Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Cast and characters section

The following discussion 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.

---

Current text

• Shortcuts WP:TVCAST, MOS:TVCAST

Information about the cast and characters should be presented in one of two ways (note that per Wikipedia's Manual of Style on boldface, actors and roles should not be bolded):

• Cast list: In a section labeled "Cast" or "Cast and characters", we indicate the name of the cast member and his or her noteworthy role(s), followed by a brief description of the character.

Harrison Ford as Han Solo: The pilot of the Millennium Falcon

• Characters list: In a section labeled "Characters" or "List of characters", we indicate noteworthy characters, including the name of their portrayer, followed by a brief description of the character.

Han Solo (portrayed by Harrison Ford): The pilot of the Millennium Falcon

To avoid redundancy, use only one method for delivering this information. It may be more appropriate to use a character list for series where an actor portrays several characters.

Remember to follow the notability guidelines when creating a cast list: not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed and even fewer will deserve an individual article. It may be appropriate to split up the cast listing by "Main characters" and "Recurring characters". If the series is long running, and has an overwhelming number of recurring guest stars, it may be appropriate to split those into a separate list of characters articles (see below for style guidelines on "List of ..." pages).

The cast listing should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series. Please keep in mind that though "main" cast members are determined by the series producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count) and generally have a set order in the credits, guest stars will not necessarily be credited in the same order each episode they appear, so their place in the list should be based on the order of credits in the first episode that they appear. The cast listing should not contain an episode count, e.g. (# episodes), to indicate the number of episodes in which the actor/character appeared. If an actor misses an episode due to a real world occurrence, such as an injury that prevents them from appearing, this info can be noted in the character's description or "Production" section with a reliable source. New casting information for forthcoming recurring or guest characters should be added to the bottom of the list, with their position readjusted if necessary based the defined method above.

Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that really belongs in the plot summary; instead, focus on real world information on the characters and actors (this could include, but is not limited to, casting of the actor or how the character was created and developed over the course of the series). The key is to provide real world context to the character through production information, and without simply re-iterating IMDb. Because of this, it can sometimes be appropriate to bypass the use of a cast section altogether. If so, the relevant in-universe information can simply be presented in the plot section of the article, with the real world information in a "Casting" subsection under "Production". Of course, some television articles will lend themselves to one style better than others; so see what works best, and do not be afraid to discuss it on the article's talk page.

Associated note

New, updated text

• Shortcuts WP:TVCAST, MOS:TVCAST

Generally, information about cast and characters should be presented in one of two ways:

• Cast list: In a section labeled "Cast" or "Cast and characters", indicate the name of the cast member and his or her noteworthy role(s), followed by a brief description of the character. Example: The Newsroom (U.S. TV series)
• Characters list: In a section labeled "Characters" or "List of characters", indicate noteworthy characters, including the name of their portrayer, followed by a brief description of the character. Example: Mutant X (TV series)

In accordance with the Manual of Style guidance on boldface, actors and roles should not be bolded, nor should they be italicised. Lists should not include any forced line breaks. Follow correct syntax when compiling lists (including MOS:COLON). Examples include:

• Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock Holmes: a former Scotland Yard consultant
• Frasier Crane (Kelsey Grammer), a radio psychiatrist

In some cases, such as unscripted programs with few cast members or series where the cast frequently changes, it may be more appropriate to include cast information in prose form. It could be presented in an appropriately titled section (eg. "Presenters") or as a sub-section of the "Production" section (such as at The Price Is Right). To avoid redundancy, use only one method for delivering this information. It may be more appropriate to use a character list for series where an actor portrays several characters.

Remember to follow the notability guidelines when creating a cast list: not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed and even fewer will deserve an individual article. It may be appropriate to split the cast listing by "Main characters" and "Recurring characters". If the series is long-running, and has a large number of recurring guest stars, it may be better to create a separate list of characters articles (see below for style guidelines on "List of ..." pages).

The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series. Please keep in mind that though "main" cast members are determined by the series 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 in which they appear, so their place in the list should be based on the order of credits in the first episode that they appear. The cast listing should not contain an episode count, e.g. (6 episodes), to indicate the number of episodes in which the actor or character appeared. If an actor misses an episode due to a real-world occurrence, such as an injury that prevents them from appearing, this info can be noted in the character's description or "Production" section with a reliable source. New casting information for forthcoming characters should be added to the bottom of the list, with their position readjusted if necessary based on the method defined above.

A cast member or character appearing in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes, does not necessarily mean that character has a "recurring" role. An actor or character may simply have a guest role across several episodes, rather than a recurring story arc throughout the show. If reliable sources cannot adequately distinguish between recurring or guest roles, then local consensus should determine their status.

All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source. For unscripted shows where cast are referred to in a program by a stage name or first name only, that name should be used in episode descriptions, but their full proper name (where available) should be used in cast lists. In subsequent sections dealing with real-world information, their surname should be used.

Cast tables (such as the one found at The Killing (U.S. TV series) § Cast) can be used as a visual representation of cast duration for multi-season programs but should not be used for programs with fewer than three seasons or where cast changes are minimal. Only cast members who have been part of the main cast for at least one season should be included. If a program has a separate article about casting, the table should only appear in that article or in the parent article but not both. A separate cast table for recurring cast can be included in articles listing characters and cast but should never be included in parent television series articles.

Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that belongs in the plot summary; instead, focus on real-world information on the characters and actors (this could include, but is not limited to, casting of the actor or how the character was created and developed over the course of the series). The key is to provide real-world context to the character through production information, without simply re-iterating entertainment websites such as IMDb.

Associated note

Previous discussions

relevant ones to be added

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#TV Series cast lists
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#"Absent" cast members on Episodes lists, very recent discussion regarding if "absent" cast members should be listed in episode tables
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Cast in episode descriptions, very recent discussion regarding if guest cast should be mentioned in episode descriptions such as: John Smith (Fred Jones)
• Talk:Star Trek: Discovery#cast and characters formatting / bullet-breaking and MOS, recent discussion and following RfC on line breaks in cast lists for character descriptions

Discussion

In an attempt to keep discussions easy to follow, might I suggest that when discussing a new topic/feature/addition/omission/etc in the section, a new sub-section level 3 header be created, so those interested in one topic but not another can easily and quickly follow a thread on one thing at a time? Might make it easier for casual observers to follow and keep up with, and when putting it all together at the end. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: As this discussion has hit the 2 week mark, I thought I would attempt introducing "discussion summaries to date" for each open topic, to both help keep discussions on track as well as making it easier for casual observers or newcomers to catch up with and participate. I've written the summaries deliberately briefly. If anyone wants to disagree with a summary I've written you can, but really, there is no need to get into debates about the summaries themselves. Simply ignore it and continue the discussion with your points of view as you otherwise would. Where I've written "Discussion potentially ended" doesn't mean it is now closed - keep discussing and debating if you disagree some form of consensus has been reached. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Cast tables

Something that really needs to be implemented in the MoS is the deprecation of "cast tables" on the main articles for television series. I specify the main articles given that many separate "list of characters" articles use them, and it sufficiently summarizes the cast (e.g. List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters, List of Vikings characters, List of Game of Thrones characters). Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to discuss cast tables also in this section. Seems there is division on where they should be used, where they should not, and if they should be used at all and if so how? Personally, I like the table and think it is a very easy way to get a summary of cast members in programs, but I'm not sure whether they should be used in both main series articles and cast articles. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Should we be saying that when a cast list is big enough to be split off to its own article, it may be appropriate to provide an overview/summary table? We could then go into more detail down in the section that is dedicated to separate LoC pages. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the graphical cast table can be used on any program with multiple seasons. I know some users don't like it at all, but I think they can be used very well be it on main article, or shows with breakout season and cast articles. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

FTR, this is one of the topics under TVCAST that I wanted to put my $0.02 in on – while I am fine with deprecating cast tables from the "main" TV series articles (though doing so is going to cause a lot of controversy – I was just noticing one at Chicago P.D. (TV series), for example), I also want to make clear that I don't think they should be "banned" and that I think an allowance for the inclusion of "cast tables" at "List of [...] characters" (or "List of [...] cast") articles should be explicitly allowed for (as Alex has basically said above) – provided they follow the rest of TVCAST (e.g. in terms of the proper cast "order" listing guidelines). Some of our readership are "visual" learners/readers, and seeing cast listings in table form (by season) helps some of our readership out... Now, all that said, even I think the "cast" tables at an article like List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters is out of control... though I'm not sure guidance for something like that can be worked into the guideline. Anyway, that's my $0.02 on this subtopic. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, if we don't "deprecate" cast tables from main TV series articles, then it needs to be one or the other – i.e. either a cast table or a cast list. The way an article like Chicago P.D. (TV series) handles this, with both a cast table and a cast listing, is kind of obnoxious/cluttered. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

IJBall, what do you think of my suggestion that these only be implemented when a cast list becomes big enough to require an overview/summary? I personally cannot think of any other reason to have one and avoid redundancy, and it will cut down on having small prose sections being duplicated in tables as well. As for Chicago P.D. ... wow. Perhaps we need to make a clearer statement here that when you split off a separate list of characters page, you shouldn't have an extensive list of characters at the main article as well? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Adamstom, your suggestion may have merit. But having thought about this for several months now, I think my preference is to allow cast tables only when the cast/characters list becomes large enough to justify actually spinning off the cast/characters list into a separate "List of [...] characters[/cast]" article. I've come around to the idea that cast tables generally don't go well at the "main" TV series articles, but do go quite well in "List of [...] characters" articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

