Talk:List of The Chosen characters

"Fictional characters"?

I see a WikiProject tag for "Fictional characters" has been added to this article. Seems inappropriate to me since the majority of the characters in the show are not fictional but were very real and are considered historic. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a WikiProject. It's totally up to that project as to whether they want to include it in their project or not. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Cast list order

What has determined the order of the cast list? Is it by appearance from S1E1 on? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Per the manual of style for the television project (MOS:TVCAST), we list in billing order and by appearance. For main cast, it is who is top billed first, then if another character is added later (who also receives top billing), they are added to the end of the list. Recurring characters are the same process. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

There is some leeway, but we've determined in past discussions to follow other similar large cast shows and define "main" as top billed (opening credits), "recurring" as 3+ episodes in a season, and "guest" as 1-2 episodes in a season. Recurring and guest should be listed in the same way that main are listed: billed/credited order first, then by appearance. If a bunch of characters are added to the credits all at the same time, use credited order (starting from the end of the list). The "end of list" part means that if some new character is added but has a higher billing than an already existing character, we do not re-order the list. Rather, they are added where the list left off.

Due to the size of this cast, and the expectation that the list will grow over time, it's important to separate "main" from "recurring" and "guest", so those should have separate tables and separate lists. Also, if someone moves from one list to the other (i.e. moving from recurring to main), they should be removed from recurring and added to main and stay there. Some examples for table constructions are List of Pretty Little Liars characters and List of Grey's Anatomy cast members (with the latter being one that is highlighted by the project MOS as an example). The list of prose description should use the same list principles. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Guest cast

This needed need not include every single guest (non-recurring) character - even if they have a name. That ends up becoming fancruft. Not every character will need to be listed. Use some discernment on who to include, please. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

"Discernment" is in the eye and mind of the beholder, is it not? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, to a point. "Discernment with a working knowledge of what MOS:TV gives guidance on" might be clearer. The MOS isn't engraved in stone, but it should serve as a foundational guideline. The philosophy of WP:WikiProject Television is that we are not here to reproduce what is on fan sites or listing sites like IMDb - those already exist and we don't need to reproduce them. We are an encyclopedia, which, by nature, is a summary of facts - keying in on summary, meaning not definitive list of all possibilities. Keep in mind that WP:TOOLONG could easily end become an issue should the show run the expected seven seasons if every minutia is included. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

My comment was only in reply to yours about who should be listed as recurring cast as well as "fancruft". One persons fancruft is another's concise and balanced listing of characters. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hence the guidelines we already have to give some clarity to that. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

My point is that we can quote guidelines and policy as if it's set in stone, but the truth is it all ends up being subject to individual interpretation per likes, dislikes, and then lasting application thereof based on numerous factors. Darwin's Law now comes to mind as I write this. As a result, I have neither aspirations nor delusions. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

While there are some elements that can be subjective, in terms of objective differences between fancruft and notability, if there isn't anything that can be said about a guest character/cast member beyond what would be listed in list like IMDb, then it doesn't belong in the list. Just being an identifiable character with a name is not notable. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Being a character with a storyline that has significance is, though. Even the recurring characters that aren't Biblically-based. Especially the ones whose presence, sub-storyline, and activity in episodes significantly effect the storyline of the main characters. For example: Elisheva, mother of Matthew. At this point, she has been in one more episode than Matthew's father, yet she is being removed by another editor from the recurring characters list. Her storyline is quite significant to that of Matthew, just as is the storyline of her husband, Alphaeus. Why we are keeping one, but not the other, makes no sense. A4M2Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Her storyline is quite significant to that of Matthew - if it is, then expand on that. Without writing a plot summary, but instead as a character description, exactly what is significant? Make your case through the edit itself, and if that does not succeed, then through WP:BRD. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Only if Alpaeus's character description is expanded. I'm not going to create an unbalance with something that isn't being called for in his character description. Why should her name be left out? is the actual question. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The whole article at present is not much more than "start class" (if there were assessments for list class articles). The other editor involved has a track record of focusing on fancrufty minutiae that does little to benefit article quality. You can do the same and involve yourself in an edit war with him or you can try to contribute something worth keeping. I guess an alternative third possibility is simply withholding your efforts, which is about as worthwhile to improving an article as the first possibility. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't talk down to me, don't lecture me. It's inappropriate and you don't have the right, nor do you have any valid reason, to do either. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not talking down to you - it's pointing out the obvious possibilities. It's up to you how you contribute (or whether you contribute). ButlerBlog (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It's talking down to me. I'm an adult. And an aged one. I don't need to be told how to involve myself, how to contribute, or how/when I should decide what to do do in this environment. It's presumptuous and condescending (hence, my reference to talking down to me) for you to make such comments. Please, in the future, just don't. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Then let me be more clear - it's not intended to be condescending. Let's rein this in and if there's something content related to discuss, fine; anything else should move to user talk. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Premature edit

