest actors a second time) usually with character names. I'm trying to think of a specific example... I think either Killjoys or Van Helsing does it this way. Mad Men was another. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ahhhhh... not Van Helsing! We've already fought over that one already. LOL But yes, I agree that end credits do tend to feature character designations for guest actors more frequently. I still think I've seen occasions where that isn't the case... but I can't recall a specific example at the moment, so maybe I'm imagining it. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're referring to in the guideline... Well, let me just suggest that the end of that sentence does not appear to have consensus support right now (if I had caught that when we had the MOS:TVPLOT discussion, I would have pushed to have it removed), and I personally don't agree with this "keep actors names out of episode summaries" as it seems totally arbitrary to me and I actually generally oppose separate sections for listings of "guest cast" anyway (though I intend to have a discussion about guest cast listings, and trying to come up with a way to make those "kosher", probably next month or in June...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Good deal below. Now, how about this matter? If we're not going to list them in the summaries due to lack of who the actors portray, which does make sense, they are still guest stars who, I believe, should still be listed in one way or the other. Is this a case where a section would be appropriate, where we could mention who they portray in prose form, or can you guys think of some other way that would work? Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

For this show, I would simply not mention guest actors – there's nothing that says they need to be mentioned. However, in a few episodes, we'll have a better feeling for "recurring" actors (e.g. I'm pretty sure that's going to include Katelyn Tarver, Shawn Christian, and Cynthia Stevenson) so we can add the 'recurring' cast to the cast list then. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

A list is useful to keep track of recurring status and credit/appearance order, but if it's not included in the article, we can note them down in comments or here on the talk page, maybe. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Needing to discuss changes prior to making them

Amaury, I'm curious why you feel that for my edits to this article, I should be here on the Talk page asking if they're okay when for your edits, like when you arbitrarily switched the Cast section to a Character section in one recent change, you feel free to do so without any explanation or discussion here. I think the article is better with a cast list: it helps keep the focus at least somewhat on the real-world information and my understanding is we don't change things just for the sake of change, so unless there was a problem with the Cast section as previously written, I don't see why it needed changing. Normally I'd just put that back the way it was but since you feel strongly about discussing things first, I thought I'd give you a chance to elaborate the reasoning behind this change of yours in case I'm missing something. —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Joey here – unless it's the "X-Men" or something, I generally prefer 'Cast' lists over 'Characters' lists, and would support the change back to a 'Cast' list, as there was no reason to change that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, when there are character descriptions, it's much neater and organized to have the section set up as a characters section for smooth-flowing sentences, and it's why I've always worked like that there. "Y (X) is a character" looks better than than "X as Y: A character" or "X as Y, a character." Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Understood, but that's basically a "WP:ILIKEIT" kind of edit. WP:TVCAST allows for both 'Characters' and 'Cast'/'Cast and characters' lists, and I'm of the opinion that unless the characters are more prominent than the actors (which is not the case with Famous in Love), 'Cast'/'Cast and characters' lists are preferable to 'Characters' lists... But Joey has an overall point – once one of those 'Cast' lists formats is chosen, it likely shouldn't be changed to the other format unless there is consensus to do so. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I've invited others to comment. If consensus is against me, I'll accept it. I'll even change it back myself. This is the first time this layout has been challenged, though, so I guess that's not too bad. I don't really count the Andi Mack situation as the character descriptions were entirely removed, making the "Cast/Cast and characters" layout the best choice, and for me personally, there is still equal light shed to both actors and characters regardless of the section name. I think this is really the only area we don't meet eye-to-eye, which is good in a way, I guess. The world would be a boring place if we all agreed and disagreed on the same thing, right? Anyway, in the same manner that other articles don't set precedence over other articles, especially when they're wrong, I don't believe how articles were created or, if they weren't created too well, later built should set any sort of precedence to how the article is edited later, especially if it makes things easier for readers. (Obviously, that sentence regarding wrongness does not apply to this area, just to clarify that.) If the article has been A, B, C since or around its creation, but then it's determined that that seems a little messy, changing it to A, C, B shouldn't be an issue or prohibited just because it was created as or later built as A, B, C around its creation date. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. But by the same token, if you make a bold change, and it's reverted or challenged... well, you know the drill. In any case, put me down as also preferring the previous 'Cast' list format, and I'd prefer we go back to that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, this is why I believe character descriptions just shouldn't be included at all until and if there's a separate list of characters article. It would resolve a lot of "problems" like this, and I also feel that by including character descriptions, at least in the main articles, we're kind of going into Wikia-type material, in my opinion. A separate article is fine because it's easier to make things flow smoother as the headers, for instance, are always going to be the character names. If a series only ever has one season, then things could just be mentioned in the Plot section like we did with Andi Mack. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that, for esp. new series, a one-sentence (or less) character "blurb" is often OK (or even desirable, in some cases). But when you start getting longer than that, or there start to be recurring characters needing their own character summaries, that's when it's time to start thinking about spinning-off a 'List of [..] characters' article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