What about something like The Real Housewives of New York City. I don't see any problem with the use of cast tables on main articles. -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that sentiment IJBall—my hope would be that when a cast list is big enough to require an overview table, it would also be big enough to split off to a separate list article. As for that example Whats new?, I'm not sure about it. That article doesn't actually have a cast list, so it isn't the redundant problem that we are having with more traditional articles. Perhaps that could be another special consideration for non-fiction series that may not have a traditional cast/character list? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

What exactly is the general objection to character tables over lists in main series articles? They seem relatively interchangeable. I do agree that there should (probably) never be both, and I can see how the table in Chicago P.D. (TV series) is inferior, redundant, and unnecessary; instead of actual character descriptions it has columns for in-universe character job titles and "assignments", and most everyone is "Main cast" for the full run anyway. The separate list is more robust, and certainly season spans can be introduced in parentheses. But in cases where we're using a list over the preferred prose and there is not a large amount of content, I'm not sure why it can't be an alternative, if only as a "starter" list before some later expansion.— TAnthony^Talk 19:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I think they're okay to use as with Happy Days and The Dukes of Hazzard, but should be limited to just the starring characters and not the ones that had at most recurring and guest billing. They should be neither required nor excluded. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, I think a separate "cast table" for "recurring cast" is fine for the separate "List of [...] characters" articles. As for Happy Days and The Dukes of Hazzard, we have both a cast table and a cast/characters list, which is redundant – it should be one or the other. In the case of both of those articles, it actually looks like "List of [...] characters" articles should be spun off of both of them – there's certainly enough material there! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand why some make the redundancy argument, but the table gives a quick graphical representation of duration of cast members and names, while the list provides a description of the character. I agree the table shouldn't be used on both main article and list of cast articles, but where the 'list of' article doesn't exist on a multi-season series, I think the table offers value. Agree though to limiting it to main characters/cast -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem I'm seeing here is that there are so many different options and variables on how to present cast. Many articles seem to not even have an actual cast list as is described in this section of the MOS. Do we need to come up with some guidelines for that as well? Perhaps we could say, cast list at series page, table can be added when it is big enough to have its own list article. Then we would just have to come up with something for prose sections, which perhaps would work better with a table? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

And, building on the same point, because there are so many options, some series end up with all of them. Take The Vikings example mentioned above: the main series page has a cast list, there is a separate "list of cast" page that contains not only a list (actually several lists) but also a cast table, then each of four series pages also has its own cast list. The information on different characters is presented differently on different pages and sometimes spelling differences or other changes appear on one page but not the others. If there is a separate 'cast' page with absolutely all of the information on it, including tying each actor to their appearances in each season by way of a table, why do we need five other lists setting out (some of) the same information again? IanB2 (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

If a cast list is split off to its own article, I think it is fair to keep something on the main article. But it should just be a summary, with a link to the more detailed page. So for Vikings, it has a full cast list, so at the series and season pages there should just be an overview of the appropriate casts for those pages: the series page should probably just list the starring cast of the series, and then each season page should note which series stars were in that season, and then maybe some season-specific notable guests. Removing everything entirely leaves those individual pages without some needed context; it is for that same reason that we have the Plot section replaced with an overview/premise type thing when it is split off to a separate list of episodes. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree we need clear guidelines around cast table, cast list and prose cast sections, on what can be used in conjunction with what, what shouldn't be together, and in the case where there are spin-off articles ("list of characters", season articles, episode articles, etc) where each should be. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that the problem that arises with cast "tables" is that they end up just being new locations for plot information, when the plot information already has a home. Cast information should include just that, cast information. Casting, actor interpretation of roles, etc. There is likely to be some plot info there for context, but a cast list/table/whatever shouldn't be another location just to fill out all the plot details that you couldn't put somewhere else because of a "word count" or because it was trivial. I see too often that cast lists on main pages and character list pages turn into giant plot summaries for each character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Bignole, what sort of cast tables are you talking about? I thought we were discussing the type of cast table that can be seen as an overview for this list. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to this type of stuff]. But what you're referring to, I'm not for either. I think people push tables for "visuals" too often when they aren't even necessary. If an article is just flesh out enough, you don't have to do that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

While they may not always be necessary, I don't think there is anything wrong with providing a quick and easy overview for long, in-depth lists. But the sort of tables you are talking about are a bit more problematic, as they are discouraged due to accessibility concerns (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Tables). What you are saying about "another location just to fill out all the plot details" is a completely separate problem, I feel. Regardless of whether the section is a list or a table, character sections always tend to become repositories for extensive in-universe detail added by over-excited fanboys. I think we probably need to have some stricter wording regarding that here—a brief character description is allowed, to give context just as plot summaries give context to the rest of series/season/episode articles, but the focus of cast/character sections should be on real world information. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters is set up (also: The Dukes of Hazzard#Recurring characters mentioned above). I won't lie – I dislike this format of cast table strongly, and would like to see it deprecated, but it would be a big job to replace all of these kinds of cast/character tables. However I disagree with you on the second type of table – for TV shows with large casts that change over multiple seasons, the latter tables are very useful for figuring out which actor was part of the show for which seasons, and what other actors they overlapped with. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

While I'm thinking of it, we need to specify in the MOS that whatever types of cast tables we do allow have to be WP:ACCESSIBILITY-compliant (this will also be especially true of "Awards and accolades" tables (when we get to that section of the MOS), which routinely are not WP:ACCESS-compliant due to the improper use of 'rowspan'). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I would also propose, assuming we add a sentence or two expalining how and when a cast table should be used, adding a line limiting qualification for inclusion in a cast table to those who have been a main character/cast member at some point, so the table doesn't blow out to include multiple recurring and guest stars. For example, at Happy Days the existing listing of Pat Morita would be removed because they have not been a main cast member, and similarily at The Real Housewives of New York City Jennifer Gilbert would be removed for the same reason. I wouldn't suggest removing any one who dropped down from main to recurring, nor not including anyone because they started as recurring/guest and later became main. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, though I wouldn't want this to disallow creating a completely separate cast table for recurring cast at "List of [...] characters" articles. Again, I've seen that done at a number of "List of [...] characters" articles – where there's one cast table for "main" cast, and another cast table for "recurring" cast – and I think that can work quite well. Er, well, as long as people don't go overboard, a la List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes Im fine with more detailed cast tables on list of cast articles, I was referring to the main article only including tables with main cast only. Main, recurring and guests should still be listed in list form on the main article, but only main cast in the table. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, yes, I could definitely sign off on this. I'm still lukewarm on the idea of using cast tables for even main cast at the TV series articles themselves, but I probably don't feel strongly enough about the issue to oppose their use at such articles entirely. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I saw above that there was an argument for having a cast table for long lists of cast members. That's the opposite of when I would think they should be used. It may seem "easier" that way, but when you have a long list of cast (ala Lost), a cast table would be inappropriate in my eyes. You'd spend more time trying to scroll through the table to find everything than just reading in prose. Then you get into the convolution of colors for different statuses.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I see your point Bignole and Lost is a good case study. The cast table on the Lost cast article appears sufficent to me, in that it includes only those credited at some point as main/starring. I also like that it is used on the cast article and not the parent article (I wouldn't mind the other way around either, as long as it is not both). The colour status scheme used there is probably a rare exception to almost all other cast tables which would only use the traditional Main/Recurring/Guest options. Personally, I would be fine with a seperate table for non-main cast, but I wouldn't stronly oppose cast tables being used exclusively for main cast if that is consensus. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

BTW, This is exactly what I was referring to initially. A cast table that is nothing but plot information. It's treated like an episode table. Cast list should either be a list of cast/characters, or it should be a page where it is a list of characters with real world information. It shouldn't just be another page of plot information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the tables at List of Lost characters is problematic, twice over! The first "proper" cast table mixes main cast and recurring cast together willy-nilly. Then the actual character descriptions/summaries are in "table-form", a la List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. The latter is the bigger issue – as I said further up, I really dislike these, and agree that they should be deprecated... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a lot wrong with the Lost character list, and that second table is the style that is discouraged here. Bignole, I don't follow the logic that short cast lists should have overview tables, but long should not. The only reason to have a second, overview listing like this is for a quick and easy visual guide when an article is too big and detailed to do that itself. As long as we have some guidelines regarding the prupose of the table and what it should look like (i.e. use the CMain, CRecurring, and CGuest templates, not whatever they are up to at the Lost page), then it shouldn't be too problematic. The table should really only say the character, actor, and what role they have played during the seasons of a show, and then the actual character details will be in prose below. Again, we need to stress that cast and character lists are not for reiterating plot information, and that only a brief in-universe overview should be given before going into actual real-world information. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

First, I don't think you need a "cast table" period, especially for main cast. The only thing that a main cast table is going to provide is when they started being a series regular. Which, for shows that might only change one or two cast members as series regulars over the course of a show's life, that's not really relevant. Even still, prose can easily cover the few that do come in last. So you end up with just a main cast listed in a table, then re-listed elsewhere with prose attached to them. That's unnecessarily redundant. That's like the argument of having a summary of a season in the lead, a summary in a separate section, and then an episode table. We used to have an unwritten understanding that we're not IMDb, and if people just need to see a list of cast members for the sake of "brevity", then they can click the IMDb link at the bottom of the page. IF you start adding "recurring" and "guests", then your table is going to be ungodly long. Whether they have separate tables for each or not. Any show with at least 3 or 4 seasons is likely to have an extremely long list of actors that have been part of it, through recurring and guest status.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