Radiant Fellow, this edit [1] seems premature since Season 4 has not yet been released. While several characters can be assumed, until we have the actual credits and list of characters, I don't think making assumptions about who is recurring or regular should be made. UNLESS, there is a reliable source available to have the actual cast list for all eight episodes. Is there? I don't see a source listed for the edit that was just made. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed and although it looks to have already been undone, I'd say the same for the main cast table. John and Lazarus seem to have been added on the basis of producers tweeting images of theatrical release posters. We are not a fan site or a news site, so the objective here is not to be the first to report information - it's to provide encyclopedic information, which is essentially "after the fact". Additionally, it doesn't matter what the producers consider to be "main" vs "recurring" - we have an established manual of style that determines how we list things. And in this instance that cannot be determined based on the source provided and thus should be removed/reverted until it can be. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"provide encyclopedic information, which is essentially "after the fact"" is the best description I've seen yet of what Wikipedia is meant to be. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Simon (Peter)

Radiant Fellow, I removed "Peter" from Simon's listing in characters [2] only because there was no source listed that shows his name IS being changed in this season. Is there a source somewhere online that indicates what episode in season 4 this is happening? Perhaps we need to make a note or place an asterisk somewhere that will give that information? I'm not certain what the proper course would be. I know that Season Four, the first three episodes are released today in theaters, but until we have a proper source with episodes 1-3 summary that contains Jesus renaming Simon as Peter, it seems premature to do that at this time. After it's in a released episode summary or synopsis, then it can happen. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

To add to the above (and reiterate what has been stated many times over the course of this series), we are not a fan site, nor a news site, nor a directory, and as such, there is no rush to get this information "out there". If it can't be properly sourced, it shouldn't be included. Even if it can be sourced, it's not "mission critical" to get it done to meet some arbitrary deadline. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Main, recurring, and guests

Based on our general MOS:TVCAST as well as general principles followed by the television project, we have our own internal definitions of what these terms mean and how they are applied. As with most everything within the Wikipedia sphere, we follow our internal MOS and not arbitrary or external definitions.

Main is generally opening credits only. Recurring is usually closing credits, or a recurring appearance of several episodes in a season. Guest is typically 1 episode in a season. Note that these are per season - not an aggregate across a series run. For example, in the case of Joseph (which I just moved), he's a guest in 2 seasons. We don't add that together and call him recurring because he comes back in another season for a single appearance. He's a guest in each season, thus a guest cast. We only move a character up into a higher listing if they become that for that season. So Joseph would only move into recurring if he was considered a recurring character within a single season. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of what MOS states, regarding Joseph, I can't agree that he's a guest character for several reasons: he was not only in the pilot for the show, he is seen in numerous scenes through all seasons and in the Christmas specials, and the latest Chosen Christmas movie features him throughout, just as he was featured through "The Messengers". He's a key character in the show, even if he's not seen in as many cumulative episodes as others who are recurring. I'm not going to die on any hills here, but I do think keeping him in the "guest" subsection is not appropriate. As to the others that have likely been moved back to where they were before I edited those sections today, I'm not interested in arguing over any of it. My personal feeling though, is that sometimes policy or Wikipedia "rules" don't fit for every article. When it comes to the cast list for this particular show, I don't agree with how its set up if the listings are based on MOS alone. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