With respect to Cast vs. Character, I think in this case, it's more "it was fine how it was" and then it was changed with no strong reasoning as to why the change improved things. I definitely don't think we should hold status quo "just because" if a change is an improvement. But given a "Cast" list as was previously present is acceptable and commonplace, I don't think "it flows better IMHO" is a strong enough reason for the change. And again, I still think a change like that requires the changER to justify it, not require others to justify a reversion after-the-fact. I'm also curious as to where this call for others to comment was made; I didn't see anything on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television.

Vis-a-vis the character blurb, it tends to come back to a tension between minimalism and completeness. I myself prefer a short blurb, but then you do get people who, like IJBall implies, start really putting lots of plot-related detail in those entries, especially for long-running series. I think MOS:TVCAST steers people away from that now (I believe it mentions there should be a focus on real-world info about the actor/casting/role) but that has yet to catch on in some circles. "List of [...] characters" seems like a better way to go, I agree, although I have seen some truly atrocious examples of those types of articles. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Some good points were brought up here by both of you. Would there be any objections to creating a separate list of characters for the reasons stated above? The bios appear to be lengthy/detailed enough to have a separate article. That would also solve the issue of the non-smooth, in my opinion, sentences. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

For a one-season show? I'd wait – if this gets to a second season, and there are more characters, then a spinoff article for characters may be justified... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to wait as well... especially since those character bios/blurbs are limited at the moment. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Episode count

Episode count should reflect number of aired episodes. Further changes to this to account for episodes not yet aired will continue to be reverted. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Ratings section

This is a normal series on a cable/satellite network and a complex ratings template is therefore unnecessary and it should be kept simple. In addition, it's also unnecessarily duplicating information already found in the "Episodes" table above. If this were a major series on a broadcast network, such as The Middle on ABC, then it would be more appropriate to use the complex ratings template, but that isn't the case here. Broadcast networks pretty much rely solely on ratings for profit from their series which, again, makes the complex ratings template more appropriate as ratings other than the total viewers, such as the demographics, are more relevant. However, for cable/satellite networks, ratings aren't solely the source of income as the networks also make money from cable/satellite subscriptions. Anyway, the complex ratings template has been challenged, and the proper course of action now is to discuss here, not keep reinserting it and trying to stonewall changes in hopes nobody will notice. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

On "Recurring cast"...

For the purposes of this show, I think we should only list people who end up appearing in 6, or more, out of the 10 episodes in a "Recurring" cast section. (If IMDb is to be believed, that will just be Shawn Christian, Vanessa Williams, Jason Antoon, Tom Maden, and Nathan Stewart-Jarrett...) Otherwise the "Recurring" cast section will end up being too long.