I disagree that cast tables should not be used. I think they provide a clear, graphical representation of cast duration. My proposal would be limiting them to:

• (1) Only for multi-season programs
• (2) Only include cast/characters who have been classed main for at least one season
• (3) If a 'list of cast' article exists, the table only appears on that or the main article, not both
• (4) I'm open to inclusion of a second non-main cast table for guest/recurring on 'list of cast' articles but not parent articles
• (5) The use of cast tables not be mandatory

Not sure where consensus will fall on all 5 of those points however, but that would be my preference -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm mostly OK with this. With your (1), where "multi" is defined as at least 3. (I'd almost be willing to limit the use of a cast table to those shows with >3 seasons – and that would apply to both the main TV series article and the "List of [...] characters" article.) I also agree with Bignole that at the primary TV series article, it should either be a cast table, or a list with cast/character summaries, but not both, as having both strikes me as redundant. If we're going to have a cast table at the main TV series article, then people will need to go to the "List of [...] characters" article for character details. Otherwise, it should be a cast list with short character summaries, and the table only at the "List of [...] characters" article. (OTOH, both a cast table, and cast/character prose, together at the "List of [...] characters" article shouldn't pose a problem.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

If these cast tables are just supposed to be the actors and their characters, I don't see the benefit in creating two sections for the same information. So, if we do end up moving to the allowance of cast tables where there is prose content, I would suggest it be presented more like we do with some film articles (see Fight Club (film)#Casting or Friday the 13th (2009 film)#Casting). Again, the reason this is done this way there is because we have IMDb for a basic list and we don't need a separate section just to do what everyone is proposing. We can house them together, the way it should be. If the argument is "ease of looking at the cast", then the location should be with cast information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no advantage to a simple "boxed" cast list like that – in fact, when I see "simple cast tables" like that at TV series, I pretty much always replace them with a simple cast list. I do agree with Whats new? and others that the cast tables we specifically use at TV series articles do have value, and do visually display information in a superior way than a simple cast list can for long-running and relatively "complex" TV show casts. So I definitely plan to oppose "banning" their use outright. But as I said above, at main/parent TV series articles, we're going to need to specify how they are to be used, and I still think the best answer is either one of our TV cast tables or a cast list with character summaries, but not both. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Except, if it's a table for main cast then that is all it is, but a simple "cast table". The only time it becomes anything more is when you have a table for recurring or guests, because then you're talking about how their role is reflected in a particular season. The main cast is the main cast. The only time that will be different is if they are added in a later season and no main cast is so complex that you need a table to show that 3 characters were not added to the series regular status until season 5.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Bignole, I think I definitely understand your concerns – you're worried about cases like a 4-season TV series, which has had the exact same cast for all 4 seasons, where some editor will want to put the cast into a cast table even though there would be zero advantage to doing so in a case like this. I do understand that. But the other side of the coin is that there are too many series out there like the NCISs, the CSIs, The Vampire Diaries and Chicago Fire with complex and highly variable cast situations where listing the cast in the form of one of our cast tables is an aid to readers, not a detriment. That's why I think Whats new?'s suggestions above are a good starting point – we shouldn't "ban" cast tables, but we should try to be careful with their use. All that said, ultimately, this is an editing guideline, not a county statute, so realistically I don't think we're going to be able to cover every possible eventuality in the guideline. Our job at the project level is just to give our editors the tools they need, provide some guidance when those tools are best used, and then trust our editors to use their common sense when editing – IOW, we're going to have to trust our editors to revert when somebody tries to add a cast table to a 4-season TV series with a stable cast where the use of a cast table offers no advantage and where its use makes no sense. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand the points raised here, but I stand by my (1)-(5) criteria above. Perhaps adding that cast tables shouldn't be used for uncomplex casting (such as when the cast barely changes across a 3 season show) would ease concerns? -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion summary to date
Apparent majority support for use for multi-season shows. Lack of consensus over where and when they should be used, and who should be included. A number of proposals made. Discussion ongoing.
-- Whats new?^(talk) 00:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

In the interests of closing this thread out, might I propose adding something like the following: The use of cast tables [INSERT EXAMPLE] may be suitable as a visual representation of cast duration for multi-season programs, but should not be used for programs with only one season or where cast changes are minimal. Only cast members who have been part of the main cast for at least one season should be included. If a program has a separate article about casting, the table should only appear on that article and not on the parent article. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Whats new?: Your proposal looks mostly fine. However, I suggest changing "for programs with only one season" to "...for programs with less than four seasons..." (I could be talked into "less than three seasons", but I really think shows with 3 or less seasons do not need a cast table at all – a cast listing should suffice for these.) I also strongly believe the MOS on this should basically say: "either a cast table, or a cast list, but NOT both" at main TV series parent articles. Also, I fear this wording could rule out the use of cast tables for "recurring" cast – I think tables for that should be allowed, but only at "List of [...] characters"-type articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see issue with them being used for 2 or more seasons, but if other editors prefer a higher number I'm willing to compromise at 3 or more. I do strongly believe that articles without a seperate 'list of' should allow both table and list (given not all information is in the table, such as excluding non-main cast and it demonstrates duration). I think there was some earlier conjecture about a separate table for recurring only, but personally I'm not opposed to it at 'list of' articles -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Line breaks

I also linked the discussion (and relevant RfC) found on the talk page of Star Trek: Discovery above, on whether line breaks should be included in cast lists between the cast member and their respective character, and the following description and information, for character descriptions that wrap around. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Based on the pretty clear consensus formed at the Discovery discussion, I think the best thing for us to do is add a note section after we state the initial formatting. Something like this: To avoid redundancy, use only one of these methods for delivering this information. It may be more appropriate to use a character list for series where an actor portrays several characters. Note that per Wikipedia's guidelines on boldface and lists, actors and roles should not be bolded, and lists should not include any blank lines or <br /> tags to create double-spaces. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I too feel the consensus against including line breaks was pretty clear. I've made a note on that page that we've referenced the discussion here since there was debate about whether sufficient editors in sufficient places had been notified about the original discussion. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't involved with the original discussion, but I would join the opposition to line breaks and endorse something along the lines of Adamstom.97's text being added -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is within the scope of MOS:TV, but a lot Anime-Manga articles will have a line break in the character lists. This is because the list item requires stating the character name in a Roman script, kanji, and a pronunciation guide, then possibly repeating that for the actors (original Japanese and English dub). So they often have a line break or indent before going into the character description (eg: Dimension W#Characters). This may also be the case with some foreign live-action tv shows. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't there a rule against the use of line breaks period, because of the paper Wikipedia and the issue with different browsers? Just like we're not supposed to be horizontal scrolls on tables because printed Wikipedia cannot show the entire table that way.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about that Bignole, but the consensus that was found at the Star Trek discussion was that any line breaks in a list screw up the mark-up for people using screen-readers, which is a violation of MOS:ACCESS I think. What Reidgreg brings up will have to be changed, just as it will have to be changed at several articles on US series as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:ACCESS would be what I was referring to. It's what governs the scrolling tables and why they can't be used.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The line breaks being used were not from editing in <br /> tags or blank lines, but with a colon added to the beginning of a new line. Also, logically speaking, how does using only "one of these methods" actually "avoid redundancy" in this context? That sentence is, at best, itself redundant in a guideline, but really it's not about redundancy but consistency ... something that is entailed by the very nature of guidelines etc. And again, "It may be more appropriate ..." is not the kind of wording the engenders consistent use in the face of many interpretations. Moreover, what does that sentence have to do with line breaks anyway? I hope that I'm missing something here, please let me know what that is. JimsMaher (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The line I proposed above is existing text from the MOS to which I added information on having no line breaks, as the consensus at the Star Trek: Discovery discussion was that line breaks in a list violate MOS:ACCESS. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Provide a link to the source of that "existing text," for the exact context, please.JimsMaher (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

What? It is the current test that we are discussing. What do you think this discussion is about? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The previous discussion is here: Talk:Star Trek: Discovery § RfC on "Cast and character" formatting —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

A colon also seems to "break" the list. (It effectively ends the list, and the next bullet or numero starts a new list.) So there are accessibility problems with that as well. MOS:LISTGAP gives two alternatives with a bullet list, to use ** or *:. Reidgreg (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

For the proposed changes, I agree with JimsMaher that the first sentence "To avoid redundancy" is probably redundant. It's stated in the first sentence of the section, and any clarification could be better done there. (Perhaps "presented consistently in one of two ways:" – keeping in mind that the part in parenthesis would be moved down and incorporated into the proposed change). For the part on boldface, would it be worthwhile to broaden that to "emphasis", and point out that names shouldn't be in boldface or italics? – Reidgreg (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd definitely support adding something to TVCAST about not bolding or italicizing character (or actor) names in 'Cast' sections, yeah. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion summary to date
Majority support against line breaks, and amending text to overtly state that as well as not bolding or italicizing names. Consensus potentially reached.
-- Whats new?^(talk) 00:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Listing cast in any type of plot