conduct issues are offtopic for article talk

Radiant Fellow, STOP removing the Elisheva character from whatever category best fits her. Elisheva is an important character in the show. She is pivotal to the development of the Matthew character and there is no logical reason why she should not be included in this article. If you continue removing her based on whatever weak reason du jour you come up with, I will be forced to take the issue wherever and to whomever your repeated edit warring and disruption will get notice. I don't plan to take this issue to a noticeboard, but it needs to be noticed by someone who can convince you to stop. Obviously I can't, but I'm certain someone else can. This has been an issue with you for months now, you are behaving as if you own all articles associated with The Chosen, I'm not the first one to notice it, and it's all become as tedious as it is ridiculous. Enough already. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC) This should move to the user's talk page per WP:OWNTALK. ButlerBlog (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC) There's no reason to do that. He just deletes whatever I put on his page, no matter how nice I am, and then puts "BS" in the edit summary. He'll see the message here; hopefully others will, too. It's an ongoing issue and there needs to be other eyes on it besides me. The behavior is simply unacceptable and needs to end. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC) There's no reason to do that - Yes, there is - and I linked it above. It doesn't matter that he deletes it - it's still in the history and can be viewed by anyone that needs to view it (such as for situations involving noticeboards). Discussing user behavior on the article talk page is not what the article talk page is for. ButlerBlog (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC) It needs to stay here in my opinion. His behavior involves repeated edit warring at all the The Chosen articles by the same individual. In fact, he just repeated it with more than one revision (see the article history) and doesn't care. He doesn't care because no one has stopped him in the past. He's a single purpose account with a penchant for bullying and taking on article ownership behavior. No one is going to see a warning on his page or care to look for it there. You COULD do something about his behavior, had an opportunity to be more bold in regard to it not that long ago, but choose not to. Since you choose to make no move, I will. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC) Butlerblog, just so you know, he has also removed the Elisheva character once again. Is that three times in one day or just two? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC) I've reverted and posted a warning template on his page. But any further discussion regarding user behavior needs to be on the user talk page. If it's about the content itself, then discuss it here. But when the focus is the user, not the content, this is not the correct venue. If it continues, seek appropriate dispute resolution (WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE) ButlerBlog (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC) Your lecture on where discussions should go is unnecessary but it's also missing the point of WHY the discussion needed to be started here. More eyes on his behavior is needed. I'm doing everything I can to edit as is appropriate for Wikipedia according to the rules and standards. When I get a two week suspension from a particular article for essentially nothing egregious, but this guy gets a months and months long pass for repeated disruption and edit warring, there's a problem in management. Sweeping his behavior under the carpet over and over, vice slapping me with an article block for two weeks when there really was no harm done (and sincere apologies were made) - not a good look. And also not conducive to the "collaborative environment" editing you urged him to engage in when he started SPA edit warring two years ago.[3] The tolerance of his 18 months of bad choices with no consequences needs to be over with. Making more public how that tolerance has allowed his disruptive editing to evolve and keep good editors away is needed. If for nothing less than getting the message to him that his "reign" over articles about The Chosen has to come to an end or there will be further consequences he isn't going to like. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Characters