And I do not believe we should include a "Guest cast" section at all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, season's over, so it's time to add "recurring" cast to the article. I'm not sure who we want to add – Shawn Christian for sure, and probably Vanessa Williams. A few others were in 6 episodes, but I'm not sure we should add those... Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who's appeared in four or more episodes seems sufficient to me to be considered recurring. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Not on this show! (esp. considering that there were main cast members who only appeared in 5 episodes!) – that will be too long a list. With "soapy" shows like this, it's better if the "cutoff" be higher than lower. I'd prefer the cutoff be at about 7 episodes (which I think includes just the two I listed above), but I'd be willing to compromise on 6 or more episodes (i.e. more than half of the episodes). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Good point. That seems reasonable for here—and Beyond as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, going just off IMDb: here were the actors that were in 6 or more episodes: Shawn Christian & Vanessa Williams (7 episodes), and Nathan Stewart-Jarrett, Tom Maden, and Jason Antoon (6 episodes). Can anyone verify that this list is correct? I can verify that Christian was in about 7 of the episodes, and Vanessa Williams and Nathan Stewart-Jarrett were in at least 6 episodes apiece. Tom Maden was probably also in 6. The one I'm not sure about was Jason Antoon – can anyone verify that Wyatt the film director was actually in 6 episodes? (It doesn't seem like he was in 6 episode to me, but I could have missed it...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll have a look sometime this weekend and get back to you to verify. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: I haven't forgotten about this. I haven't been "busy" by definition as I've been on summer break since June 12—just had finals on June 13, but the last official day was June 9—but I've gotten back into RollerCoaster Tycoon, a PC game series, and I have been so focused on that the next thing I know, literally two or three hours have passed. :o I'll write myself a note to have confirmation for you by the end of the week (Saturday). Sorry about that. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

As per Amaury on my talk page, here is a listing of recurring/guest cast for season 1:

Expand me!

Episode Guest Stars Absent Fixes Needed Pilot Jason Antoon Ana Mulvoy-Ten Nathan Stewart Jarrett Pepi Sonuga as Tangey Turner N/A A Star Is Torn Jason Antoon Shawn Christian Christopher Cousins Cynthia Stevenson Nathan Stewart Jarrett Katelyn Tarver Tanjareen Thomas Vanessa Williams N/A N/A Not So Easy A Shawn Christian Katelyn Tarver Vanessa Williams Vivian Bang Kevin Daniels Allison Dunbar Tanjareen Thomas Pepi Sonuga as Tangey Turner N/A Prelude to a Diss Jason Antoon Tom Maden Dave Shalansky Vanessa Williams Charlie DePew as Jake Salt, Niki Koss as Alexis Glenn, Perrey Reeves as Nina Devon N/A Some Like It Not Jason Antoon Tom Maden Vanessa Williams Stephen "Twitch" Boss Bellina Logan Tanjareen Thomas N/A N/A Found in Translation Shawn Christian Tom Maden Alex Loynaz Jennifer Say Gan Tanjareen Thomas Brianne Tju Niki Koss as Alexis Glenn, Pepi Sonuga as Tangey Turner N/A Secrets & Pies Shawn Christian Tom Maden Nathan Stewart Jarrett Katelyn Tarver Vanessa Williams Stephen "Twitch" Boss Aynsley Bubicco Bellina Logan Alex Loynaz Tanjareen Thomas Brianne Tju Perrey Reeves as Nina Devon N/A Crazy Scripted Love Jason Antoon Aynsley Bubicco Shawn Christian Nathan Stewart Jarrett Vanessa Williams Georgie Flores as Cassandra Perkins, Pepi Sonuga as Tangey Turner N/A Fifty Shades of Red Jason Antoon Shawn Christian Tom Maden Nathan Stewart Jarrett Vanessa Williams Charlie DePew as Jake Salt Written by: Christopher Fife & William H. Brown Leaving Los Angeles Aynsley Bubicco Shawn Christian Tom Maden Nathan Stewart Jarrett Katelyn Tarver N/A N/A

Based on previous discussions, only guest cast that were in 6 or more of season 1's 10 episodes should be listed as 'Recurring'. A couple of the others may be listed under 'Guest stars' – that is yet to be determined... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall:  Done. Those with six or more appearances were added as recurring. The names I got from the IMDB page which I think is okay to use for this: [1] Barrett, Ida, and Alan have last names there, but I didn't include them because I'm not sure what the WP:COMMONNAMES are. As for the other guest stars that are not recurring (five or less appearances), we still need to determine if they deserve a "Guest stars" section, like on Jessie. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's wait until season 2 airs on the latter question – I'll bet that some of those sitting at 5 appearances right now will show up again in season #2, and will graduate to "recurring"... But, with a show like this, it's better to set the 'Recurring' bar high, or we'll get a laundry list of everyone who appeared in more than 3 episodes, which for an article on a show like this is not a good idea IMO... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll be removing this article from my watchlist. It's useless trying to reason with people who intentionally misinterpret the MOS to make it mean something that it doesn't. So fine. People can do whatever the hell they want with this article and not care about our readers. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Category addition revert