This is stemming from the fairly larger discussion that happened already at the MOS:TV talk proper (linked above in the previous discussions sections). We should include wording, one way or another, for some of the following instances: if a main cast member does not appear in the episode, should an "absent" note be made in the summary (this is particular to episode table summaries); the same with guest cast members, should those get a note in a similar manner; and finally, is it acceptable to include actors next to character names in prose summaries? I will give quick thoughts on each of these: I don't believe an "absent" not should be made unless there is a real-world reason behind it (such as an injury or pregnancy etc.) The next two I listed are sort of combined in my view. In terms of guest casting, I think it would be acceptable to do the following "Sally met John Smith (Fred Jones) at the bar." only if a relevant cast list is non-existent in the same location as the summary. So what I mean is this: if episode summaries are only on a list of episodes, this would be okay, but if the summaries were on a main series article, season article, or specific episode article, it would not be, as there would be a corresponding cast/casting section, or at least a relevant hat note to direct a reader to a character list with this info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your thoughts. I oppose absence notes unless there is a sourced real-world reason. I agree with names being included in brackets in prose form, only when the cast/characters list is not in the same article. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The second part was my reasoning for not including that little bit in TVPLOT Whats new?, as you can see it isn't as clear cut as I think it was thought to be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

That was a good call. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the general consensus for listing absentees is don't, unless there is a significant real-world reason (such as pregnancy, injury, etc.) in which case that can be provided here or in the production section with reliable sources. However, the very recent discussion on this doesn't seem to have actually formed a consensus due to a lot of conflicting views. Should we be pinging everyone involved with that from this section? As for names in plot summaries, I think allowing it is a slippery slope. We specifically state here that only notable actors and characters should be noted, and I think allowing people to list minor guest stars who aren't notable enough for cast or character lists in plot sections is just asking for trouble. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that any absences should only be noted if there is a real-world reason, although if it's for an extended period—like with Dylan O'Brien's injury keeping him out of most of the first half of Season 6 of Teen Wolf, so that he was only in 3 out of the 10 episodes although credited for the entire 10—I would not want there to be 7 different notations in every episode he missed. So... I think if there is more than a 1-episode absence (with a real-world reason and reliable sourcing) per season, that should be noted in prose, not in each and every plot summary. It makes no sense to speak about guest or even recurring cast absences since by definition, they are not expected to be in every episode. So really this only applies to main cast/regular cast/whatever we're calling them.

(I think we should probably split this part of the discussions this into an Absences section and a "Listing guest cast" section.)

With respect to listing cast in plot summaries of any type... I am against that. First, it makes summaries longer, which makes staying within the word limits harder. Second, it is simpler to say "create a cast section if you want to list cast" rather than "you can list cast but only if they're not listed elsewhere." Many, many inexperienced editors will parse only the first part of that statement and think listing cast in summaries is okay. Saying it is okay to list guest cast also opens the door to people including EVERY SINGLE actor's name, no matter how non-notable their role. It's bad enough editors add actors to "recurring" lists/sections when they've been in a couple of episodes (or my favourite, when they've been in just one). So I say we have a hard and fast rule of "no" with a suggestion of creating a guest cast section provided we have clear notability guidelines for it. I want to say something like "notability for guest cast is they have to speak with a main cast member." Not sure how to word notability guidelines for recurring cast but yes, something concrete we can refer to would be cool. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

There are generally crediting "levels" applied to guest cast – e.g. special guest star, guest star, co-starring, [I think there's sometimes even one more level – "featuring", maybe?] – that can be used to prevent listing "every single guest cast" member. What is generally done in the articles that include guest cast is to only allow listing of "special guest stars" and "guest stars" only. So I think we can control the inclination of some of our IP's to list everybody if we're just clear in the guideline that only the "top level (credited)" guest cast merit actually being included. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

we also need to take care not to write the MoS assuming that the American way of contracting people to television shows applies all round the world. IanB2 (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I've already expressed my thoughts on the "absences" thing (in that I don't oppose their inclusion, and actually agree with Geraldo Perez that it is often worth noting when full-time credited cast doesn't show up in an episode). But it's Favre1fan93's second point that I really want to hone in on – I feel quite strongly that we should not include a blanket "ban" on including guest cast in episode "plot" descriptions, either in the format of "...John Doe (Dominic Purcell) hires MacGyver to..." or in the format of listing guest cast in a line at the bottom, e.g. "Guest star: Jane Doe (Jaimie Alexander)..." There are a number of reasons for this – first: I don't think "guest cast" belong in the 'Cast' section – they aren't "front/main-credited" cast, heck they're not even recurring cast! they're akin to "temp" dayplayers so they're not really "cast"; second: and this is more important – associating guest cast with the episode in which they actually appear makes it actually much more verifiable for other editors to determine if that actor did actually appear as a guest castmember on a particular show (in a particular episode) or not. If, instead, you bury guest cast in a "list" in the cast section (in, say, a show's season article), it becomes much, much harder for us other editors to actually figure out if that actor or actors really did appear in that series. So I definitely don't agree that the practice of listing guest cast in episode summaries should be "stopped". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should be getting that specific with what "levels" of guest stars people are allowed to include. We should be listing starring actors, and then any other notable guest star, whether that is because they appear a lot (recurring) or some other reason (backed up by reliable sources). If an actor is not a series regular or a notable guest, then we should not be saying that they can be slipped in there anyway if you want to put them in a plot summary. That violates the idea of a plot summary (summarising the plot, not production and casting information) and our efforts to avoid trivia and fancruft. Either the actor is notable enough to be listed, or they should not be named. And on the point of a plot summary, that is why absences should not be listed in episode tables. If there is a notable absence, then it can be mentioned, sure, but in an appropriate production or cast section, not in a section meant for summarising the plot. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

But really the only "objective" way to determine guest cast "notability" is to look at their crediting level. Effectively, if a famous celebrity is doing even just a "cameo" on some sitcom, they're almost certainly going to get a "Special guest star" credit; and prominent guest stars generally get the "guest starring" credit, or are credited just after the show's opening along with the recurring cast. If you don't go by crediting level, determining who is a "notable guest star" gets potentially WP:OR-y. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily, that is why I suggest the use of reliable sources as well: someone may not end up with special crediting through their contract with the studio, but may be deemed notable by critics and the media looking on from the outside. Yes, special guest stars are going to be much more notable than co-stars, but relying on that crediting only restricts any exceptions that can be supported by other sources. For instance, it is often quite notable when a show adapts a character from some other source material, and these situations can be followed closely by early reports, critics and reviewers, etc. Should we ignore that just because of behind-the-scene contracts with studios? This lines up with Wikipedia's general notability guidelines as well. I definitely don't advocate basing notability of guest stars on editor's personal preferences, which would indeed by OR. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Just so everyone is aware, all editors in the most recent previous discussion (as linked in the section above) were pinged and notified of the continuing discussion here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification to the discussion. As I mentioned when I brought up the previous WT:TV discussion, I believe cast absences should not be noted unless there's a particularly notable reason that can be cited by reliable sources. So if a main cast member is contracted to 13 out of 20 episodes, that cast member's absence should not be listed 7 times. Further, I believe guest cast should be listed if they are crucial to the episode's plot summary. Obviously discretion is needed, but an episode's guest love interest is likely worth noting whereas a cashier with one line isn't. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

As per the previous discussions in WP:TV, my stand on notability for guest star listings in plots is that it will depend on the show and how they make a big deal about certain guest stars appearing on the show. For example: Ozzy Osbourne and Sharon Osbourne in The 7D has news articles [1] [2] and press releases advertising their appearance [3]. A show like Saturday Night Live highlights the main guest and the main musical guest in its table, but doesn't highlight other guests or cameos that might appear unless the plot calls for it. Then you have List of The Love Boat episodes where they credit the celebrities up front who will appear, which seems fine the way it's done there. As for marking absences, it also depends on the show. The ones where they have a consistently credited main cast like a Disney or Nick sitcom, the editors believe it's a big deal when someone is listed in the credits but no shows, but for cartoons and ensemble casts where not every star needs to appear in the episode, this isn't important. As long as we're not trying to be TV.com or IMDb. We don't need complete cast listings or attendance records. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

My view is that including actors' names in brackets in the plot section is redundant, and makes it more difficult to read, when the list of which actor is playing which role is listed in the same article, normally in the section immediately following. Actors only need to be named in the plot summary if the page does not contain any list of the cast IanB2 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the flip-side of that is editors such as myself that would like to see "Guest cast" listings deprecated across the whole of the WP:TV project, as they are much less useful (and verifiable!) than listing guest cast in the episode summary in which they appear. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Wikipedical: FWIW, I agree with your statement "So if a main cast member is contracted to [do] 13 out of 20 episodes, that cast member's absence should not be listed 7 times." as sourcing for info like that should probably be sourcable, and the details can be included in the 'Production' (etc.) section. But absent such information, and for cast who are credited in the show's opening, even for episodes in which they do not appear, then I feel including the "Absent" info is legitimate. IOW, if someone is credited for every episode, but is absent for 1–2 episodes in a particular season, then I feel it is appropriate to note their absences in the 'Episode list' (pretty much as per what Geraldo Perez said in the previous discussion...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I think there should be a blanket rule for absences: in my view, none in the episode table but some in production/cast if notable and referenced. However, for guest stars, I think Angus raises an interesting point—some non-fiction/reality series may work differently. My view would be that for a series that has a special guest-per-episode type format (like SNL), it may be appropriate to have said guest in each episode summary, but I still don't think that is ever necessary for fiction series. For instance, in the case of the Osbourne's on The 7D, they are notable guest stars, and so fit the criteria to be listed in the cast list. Therefore, there is no need to list them again in the plot summary. This is what I mean, if they are significant enough to be noted then they should be listed in the cast list, so why is it necessary to note them in the plot summary as well? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