First and foremost, I humbly apologize for my attitude towards the situation in editing. Second, I'm unaware of the use of minor edits, and I sincerely apologize. Third, the wiki link for Yanni, Madai, Lamech, and Akiva is they are Pharisees during the ministry of Jesus. Fourth, the wiki link for Telemachus is "Feeding the Multitude" since he is the boy with loaves and fishes in the event and, thus, a participant in it. Fifth, I contributed the structure for Mary Magdalene to be more precise (i.e., "Camila Carreon portrays a child Mary Magdalene" rather than "Camila Carreon portrays Mary Magdalene as a child"), to shorten and not elongate it; moreover, it is the same structure with other details in other characters, too. Sixth, the structure for Photina must be arranged comprehensively, thus, I put "Photina is a Samaritan woman in Sychar" rather than "Photina lives in Sychar and is the Samaritan woman at the well", wherein the former is more arranged than the latter, being the former as concise. Seventh, the information for Caleb is revised because the place where he is, that is, Jericho, is removed as he is mentioned by the character of Atticus as a demoniac in Jericho (as per S2E7). Eighth, I added the information for David as "a former fugitive from the former king, Saul" again since it is removed, too, wherein the series particularly tackled that brief specific description of David. Ninth, I put "(seasons 3–4)" to the characters of both Martha and Mary. Tenth, same with the structure for Photina, the structure for Pontius Pilate must be arranged comprehensively, thus, I put "Pontius Pilate is the Roman Prefect in Jerusalem and the governor of Judea. He is the husband of Claudia and an acquaintance of Atticus Aemilius Pulcher." rather than the "Pontius Pilate is the Roman Prefect in Jerusalem and the governor of Judea. He is married to Claudia and is an acquaintance of Atticus Aemilius Pulcher.", wherein the former is more arranged than the latter as it's a concise description. Eleventh, I made the descriptions for both Avner and Nadab concise with "Alongside Avner/Nadab, he is one of the two messengers John the Baptizer sends to Jesus." rather than "Along with Avner/Nadab, he is one of two messengers sent to Jesus by John the Baptizer.". Twelfth, another piece of information for Asaph on "...Asaph writes and present Psalm 77..." is corrected to what the series portrays, "Alongside Jeduthun as the music composer, Asaph writes a Psalm.", as the series refers to Psalm 77 as a Psalm of Asaph and we must go with what the series portrays. Thirteenth, the information for Jeduthun as "the chief musician" is explicitly referred to in the series, and the statement "He composes the music for the Psalm of Asaph." is literally mentioned in the series (as per S3E8). Fourteenth, I initially disagreed with the addition of Elisheva as a recurring character since she isn't biblical, and all characters here, except for the credited main characters, are biblical to avoid the elongation of the article, hence, striving to include only notable biblical characters mentioned or referred to in the show and not include non-biblical characters to keep the article from lengthening; yet, I still disagree with this despite everything. In conclusion, this is my overall response, and I want to be a good editor. Again, I apologize and thank you. Radiant Fellow (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Butlerblog Radiant Fellow (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Status quo

I have returned the article back to status quo. If anyone has objections or concerns about that reversal, let's talk about it here! Thank you, A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 01:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Alpha order for non-main characters

Because the cast list is growing rapidly, I think it might be a good idea to put the guest and recurring characters in alphabetical order. Any thoughts on this? Is there a MOS standard that would supersede listing everyone alphabetically? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Per the manual of style for the television project (MOS:TVCAST), we list in billing order and by appearance: The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast being added to the end of the list. Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such cast members remain on the list even after their departure. Please keep in mind that although "main" cast members are determined by the producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count) and generally have a set order in the credits, recurring and guest stars will not necessarily be credited in the same order in each episode, so their place in the list should be based on the order of credits from the first episode in which they appear.

Recent changes to the recurring table (and possibly others) are out of this order. The table had been in MOS order at one point in time. Any additions from that point should follow the same MOS guidelines. A quick rule-of-thumb for the order is first order of appearance (a recurring character who first appears in s1e2 shouldn't be listed in front of one first appearing in s1e1) and then by billing order (if two recurring characters first appear in the same episode, they are listed in the order they appear in credited order).