With respect to this revert, one of the show's central themes is the perils of Hollywood fame, so it being set in Los Angeles is pretty much the epitome of "defining"; put another way, you couldn't tell the same story set in Wisconsin. Likewise, the show doesn't exist without the source material, so it being based on a novel is also defining. I see a lot of questionable category additions in a lot of articles, but these two are the furthest thing from that. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

There is related discussion on this topic, here. FWIW, I agree that one of Category:Television programs based on novels or Category:Television programs based on American novels is directly relevant to this article. I also tend to agree that Category:Television shows set in Los Angeles applies as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Sofia Carson

According to this press release, Carson's role on FIL is only a "guest starring" role. As such, she should not be added to the 'Cast' listing at this time... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

So just so we're clear, a source reporting "guest star" does not preclude that said guest star will recur. Since there is no fixed definition of "recurring", including both Miller and Carson is legit. Plus the source you are citing specifically says Carson is Additionally Set for an Arc on the Network's Series 'Famous in Love'. An arc certainly leans towards recurring rather than a one- or two-off appearance. If I recall correctly, having an arc is about the only defining trait of "recurring" in MOS:TVCAST. Anyway, MOS:TVCAST says sourced cast additions are ended to the end of the list and adjusted once their episodes air based on their billing, billing order, etc... which is actually not something I agree with: I think we should wait until episodes air before adding to cast lists but hey, it's not up to me. Anyway, if you insist on keeping her out of the cast list (which you don't have a leg to stand on to justify), then you need to remove Miller also, based on the logic of "we don't know how many episodes she (or he) will appear in." —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

If the press release had said "recurring role", we probably wouldn't be here, as there would be multiple sources that were saying that. But it specifically said "guest role". In this case, there's zero reason not to wait and see if Carson ends up appearing in 6 or more episodes, as per WP:NORUSH. Let's just wait... Also, Joey, your post here is unnecessarily confrontational ("Don't have a leg to stand on"? Really?...) Come on, calm down. As for Romeo Miller, I would not object to removing him from the cast list and leaving him in the 'Casting' section, and waiting to see how many episode he appears in before adding him – I'm not the one that did add him to the 'Cast' list (I just referenced it). And we actually don't have to add future cast – if the consensus here is against their inclusion, then we don't have to. (So far, it looks like you and me would in in favor of removing future cast, from the cast list...) Incidentally, Carson's casting could be added to the 'Casting' section as well, as long as the words "guest role" are used... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

6 episodes as a benchmark for listing someone as recurring for this series is a completely arbitrary number you and Amaury came up with. It should be treated as the opinion of two editors and nothing more. From what I can tell, we have one source that lists the role as recurring and another that speaks of an arc while mentioning guest starring. I don't think that makes it clear that Carson can only be described as a guest star and not a recurring guest star. Again, there is no industry-standard distinction between "guest star" and "recurring guest star". In combo with the mention of "an arc", it is clear she is appearing in multiple episodes. So if she is added to "Casting", I will not object to someone describing her as recurring there. Again, if sources back up a statement, then 6 episodes' involvement, or 60, or 600, is irrelevant. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

So, you would rather ignore the part where I agreed with you, and suggested a compromise that we simply list them in the 'Casting' section for now?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

BTW, you just agreed with me – if "there is no industry-standard distinction between "guest star" and "recurring guest star"", then we shouldn't be listing them as "recurring" until they are actually shown to be "recurring". This is basically a WP:CRYSTALBALL issue – we should only mention the future casting, and leave the categorization of that casting until it actually airs. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