As I've been saying, I don't think 'Cast' sections should list "guest stars" at all – I think 'Cast' sections should be restricted to just 'Main' and 'Recurring' cast only. My preference would be to list notable guest cast in the episode summary for the episode in which they appear – this method makes it much easier to verify if a guest star truly appeared in an episode of a series. I find 'Guest cast' sections at some of the articles I've found to be highly problematic – for one thing, they tend to encourage "episode counts" despite the fact that those are deprecated under TVCAST. I also find them much harder to verify. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: I respect your position (and am grateful you're articulating your views more respectfully than some editors at the previous discussion), but I think ultimately I just disagree. If absence info is at all necessary, I could see myself as a compromise being fine with it in a cast list or production section. It's still just weird to me to list something that didn't happen in a plot summary. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Now that my work has calmed down, I'm more "chill" these days... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedical, I think the big problem with most guest cast lists these days is that they are put together by the less-experienced, fancruft-type editors who are prone to adding a lot of non-notable information. For editors who follow Wikipedia guidelines, tight lists of guest stars who are not recurring, but are notable in some other way (supported by sources) work really great. For instance (and I may be a bit biased on this one), I think the additional guest list at List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters is a good example of these sorts of lists done right. It includes some notable actors, notable characters from the comics, main cast family members, and recurring guests who aren't actually "recurring" (don't recur throughout the show, but do appear in multiple episodes, giving them a more significant run). The list isn't given much weight, and we work to keep insignificant characters and plot details out of it.

However, I have had a new thought. There are some characters who are not notable enough to be listed in a notable guest list, being that they are not that significant in the overall scope of the series. But, they are significant for a single episode. For instance, the guest star listed at Eye Spy (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) is not in the series cast list, as she is only notable in terms of this single episode. Perhaps for characters such as that, they could have the actor's name beside them in the episode table, which would then be removed if that episode received its own article in which the character/guest star is elaborated on. For instance, the episode table for the new MacGyver has "The leader of a Mexican drug cartel, Joaquin "El Noche" Sancola (Raoul Trujillo)" in its seventh episode. He has not been deemed notable enough to be included in the character list (though don't get me started on List of MacGyver characters), so maybe he can be kept in that episode summary like that, and would then only be removed if that episode received its own episode article. Thoughts on that? - adamstom97 (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion summary to date
Consensus not reached on whether to include cast in plot descriptions, especially around unscripted shows and one-off guest stars. Consensus potentially reached to not include cast absences unless there is a sourced real world reason. Discussion ongoing.
-- Whats new?^(talk) 00:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Just reviewing this topic, I think there is some good reason to allow exceptions for unscripted shows. For example List of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver episodes lists guests with each episode, as I'm sure numerous talk shows do. I agree that normal cast for scripted shows shouldn't, but my preference would be allowing guest stars or one-off appearances of a notable person being mentioned in parenthesis in plot info. Critically: notable! -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

In the case of a talk show where guests are listed with the episodes, I feel this is more a matter of episode summaries (describing what happened on the episode, otherwise covered under TVPLOT) than a cast list. As such, I feel significance of the appearance is more important than notability of the person. For example, a contest-winner given a full interview segment should be mentioned, as they were given a significant portion of time on the episode. On the other hand, a cameo appearance by a very famous person which isn't important to the episode probably shouldn't be mentioned. In scripted shows, I don't have a problem with one-off or guest appearances credited in parenthesis on first appearance in episode summaries, so long as it was a significant role in the episode. This isn't really for the cast section, though, and might be another revision for TVPLOT. - Reidgreg (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually it was decided in the previous discussion to bring it up here and insert the consensus into TVPLOT as appropriate, given it primary affects how cast is listed -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest not including anything in MOSTV that doesn't have "overwhelming consensus" – as previous discussions have shown, even the leaving out the "cast absences" thing does not have what I would consider to be overwhelming consensus. (Though I personally might not object to wording that "tightened up" its use.) And I am definitely still strongly opposed to "banning" the listing of guest cast in episode summaries, FWIW – that's a bad idea for a number of reasons, Verifiability being the most pressing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Note for unscripted shows

I would propose appending a new paragraph to this section, in much the same manner and much the same reason as in WP:TVPLOT, a note that this section could be interpreted as the "hosts" or "presenters" for genres such as talk shows, news programming, game shows, etc. Much like the "plot" section is interpreted as "premise" for some unscripted shows, I think it would be helpful (and for completeness) to add that hosts/presenters/panelists/etc should be listed in a similar way.

Some articles deal with presenters in different ways; New Day (TV series) and Morning Joe lists them in the same way you would a fiction series, but The View (U.S. TV series) uses a graphical cast table then prose summaries, The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) use just prose summaries without a list, Good Morning Britain (2014 TV programme) and Today (Australian TV program) use a table. Would be useful to explicitly state there should be consistency (even if there end up being some differences to the fictional cast lists, it should just be consistent across these types of shows I would argue). -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

We do already talk a bit in the last paragraph about cases where cast lists may not be appropriate. Perhaps just a line in there saying about hosts/presenters? All we would need to say is that some non-fiction series may not require traditional cast/character listings, so information on hosts/presenters/judges etc. can be presented in other appropriate ways (perhaps in the format/gameplay/overview section? Or just in production?) - adamstom97 (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

In the examples I gave I do think a separate section is appropriate in its own right, not a subsection of plot or production if that's what you're suggesting. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is if a cast list is not appropriate, then we should say that you don't need to have one. For instance, Morning Joe and The Price Is Right have appropriate alternatives to cast/character lists, but if a show only has one cast member, for example, then that probably won't be necessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem with stating the section isn't necessary when there are few or a single presenter. -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

As noted in the "prose" discussion further down, if there is a line or passage added about when and how to use prose to present cast info, then specialised text for these types of shows may not be necessary, depending on how that progresses. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion summary to date
Discussion diverted to "Prose option" section further down.
-- Whats new?^(talk) 00:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization after the colon

So... something I see come up from time to time is the notion, given the Han Solo example above, that the word after the "actor-name as character-name:" segment has to be capitalized, because it is in the example. My understanding of the colon is that words after it are generally not capitalized or that, if they are, that's a stylistic choice and not a hard-and-fast rule. MOS:COLON states as much, so I would like it made explicit that capitalization after this particular colon is not required. That is, that "Harrison Ford as Han Solo: the pilot of the Millennium Falcon" is an acceptable alternate form, and any restriction would only be on the basis of consistency with other list items in that article. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, per MOS:COLON as you have linked here, the word after is capitalised if it is beginning a whole sentence or paragraph, which is (or should be) the case here. The use of an un-capitalised word after a colon is for the middle of sentences and the beginning of lists, as can be seen in the examples provided at MOS:COLON. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It says Sometimes (more in American than in British usage) the word following a colon is capitalized, if that word effectively begins a new grammatical sentence, and especially if the colon serves to introduce more than one sentence. In nearly all cases in cast lists, the first segment is not a full sentence, and often the second segment isn't either (in this particular case, "the pilot of the Millennium Falcon" is certainly not a full sentence). Really we're talking more about the special case they list: "Correct (special case): Spanish, Portuguese, French: these, with a few others, are the West Romance languages." Since we're not really talking about standard usage here, I feel insisting on capitalization is inappropriate. Also, that section does begin with "sometimes" as opposed to "always." —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It says "especially if the colon serves to introduce more than one sentence", and there should be a paragraph of information expressed here. The example of formatting in the section is more focused on the "actor as character" versus "character (portrayed by actor)" bit, so it doesn't include all the additional information that you would expect to find in a listing. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

But it also says "a brief description of the character" (emphasis is mine) and I don't see why we'd assume it keeps going. There's no period/full stop, which also suggests it's a sentence fragment. However, why not take two birds with one stone and have the first example as a sentence fragment (uncapitalized, no trailing punctuation), and the second example as multiple-sentences (capitalized, with a period). Or it might be worth noting, as per MOS:LIST: "Use the same grammatical form for all elements in a list, and do not mix sentences and sentence fragments as elements." So if one character has a full sentence (or more), all of the other entries on the list have to be written as full sentences. Reidgreg (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm starting to come around to making a change with this, but I would like to know what some other editors think as well. Is this a situation where a lowercase or uppercase letter should follow the colon? And should we even have a colon? I have seen some examples of "Harrison Ford as Han Solo, the pilot of the Millennium Falcon" that may also be an alternative to consider. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I prefer colons such as the existing examples personally, but I'm not strongly opposed to commas. No real opinion on upper or lower case following, but it should be consistent within the article -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

With embedded lists (in general) I tend to prefer spaced en dashes. It gives some separation between the element's name and its description, and I feel this makes it stand out enough so editors will be less likely to add bold or italics. But I don't see a problem with colons or commas. Like the original poster, I'd be most concerned with consistency of punctuation and capitalization (and clarity of the section under review). If there's a regional bias for capitalization after a colon, that sounds like a style choice for the article as with MOS:ENGVAR. I would tend to recommend "no capital" for consistency, as some list items may be multiple sentences and others not. However, it feels like this might get too complex for the scope of TV:CAST to cover all the permitted styles. Reidgreg (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Why not just say you are permitted to use colons, commas or dashes provided it is consistent within the article, including the capitalised colon issue. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion summary to date
No consensus reached as to the proper or standardised syntax for cast lists. Proposals advocate variations of using colons, dashes and commas. Discussion ongoing.
-- Whats new?^(talk) 00:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Might it be worth asking about the correct syntax at the parent Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style on this issue? -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Per MOS:COLON, we can sort of have both. What I am sensing from this discussion here is that we probably shouldn't be making any statements about which punctuation to use here, except to say that an article should be consistent. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Cast order for recurring