A character who moves up from guest to recurring, recurring to main, etc, is added to the bottom of the new list based on their new classification. For example, a season 1 guest character who becomes a recurring season 3 character should not be inserted above any season 2 recurring characters. They should be added to the recurring list based on when they became a recurring character.

Also note that not every character needs to be (or even should be) listed: Remember to follow the notability guidelines when creating a cast list; not every character deserves to be listed. Our purpose is not to simply recreate lists that are already available elsewhere on the Internet. The purpose of a list article is to be able to expand the prose written about the character/cast member (while not simply recreating the episode summary). If not much can be said about them, they probably shouldn't be included. Likewise, if they are not credited, they shouldn't be included (although not every credited appearance needs to be included). It's very much a work in progress. If/when it gets to be too much, it can be split but it's a long ways off from split criteria at this point. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Good info, Butlerblog. You should realize, though, that all characters I have personally added are pivotal to the storyline in either an episode or season. Unfortunately, not all characters added by others have been in that category. I'm guessing you haven't watched the show? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing you haven't watched the show? You guessed wrong. In actuality, for at least the first two seasons, I was the one who went through the credits of each episode to assemble the original list. I did that same process for the initial episodes of the third, but not necessarily the final ones. Keep in mind that pivotal to the storyline of... an episode isn't really notable for the list as a whole. If a character is pivotal to an episode, that is better covered in the episode summary instead. If it's a guest character that's only in a single episode and isn't a notable actor (i.e. no Wikipedia article), that's a perfect example of something that need not be listed (in this list - that doesn't preclude mention of the character in the episode summary). ButlerBlog (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Shall I ascertain from your comments above which say, "it's better", that this is your opinion? Or is it MOS?

Also, I'm in the midst of trying to fix the cast lists according to your descriptions above. I'm sure I've gotten some of it wrong (perhaps Jesus shouldn't be listed down so low on the list?), so feel free to assist. I'm doing it currently in order of appearance. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Whoa... there's a giant disconnect here. It's by credited (billed) order first. Please read MOS:TVCAST, specifically: The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast being added to the end of the list. Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such cast members remain on the list even after their departure. Appearance is only a factor for when someone is added later in situations where the cast changes.

The first two seasons of the main characters in the table and list correctly reflected the MOS guideline before your most recent changes, and I'm pretty sure the 3rd season was correctly ordered as well. There is no reason to change that unless a verification indicates something incorrect. I believe aside from the additions you made recently to the recurring list, those were all in correct MOS order as well. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

A good example of changes is if David Amito is now a main character (i.e. he'd have to be opening credit billing), that would be a move from recurring to main, so he goes in at the end of the "main" list as of the point where he becomes a main character. I think that may be where you misunderstood my description of "appearance". I rolled back the changes to the last point the main cast list was in the correct order (leaving anything you did previous to that point - so I don't know about the recurring list order without verifying - I'm just assuming that's correct for now). ButlerBlog (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

"Whoa... there's a giant disconnect here." Why are you so frequently downright rude? I asked for your help, not a lecture, not condescension. I see little more than the last two problematic behaviors (rudeness and condescension) rather than the first pleasing attribute I listed (being helpful). Hopefully you don't truly view rudeness and condescension as helpful. But in my experiences with you over the last few months, just so you are aware, it appears you do believe it's all the same.

"I don't know about the recurring list order without verifying - I'm just assuming that's correct for now)" Don't assume. Verify. Isn't that what you would tell ME to do? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to be as nice as possible both in explanation and by not rolling back every single change you just did. You're obviously working on it at present - I would assume you don't want me (or anyone else) stepping on what you're doing while you're doing it. Or would you rather me just roll back to where it was? ButlerBlog (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