No, when I agree with you, I'll state it explicitly. But back to the element under discussion: or one could argue we should go with the sources until something indicates otherwise. P.S. Your "compromise" was predicated on you getting your way about not mentioning the fact her role had been described in... half the sources we've referred to so far? as a recurring role. You'll have to forgive me for not jumping at that at the first offer. The fact that she should be included in the article is pretty inarguable at this point, so what were you compromising on? —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Joey – you have shown on multiple occasions that you are immune to any attempts at making workable compromises that would leave all parties satisfied. Which is why, once again, I am done talking with you. Walk on, sport. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A WP:DICK/WP:JERK as always. Nice to see nothing's changed, both in regard to that and making up your own silly interpretations of guidelines and polices. (Either that or you read too much into something and then claim that to be absolute.) In order for a character to be recurring, they need to be in a significant number of episodes and be involved in story arcs or other general major story plots. Unless the source explicitly states she's appearing in multiple episodes, no, it is not clear. And even so, we still need to wait to see what actually happens as that overrides everything else. If a press release were to mention X actor were going to appear as a recurring character, but, in reality, they actually only appeared one or two times in a series' entire history, then that would not be recurring and they should not be listed, regardless of what a source stated. While six appearances could be argued as recurring or not, there's no way one or two appearances could be argued as recurring. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

In order for a character to be recurring, they need to be in a significant number of episodes and be involved in story arcs or other general major story plots.: not sure where you're getting the "significant" part from there, and not sure how 6 out of 10 qualifies as significant but other possible values don't.

be involved in story arcs or other general major story plots: we have a source that says she'll be in the 2nd season for an arc. An arc is more than 1 episode. Granted, I suppose it could be a 2-episode arc but in terms of being absolutist, I think stating that 2 appearances could never be classed as recurring is unwise. (I'm imagining a 4-episode British programme, for instance...)

But to address this actual case, no, we don't need to wait until it happens. Most of the TV articles I've seen don't. We need to use reliable sources until, as you say, they are contradicted by other reliable sources, whether that's more write-ups or the actual episodes. But certainly two editors' arbitrary decision that 6 out of 10 eps qualifies as recurring would not hold up if, say, there were sources that described someone as recurring and they'd "only" appeared in 4 or 5 out of 10 episodes. Of course, that's not the case here, so I've written it up in a way that will hopefully... if not please everyone, then not trigger any strong objections. I guess we'll see. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Cinematography

Amaury: Here is the articles for Cinematography and Cinematographer. "A cinematographer or director of photography (sometimes shortened to DP or DOP) is the chief over the camera and light crews working on a film, television production or other live action piece and is responsible for making artistic and technical decisions related to the image. The study and practice of this field is referred to as cinematography." from the Cinematographer article — Lbtocth^talk 01:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox instructions say the "director of cinematography" or "lead cameraman" for that attribute. It would need to be listed in the credits of an episode, I don't remember TV series generally having that credit and infobox is used for TV films too where it would apply. Does this series give either of those credits in the end credits. I know IMDb says Series Cinematography by Larry Reibman who would likely count if listed in the actual credits as we can't use IMDb as a reliable source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Larry Riebman is listed as the director of photography on the ending credits. — Lbtocth^talk 01:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I would consider that sufficient for the infobox then. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Cinematography article considers director of photography as same thing as cinematographer. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez:Exactly! I am not sure why Amaury said cinematography is ONLY for films. I watched a lot of T.V shows and I seen the director of photography listed either in the beginning credits, ending credits, or sometimes both beginning and ending credits. — Lbtocth^talk 03:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Based on the above discussion would you be OK with adding Larry Reibman to infobox? Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: No problems here if that is the consensus. However, to explain, my issue is that doesn't seem to belong. Whether or not it's in the credits, I've never seen any other TV series article use that parameter. The only articles I've seen that parameter used at are movie articles, such as Disney Channel Original Movies. That should clarify what I meant with my last edit here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: I guess most editors don't care to add it and it gets overlooked by tradition as it isn't generally in TV series articles. Still it is a well sourced credit with an infobox attribute defined for it and, like most sourced article content, open to consensus discussion for inclusion or exclusion in any individual article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury:Here are some very popular T.V. shows that have the cinematography parameter: Stranger Things, A Series of Unfortunate Events, Mindhunter, House of Cards, Daredevil, Scandal, Arrow. And no, I did not put the cinematography parameter in any of the T.V. shows listed above. — Lbtocth^talk 04:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Famous in Love

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Famous in Love's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "1.09":