I would love it made explicit that "recurring cast" sections are also expected to follow the series' original broadcast credits just like the main cast listings. I had to ask about this recently and was told they are but it's definitely not clear. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

That's ideal, but practically it's going to be a lot harder to follow that, as figuring out when which recurring cast joined a show vs. another recurring cast will many times be challenging... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the section does already state that any cast members listed are to be done so in broadcast order, and it also gives specific mention of what to do with non-starring actors. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you talking about within a season article or the main article or a characters article? A lot of the characters articles are going to be organized by completely different groupings, but generally in order of appearance. And large casts tend to be organized by alphabetical order anyway. As long as we're not having to relive the nightmarish Daredevil (TV series) star order debate. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

We are talking about always: cast lists (be they main, recurring, or other notable guests, at series, season, episode, or character articles) should always be ordered by onscreen credits, as this MOS has always said. This will often end up being similar to the order of appearance. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally I would have thought that the user of an encyclopaedia, coming here for information, would prefer to have the information listed in a sensible - i.e. alphabetical - order, so they can find what they are looking for. What value is added by jumbling up the list just so it matches the order of the credits? IanB2 (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

This isn't IMDb, we aren't creating an easy refence guide for casual viewers. We are compiling an encyclopaedia. Anyway, this discussion seems to have moved down to the "Cast lists and the credits" section, where we are addressing all ordering. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't be hard to figure out when someone joined a show, whether that was as a guest or as recurring. Characters of Smallville handles this fine. If there are not season separations, then you base it on when they first appeared. For example, Character X appears in season 1 episode 9 as a special guest, but isn't given recurring status until season 2. They would theoretically be presented in front of anyone else that was a recurring guest and appeared AFTER them, as their appearance itself dictates their order, and their status only dictates what group they are in. If you have it separated by season, then the same rule applies, except their placement might be top of the list in the season they became recurring.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yet Smallville exemplifies what is a problem with many pages, in that the main/recurring distinction - which actually arises from the contractual status of the actors and therefore applies to the actors - is transmuted onto the characters. Smallville, Vikings, and many other pages, talk of "main characters" and "recurring characters", whereas objectively there are clearly characters with a major part in the storyline who are part of the recurring cast and also characters in the main cast who actually only have relatively minor roles. IanB2 (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

"Main" cast and "regular" cast are the same thing, and are ONLY dictated by their contract. They are the people that get title billing. Having a significant storyline is irrelevant to the idea that you're a "series regular". "Recurring" is based on both contract and/or number of episodes. Some people get a contract to be "recurring", yet only appear in maybe 2 or 3 episodes. Some get a special guest contract, appear in 4 episodes that are part of a specific story arc that runs 4 consecutive episodes and ends. That isn't recurring. It doesn't even match the definition, because the definition is not simply "more than one appearance". Just because you want to attach significance to a story arc to justify making a character "main" doesn't mean that they are actually a main character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Ian, what you are talking about is treating characters separately from actors, and saying "main characters" irrespective of the main cast. That means you are deciding which characters you think are important, rather than listing the actual main cast, which is not something we should be doing. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

maybe my original point wasn't phrased clearly enough. It is the actors who are main or recurring, not the characters. (i.e. Articles have sections titled "main characters" that purport to be such, but aren't, instead actually being a list of the characters played by the contracted actors) IanB2 (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

No Ian, I know that is what you are saying, but what I am saying is that ordering the characters by the cast is the only way to avoid editors having to decide who is important and who is not. We cannot have a list of "main characters" based on who we think is most important, so instead we have a list of main characters based on who is portrayed by the main cast. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Whether you call it "Main cast" or "Main characters", they are the same people. So if you a making that decision based on the contracts of the actors, it still applies. You're trying to argue semantics of "main character" and making it the same as "important character". They aren't the same thing, and the average reader knows "Main character" means "Series regular".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bignole: Unfortunately, it doesn't always (i.e. somebody needs to tell the TV-covering press/media this!). IOW, I've instances (though I can't remember any specifics) where an article has referred to somebody as "regular cast" when what they meant was "recurring cast". That's why I've been using "main cast" preferentially over "regular cast" – the latter term leaves an opening where some "recurring cast" can be considered to be "regular cast". It's clearer if we go by "main cast" = "cast members actually credited during (or immediately after) a show's opening". I know this is semantics, but apparently it matters. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

But is that confusion over "regular cast" and "recurring cast", or is that just inaccurate facts from the report? I can think of several instances where an actor was reported to be a "series regular" but then it turns out that they were just a "recurring guest", and it was the source that was just wrong (not that they were confused by the terminology). As such, we moved them to recurring when it became clear that they were mislabeled originally. Honestly, I don't care if you call them "main cast" or "regular cast", so long as people realize that "main/regular cast" means "series regular" and not "recurring guest".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't be certain, as I don't remember the details of when I stumbled across an example of this. I just know that I've been using "main cast", because its meaning should be "ironclad", whereas "regular cast" is a term that potentially leaves some "wiggle room" in its meaning. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Another pet peeve is when the press/media refers to a role as "recurring" when it turns out not to be – two recent examples of that are Elizabeth Blackmore on Supernatural, and apparently Chris Wood on Mercy Street – in the latter case, it looks like he's only going to appear in two consecutive episodes (i.e. not really "recurring"!). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion summary to date
Discussion appears to have deviated from original topics, but essentially consensus holds that recurring cast should be ordered by broadcast credits per other cast. Discussion potentially ended.
-- Whats new?^(talk) 00:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Do we want to define "recurring"?

I suspect there's not an appetite for this (which is understandable), but might it be time to define what qualifies as "recurring" cast? I believe there have been discussions about this in the past, but they seem to end to inconclusively. But I bring this up because of recent attempts I've seen to list Fiona Shaw's Mombi from NBC's Emerald City (TV series) as "recurring cast" despite appearing in just 2 episodes... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to it, but not hard defining anything. My rule of thumb is 4 appearances or more makes a character recurring (in a 20-23 episode season). So that can be made into relative terms for short seasons, say of something like Sherlock that only airs 3 episodes. Recurring, in my eyes in that case, would be if you did appear in 2 episodes. 2-3 appearances to me (back again in 20-23 episode seasons) is just a guest appearance, or guest role for a story arc. And this would also take into account actually being credited as a "Guest Star" and not "Co-star". Because it wouldn't really be beneficial to list in a cast list or cast recurring section "John Smith as nurse #1" for Grey's Anatomy if they are only a background/unimportant person. But should John Smith appear frequently, though not named, prose could potentially be used to say something like "Co-star John Smith appears frequently as a nurse." or the like. Those are my thoughts on the matter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Yeah, my unofficial "cocktail napkin" guideline is roughly 5–6 episodes to qualify as "recurring" (though less than that for "short-season" TV series), and I've sometimes let editors list those with just 3 appearances as "recurring" (esp. when it's a "new" first season show). My main issue is that 2 episodes is not "recurring" under any meaningful definition of the word. So, anything over 2–3 appearances can start to be arguably "recurring" (show-dependent)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't count appearing in a short multi-episode story as having a recurring character, but it could technically be defined as more than two appearances as that character in a season for the purposes of a character table or a supporting cast listing for the episode season. Reprising a role across seasons is trickier, since some press releases will call that recurring, but it's more like a guest appearance in each episode. You can always state up front with a key on how it is defined. I would also not count clip shows or rerun footage towards the count unless the actor really participates and is given credit in the episode. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way an example of putting Cameo or Archive footage in a characters table is List of The Fast and the Furious characters although that's for a film series and not really for a television series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should be giving any set definition on this, because it does vary a lot. Even for a 20-odd episode season, there may be an instance where only one guest appears in two or three episodes, and any others make a single appearance. In that case, perhaps that one guest's reappearance may be notable enough to be considered recurring. I think it wouldn't hurt to give some sort of rough guide though. Especially noting that guest making two or three appearances generally should be considered more of a guest stint rather than a meaningful recurring role. As for cameo and archive footage, it can generally be noted, but we have to be careful not to imply that an actor had some sort of involvement in a project if they did not. For instance, several actors were digitally inserted into the Arrowverse Invasion! crossover last year. That is mentioned in the appropriate articles, but those actors should not be listed as guest stars alongside any other actual guests. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm interpreting what you're saying above correctly, but under no definition of the word "recurring" does 1 or 2 episode appearances qualify. People would be better off noting particularly notable one-offs as "Special guest star" or something. "Recurring" should be reserved for what the word means – people who appear in multiple episode across a season or series' run, and to my thinking "multiple" is actually >3. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

One thing I would like to see happen is more clarity on what "recurring" is. There is a difference between multiple story arc appearance, contract recurring, and recurring by episode county (e.g., Doctor Smith who keeps treating the characters and appears for 15 episodes for a total of 20 seconds). Appearing in a 3 episode arc does not make you recurring, because that's still just a special guest that is part of a specific storyline.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Bignole, all of those different options is why I think we shouldn't be giving a set definition. We could be doing more to talk about the different terms we use though, as it seems that there are a lot of people who don't get the main/guest definition and the like. And IJBall, multiple just means more than 1. Again, it will depend on the specific circumstance as to what can be considered a recurring role though. Perhaps we could say something along the lines of, One way a guest actor can be notable enough for inclusion is if they have a recurring role during the series. What constitutes a recurring role will differ from series to series: 2-3 appearances in a 22 episode season may not be enough to be any more than a multi-episode guest stint; but 3 appearances in an 8 episode season may be a significant recurring role for that show. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