"I'm trying to be as nice as possible both in explanation and by not rolling back every single change you just did." I guess it's true then. You DO see "helpful" and condescending rudeness as one in the same. Please don't rollback, be patient instead. Anything there right now isn't going to break the article or the encyclopedia. If it's been out of order for a long time (since season 2 completed, as you said above), then what's going to be damaged or hurt if it's that way a little longer? Besides, rolling everything back would be completely counterproductive, wouldn't it? I mean, you keep trying to school me as often as you possibly can. How can I LEARN if you just keep undoing what I've done? I asked for help, not obliteration of everything I've been working on. Doing that really isn't much different than what the currently blocked other guy was doing, you know? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

For clarification, I want you to know that I being in the camp of good faith is where I want to be with our interactions. I really do. But you make it difficult. We could be working on this (and all Chosen articles) together, but every time you lecture and revert first without talking first, every time you condescend (among a few other things I've picked up on) my faith in your motives and actions regarding this article topic and others I've edited sinks just little more. If I have a reason beyond policy to assume good faith with you and about you, is it possible for you to maybe give it to me? Because I'm just not seeing it which causes me to want to avoid you altogether. But, because I do care about the articles related to the article topic we are discussing now, I'm not going to bail on it just to not edit around or near you. In shorter words: start being visibly nicer, please. I know you already know how to do that, I've seen it. Can you try it where I'm concerned, too? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Back to character listings

The listing of characters has differed in the credits from season to season. How, then, do we apply MOS to character listing(s) when it changes every 18 months or so? Seems to me that in order of appearance in the episodes and season will be the only answer. Butlerblog, you recently reverted my changes (which were per appearance) back to your preferred version (the one you created, correct?). Because everything with the show is changing season to season, and with the release of Season 4 just around the corner, things are going to continue to change. This isn't a typical TV show in the way of cast. The main characters will stay pretty much the same for now. But it's about to change in a big way with Season 5, where the entire focus of the show changes. More Pharisees, more Romans that are prominent to the storyline direct from the Bible will be shown. And those characters will become main characters. Caiaphas and Pilate come immediately to mind. You have reverted out all mention of those two characters who are now recurring. You haven't seen seasons 3 and 4 (isn't that what you said above?), so are unaware of who's appearing where and when, it would seem. Mine isn't a fan perspective. It's a getting it correct perspective. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so let's be encyclopedic and get it right, right? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The listing of characters has differed in the credits from season to season. Yes, and MOS:TVCAST accounts for that. It starts with season 1, then it builds from there. New main characters get added to the end of the list based on their billing, picking up where the previous season left off. How to handle when credits change is described in the linked MOS.

The first three seasons for the list of main characters was already verified based on the MOS guide when the list was part of the original article. This list article wasn't split from main article until after season 3 was released, and up until then, per the results of independent article assessment from the tv project, only main cast was listed.

Regarding how shows change - an encyclopedia is backwards looking, not forward. We're primarily concerned with what has happened, not what will happen (not a crystal ball). Both the TV and film projects don't get overly concerned with future production because it is uncertain - just because someone said something would happen in production, it actually may not happen. If and when something changes, the article can account for that after it happens. Talking about season 5 before season 4 has even released as streaming is stuff that does not apply.

You haven't seen seasons 3 and 4 (isn't that what you said above?) No - that's not what I said. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

"an encyclopedia is backwards looking, not forward. We're primarily concerned with what has happened, not what will happen" Yes, and I realize this, and I never said we are to look forward. Once again, you jump to conclusions and go for the "she doesn't get it" mindset.

"No - that's not what I said." Thought you did. Care to enlighten me? Because it doesn't seem like you have seen the show beyond looking at things like credits and the like, or looking for some sources. Additionally, when you said (or I thought you said) you hadn't updated some things beyond Season 2, that's why I thought you hadn't seen more than Seasons 1 and 2. Have you? As in actually watched the show? Not that I will be critical of you if you haven't, it just doesn't seem as if you are grasping the character appointments beyond Wikipedia policy and credits/cast listings found elsewhere. This is why I am asking. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)