• From Siren (TV series): Metcalf, Mitch (May 18, 2018). "Updated: ShowBuzzDaily's Top 150 Thursday Cable Originals & Network Finals: 5.17.2018". Showbuzz Daily. Archived from the original on January 11, 2021. Retrieved May 18, 2018.
• From Grown-ish: Metcalf, Mitch (March 1, 2018). "Updated: ShowBuzzDaily's Top 150 Wednesday Cable Originals & Network Finals: 2.28.2018". Showbuzz Daily. Archived from the original on March 2, 2018. Retrieved March 1, 2018.
• From The Bold Type: Metcalf, Mitch (August 30, 2017). "Updated: ShowBuzzDaily's Top 150 Tuesday Cable Originals & Network Finals: 8.29.2017". Showbuzz Daily. Archived from the original on November 28, 2020. Retrieved August 30, 2017.

Reference named "1.10":

• From Siren (TV series): Metcalf, Mitch (May 25, 2018). "Updated: ShowBuzzDaily's Top 150 Thursday Cable Originals & Network Finals: 5.24.2018". Showbuzz Daily. Archived from the original on January 25, 2021. Retrieved May 25, 2018.
• From The Bold Type: Metcalf, Mitch (September 7, 2017). "Updated: ShowBuzzDaily's Top 150 Tuesday Cable Originals & Network Finals: 9.5.2017". Showbuzz Daily. Archived from the original on September 7, 2017. Retrieved September 7, 2017.
• From Grown-ish: Metcalf, Mitch (March 8, 2018). "Updated: ShowBuzzDaily's Top 150 Wednesday Cable Originals & Network Finals: 3.7.2018". Showbuzz Daily. Archived from the original on January 16, 2021. Retrieved March 8, 2018.

Reference named "1.08":

• From Siren (TV series): Metcalf, Mitch (May 11, 2018). "Updated: ShowBuzzDaily's Top 150 Thursday Cable Originals & Network Finals: 5.10.2018". Showbuzz Daily. Archived from the original on October 31, 2020. Retrieved May 11, 2018.
• From The Bold Type: Metcalf, Mitch (August 23, 2017). "Updated: ShowBuzzDaily's Top 150 Tuesday Cable Originals & Network Finals: 8.22.2017". Showbuzz Daily. Archived from the original on December 23, 2020. Retrieved August 23, 2017.
• From Grown-ish: Metcalf, Mitch (February 15, 2018). "Updated: ShowBuzzDaily's Top 150 Wednesday Cable Originals & Network Finals: 2.14.2018". Showbuzz Daily. Archived from the original on February 16, 2018. Retrieved February 15, 2018.

Reference named "1.07":

• From The Bold Type: Metcalf, Mitch (August 16, 2017). "Updated: ShowBuzzDaily's Top 150 Tuesday Cable Originals & Network Finals: 8.15.2017". Showbuzz Daily. Archived from the original on August 17, 2017. Retrieved August 16, 2017.
• From Grown-ish: Metcalf, Mitch (February 8, 2018). "Updated: ShowBuzzDaily's Top 150 Wednesday Cable Originals & Network Finals: 2.7.2018". Showbuzz Daily. Archived from the original on February 8, 2018. Retrieved February 8, 2018.
• From Siren (TV series): Metcalf, Mitch (May 4, 2018). "Updated: ShowBuzzDaily's Top 150 Thursday Cable Originals & Network Finals: 5.3.2018". Showbuzz Daily. Archived from the original on November 29, 2020. Retrieved May 4, 2018.

Reference named "1.06":

• From Siren (TV series): Metcalf, Mitch (April 27, 2018). "Updated: ShowBuzzDaily's Top 150 Thursday Cable Originals & Network Finals: 4.26.2018". Showbuzz Daily. Archived from the original on November 23, 2020. Retrieved April 27, 2018.
• From The Bold Type: Metcalf, Mitch (August 9, 2017). "Updated: ShowBuzzDaily's Top 150 Tuesday Cable Originals & Network Finals: 8.8.2017". Showbuzz Daily. Archived from the original on December 3, 2020. Retrieved August 9, 2017.
• From Grown-ish: Metcalf, Mitch (February 1, 2018). "Updated: ShowBuzzDaily's Top 150 Wednesday Cable Originals & Network Finals: 1.31.2018". Showbuzz Daily. Archived from the original on February 1, 2018. Retrieved February 1, 2018.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)