THat's my point. I'm not saying all those options make it difficult to say what is recurring, I'm saying that most of those are legitimate reasons to list someone as "recurring". I'm saying that I think we need to identify what is NOT recurring, as in appearing in a multi-episode arc and being done. Usually, multi-episode arcs are done back to back, not across a whole season (that's a recurring character). They are specific and once over the character usually leaves. For example, Grant Gustin (initially) appeared in 2 episodes of Arrow. That's not recurring, even though it's more than 1, because it was a 2 episode story arc that concluded and he left. Sometimes that could be 3 or 4 episodes, just depends on the show. That point is, they run consecutively and then it's over, unlike a recurring guest who might have an arc but it's not part of a specific story thread that gets tied up quickly.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're on the same page with this then. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Bignole, what you seem to be suggesting would definitely be better than what we got. I think it would conclusively eliminate all "2 episode appearances" from being called "recurring". That said, I'm not sure how to define this (in words) in a MOS guideline. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

again I would just raise the challenge of making sure that our MoS is fit for purpose for all television all around the world, and does not get overly focused on how actors are contracted to shows in the U.S. IanB2 (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

What I said doesn't have to be limited to "US" shows. There are people that are contracted to be "recurring", it actually states such. THen, there are people that are just contract to appear, and they appeared for various lengths, doing various things. My point is that we should be clear what is NOT recurring, and contracted for 4 episodes, one right after the other, and then you're gone is NOT recurring. Appeared in 2 episodes, even 3 seasons apart, is NOT recurring.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion summary to date
Strong consensus for inserting guideline to define "recurring" but discussion continues as to wording. Discussion ongoing.
-- Whats new?^(talk) 00:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall, Favre1fan93, AngusWOOF, Adamstom.97, Bignole, and IanB2: Are there any substantive thoughts or proposals about how to define recurring? The wording of this one is important, and it is probably the most controversial thing outstanding in these discussions at the moment. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I still say, at least, "greater than 3 episodes". No matter what, I'd like to see simple 2-episode appearances ruled out as being labeled as "recurring". (If people want to use something "mathematical" as a guideline, I'd suggest something like needing to appear in 20% or 25% of a season's episodes to be labeled recurring...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

As with many of the issues here, I don't think we are in a position to state exactly what this should be. For me, the best way to approach this is to say what recurring is not (i.e. appearing in multiple episodes is not necessarily a recurring role; an actor could have a guest stint across several episodes, which is different from appearing multiple times across a season or series' run). - adamstom97 (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not a bad point. Would we prefer to give a few examples of what is definitely NOT a recurring role, and just state here that recurring status should be determined by local consensus if there's disagreement -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I could certainly live with that. I think it's clear that my main issue is ruling out 2-episode appearances (esp. 2-episode consecutive appearances!) from being labelled as "recurring". If the guideline basically rules that out as recurring, and then includes some language that it needs to be truly multiple (non-consecutive?) occurrences to be considered "recurring", I could certainly be fine with that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Adam that we shouldn't give a definition to recurring but rather what it is not. And I like where they are going with the wording example they provided. But I also think something should be added to this to address IJBall's concern of users saying an actor appearing in 2 consecutive episodes for a mini storyline is recurring, because they are not. So if both of these can be combined to one statement on the matter, I think we'll be in good shape. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

How's something like this: A cast member or character appearing in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes, does not necessarily mean a "recurring" role. An actor or character may simply have a guest role across several episodes, rather than a recurring story arc throughout the show. If reliable sources cannot adequately distinguish between recurring or guest roles, then local consensus should determine their position. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

If we're going back just "count", then I think 3 is not enough because there are guests that appear across 3 or even 4 episodes, but it isn't because they are recurring, but because they are part of a specific multiple episode storyline. I agree with Adam that we are better at describing what does not constitute recurring than defining what does, simply because what "does" can be much broader than what "does not". I think first and foremost, we should encourage reliable sources to identify the role (unless otherwise determined) first. If a source says "it's a guest spot", then it doesn't matter how many times they appear. If they say it's "recurring", but at the end of the season they've appeared once or twice, then we should re-evaluate whether they should be listed or not. Sometimes, people sign on for recurring roles but don't end up getting used. I'm not opposed to What's New?'s wording. I think we should add more to it, to clarify further what does NOT constitute recurring, but I think their wording is a great start.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

So what else do you want added to it? -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

BTW, this a non-trivial issue, especially lately. I've seen numerous instances of late where the TV press will declare "[so-and-so] is cast in a recurring role on [show]..." only to have it later turn out that said person only appeared in 1–3 episodes. So this is an added complication, because even "reliable sources" cannot always be trusted to suss out what is truly a "recurring role" or not (especially in advance). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that being an issue, but if a production company/network consider someone recurring, than like it or not they are recurring. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, 1) we don't know what the production company, et al. really "think" even in this case – we only know what the press is reporting (which may or may not be accurate); 2) as Bignole points out, plans change, so even if a press story before a season reports someone as being hired for a "recurring" role that doesn't actually mean they end up being "recurring" – the producers/writers may change course and only use the actor in one episode instead of in multiple – in those cases, it would be silly to label someone "recurring" regardless of what a press story labeled it before the fact. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: That's why I added at the end that local consensus should be used in cases where RS aren't available or are in doubt. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Late to this discussion... I would say 4 episodes is a good threshold. I was leaning toward percents, but honestly if a character is present frequently in season 1, but there are 5 seasons, I think having them listed as "recurrent" would still be a good thing. We don't want to have to do math every time there's a new episode. A simply 4 or 5 episode threshold works. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Ultimately, under the principle of K.I.S.S., I'd also just say go with "4–5 episodes or more" to qualify as "recurring". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I think, as others have pointed out, it's easier to rule out than rule in. A program with 6 or 8 episode seasons could have recurring characters with far less than 4 or 5 eps. If you don't like the proposal above, put one forward, but bouncing around a minimum number isn't going to get us anywhere -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I am not sure I can answer the question since I am scratching my head over the context. If 'recurring' is a formal term used in the television industry, why should we be defining it ourselves? If it isn't, but is simply a casual informal term, why would we want to use it for classification purposes ourselves? Very close to OR whichever is the case. IanB2 (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that's because we won't always get an official source labeling someone as "recurring". Big stars or big roles, yes. But as an example, Smallville had several actors portray the same doctor across multiple seasons of the show, but because it was just an insignificant role in any episode, there isn't a lot of coverage on the actor being used recurringly. That said, having the same actor portray the same doctor 10 times across multiple seasons is certainly recurring. That said, I think we should default to a reliable source using the term, and if it turns out that it isn't the case then it should be a local consensus to have that changed. I don't know that a "minimum" number is a good system, simply because some shows are 9 episodes a season and some are 22 episodes a season. I wouldn't do a percentage either, for the same reason. That's why I think that it is best to define what is NOT recurring and leave episode count out of it per say. I think clearly defining that being contracted for a specific story that is revealed in consecutive episodes should help weed out guest stars that are present for more than 1 episode. Whether that is 2, 3, 4 or whatever. I doubt would get really get more than 3 or 4 on the long side of things, as I've never seen a show go 6 straight episodes for a "small arc" on a guest star.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

So again, is anyone opposed to the wording I proposed above which seems to address the concerns -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It's fine until you get to the bit at the end. Reviewing the discussions on this page (several of which touch on the subject), several editors state, apparently authoritatively, that 'recurring' status is a formal label arising from the terms of the actor's contract. If so, then we should state that someone is recurring if this information can be sourced and verified. Otherwise we shouldn't use the term. It doesn't make any sense for "local consensus" to decide (or speculate) what contract an actor might have, in the absence of any actual factual information - OR by consensus is still OR - and could leave WP specifying that an actor is contracted as a recurring character when s/he is not, and vice versa (as IJBall says above, this is something the media often gets wrong, for the same reason we are struggling with it). Similarly for a consensus-decided 'rule of thumb' that 'x appearances' qualify someone as recurring - if they don't have a recurring contract, then they are not recurring, however many guest appearances they have been contracted to make. WP should aspire to report facts, and only facts. Hence I suggest the last sentence of your wording should read: If reliable sources cannot adequately distinguish between recurring or guest roles, then these terms should not be used IanB2 (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Even if some actors are contracted as "recurring", a specific thing (which is news to me), an actor who is not, but makes multiple guest appearances across a show/season, should still be referred to as recurring per the actual definition of that word. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

That's why I wrote the proposal specifically preferring a RS to determine it, but failing that, falling to local consensus. That consensus should be made by common sense reasoning, including the definition of the word. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Cast lists and the credits (first previous discussion)

I refer to the first of the prior discussions listed above, in which I challenged @AlexTheWhovian's reverts that deleted from the Vikings (TV series) series page cast list some prominent characters, on grounds that they were not listed within the opening credits and hence (in his view) not part of the "main cast". My problems with his rigid interpretation are that:

• the MOS doesn't specify strictly deciding a cast list according to the opening/closing credits, but refers editors to the notability guidelines, which clearly suggests that a level of intelligent judgement is involved when deciding who to include;
• the "opening credits=main cast, closing credits=recurring" 'rule' cannot possibly work for every TV series, since approaches to credits vary significantly around the world. For example, in the UK the opening sequence of a TV series commonly does not include credits (e.g. Casualty), only credits principal stars (e.g. Dr Who), or credits no actors but only the writer (e.g. Blakes7).
• the MOS says "follow the producers" yet the producers clearly do not slavishly follow the credits when deciding who to list as "cast" on their own web pages. For Vikings the various producers all have different sets of actors listed; the History Channel (.com site) includes one actor as one of the nineteen "cast" members that Alex reverted from inclusion on the WP page. If History Channel can list her as one of the cast, why cannot WP?

IanB2 (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@IanB2: While there are some TV shows out there that do some weird things that make figuring out who is "main cast" difficult (I'm looking at you, Van Helsing (TV series)!), I'm not at all comfortable with stretching the definition of "main cast" beyond those who are credited in a show's opening for the vast majority of TV series. IOW while, for example, it can be argued that Jennie Jacques plays an "important" character on Vikings, it can't really be argued that she's "main cast" as she's not credited in the show's open... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Star Trek (1966 TV series) and The Brady Bunch immediately come to mind regarding contradicting closing credits=recurring. Are you talking about how cast should be listed in the infobox? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

yet, as I said, the principal producer is quite happy to cite her as part of the main cast on its own webpage. And, where I come from, almost every TV show is (by your definition) "weird"! WP is of course an international encyclopaedia. IanB2 (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we may need a 'secondary sorting rule' in cases where going by credit order is not possible or contradictory. Particularily in light of different procedures outside American television shows, the reduction of broadcasting opening credits and on some channels the omission of end credits at all (as channels look to keep the audience watching the next scheduled show by cutting the credits out and transitioning straight away). In this day and age, I would argue credits as broadcast are going to become decreasingly available -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think changing this is a good idea. The starring cast of a series is one thing, and guest stars are another. If the episodes themselves don't tell us this, then hopefully something else will. I'm not sure what this "opening credits=main cast, closing credits=recurring" rule is, but that isn't what the MOS says at all, and it doesn't seem to apply to most traditional broadcast series. If there is a special case that just doesn't work then I think it is fair that a discussion be held to sort that out, but I don't think that issue is prominent enough to confuse the guidelines here. And I highly recommend not looking at "main character" listings at network websites to figure out who the main cast are. Being an important character and being billed as a regular cast member by the producing studio are two different things. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

If our MOS is ignoring the standards by which television shows are pretty uniformly credited, I would suggest that that is a problem. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@adam but being cited as a cast member by the producer and being in the opening credits also appear to be different things? When you say "changing this", I should clarify that the MoS currently, by my reading, recognises that there needs to be some discretion (e.g. it directs towards policy on notability) in deciding who goes into a cast list. This discussion is here because AlexTheWhovian will revert/delete anything that doesn't conform to his own rigid interpretation and when I took the issue to the talk page was directed to wait for this discussion here. WP is an encyclopaedia and it is reasonable to assume people might visit to find out who is playing a particular character. It is also reasonable to assume there will be more interest in a prominent character than in a smaller part. To repeat, if the principal producer is happy to list someone as a principal cast member then I cannot see why WP should not also, opening credits or no? IanB2 (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

That personal attack is hardly necessary. Alex was just following the rules, and being rude about that is not happening. There are a lot of editors here trying to sort out a lot of different problems, so it will work best if everyone just keeps it civil.

No personal attack was intended; I think 'rigid' is a fair description of the position as described (and no ruder than your own use of 'brash') and the reverts are a matter of fact. But no offence was intended, so my apologies. IanB2 (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

My point is that the claimed 'rule' isn't actually in the MoS to begin with. The only reference to credits in the MoS is in relation to how the cast list is "organised" (which from its context appears to mean ordered). It does not say the "main cast" is defined strictly as the people listed in the opening credits - such a rule cannot possibly work in practice as I have explained above - and rightly refers to other bases for determining the cast list IanB2 (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The MOS as it stands reflects the state of pretty much every standard television series: a series has a regular/starring/main cast that are hired and payed to star in a series. Then, additional actors are hired to make guest appearances, payed simply to come to the series and film a specific episode or run of episodes for the series. They are not contracted to star in the series on an ongoing basis. This is reflected by the standard crediting system, which can be seen on screen: the series' cast is listed, and then guest actors for the episode. The MOS states, or is trying to state, that we obviously list the starring cast for the series, and then it may also be appropriate to list some of the guests as well. We note that not all characters and actors are equal, and so only notable guests should be listed. The most significant case is guest actors who have a recurring role on the series, and there is often enough of those to have a whole separate list of recurring guests. Any other guests that are also deemed to be notable can also be listed, often in a "Guest" or "Notable guests" list.

That is how the television industry works, how the MOS works, and how most television articles on Wikipedia work. I am not familiar with the specific Vikings issue, but if an actor is not a starring cast member of the series, a contracted regular actor, and is instead just a guest who happens to be brought in quite a bit, then they should be listed as a recurring guest, not as a regular. I think that is pretty straightforward. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

what would be 'straightforward' would be to do what IMDb does, and have one single cast list for a series, listing out everyone from principal star to the minor parts, with links to personal pages for the more notable - which is much easier for the actual user/customer for the information, avoids all the duplication, and arguments about who should and who should not be listed, and does not get hung up on opening and closing credits or main, guest or recurring. What's not to like? IanB2 (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

That seems like an obviously bad idea to me. What is the order going to be based on then (it has to be something)? Why are we including every minor part (Waitress #3, Scary guard, etc.), which violates the basic Wikipedia guidelines concerning notability? How are we being useful and informative to the reader if they just get one big mixed up collection of data? There is no problem with the current system, we just need to make sure that we explain it clearly here so that everybody understands what's going on. For instance, when the MOS talks about Main characters, it is referring to the actual starring, regular cast of a series. Seeing as how people don't all seem to understand that, we clearly need to be giving a better explanation here. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I look at what we have and see an obviously bad situation: duplication and endless arguments over inclusion and categorisation. Order can either be alphabetical or of first appearance; both are widely used conventions. One full list must be better, and shorter, than six different ones. The Vikings cast list already includes pretty much everyone who has a line in the series, King Ecbert's scout, Jesus (momentary silent appearances in a couple of episodes), and various unnamed "Viking warriors" and the characters played by multiple uncredited child actors. Utility to the reader is that most will be looking to find out who played a certain role, and they would be able to find the information easily, rather than search through six varying lists to see who is and isn't included in each. And our search for a 'magic formula' (e.g. based on credits) is futile - approach to crediting has varied through history, varies around the world, and between individual programmes. Aren't we at risk of imposing rules based on the modern American approach to actor contracting onto history and the rest of the world? IanB2 (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no duplication and no "endless arguments", and single lists are not shorter than multiple lists. That doesn't make sense. There is just some pretty logical guides based on the important Wikipedia attributes of notability and subjectivity. When looking at the cast of a television series, what is going to be the clearest, least objective sign of notability: the actors who are actually members of the series cast. So we list them. Then there are often a whole lot of guest actors, and some of them are notable enough to be listed as well. So we list them. If we are basing our list on crediting, then the most logical thing to do is present said list as credited. If you feel that an article is listing non-notable guests, then that is an issue you should raise at the appropriate talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with you, and see a big contrast with the approach taken in other parts of WP, such as for example politics and elections. In the latter case, every candidate however unnotable who participated in an election (for example a UK constituency result) gets mentioned, but only those who are notable get articles (or sections in articles) to themselves. IMO we would be better adopting the same approach for a TV show, having one list of the full cast, but obviously only having further commentary when justified under normal WP rules. IanB2 (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a big contrast because there is a big difference: 20-odd people running for US President is a little different to the 100s of actors that appear in a single TV show. There is no good reason to list "Scared goon #5" in any Wikipedia article; remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion summary to date
Another discussion which may have deviated somewhat from original topic, but majority support appears to hold for keeping cast sorted by broadcast credits. Issue about cases where broadcast credits are not readily available hasn't been dealt with in much detail. Discussion ongoing.
-- Whats new?^(talk) 00:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Prose option

Please excuse me if this is a stupid question, but why is this a choice between a cast list or a character list? Why isn't prose an option? Has it been historically problematic to have prose, to be NPOV? Is it because a list is simpler to update frequently? Does prose lead editors to embellish? Reidgreg (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Prose is sometimes used on unscripted shows (such as reality, game or talk shows) where there are few members, as a seperate section or as a sub-section of production. I've brought up the issue of better explaining this in a section above -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I also started discussing this above, at the cast table section. I'm wondering if this is just an oversight, because it does seem odd that we say nothing of it. Moving forward, is it something that should apply to all series as a potential format? Or should the prose option be kept for some non-fiction series that don't really have characters like most fiction series do? - adamstom97 (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be an option for all shows, but a list is going to be far easier both to read and maintain for series with a large cast. But I agree is should be explicity stated early on that prose form on casting is an option. I think I earlier gave The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills as an example where (with a cast table but no list) prose works fine given the high number of cast changes each season, where as Vanderpump Rules which doesn't have as many changes utilises the table and list. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I won't lie – I believe I've come across a few articles with "prose" cast sections (more commonly, I think, when there isn't a separate 'Cast' section, and the cast info is integrated into the 'Overview'/'Plot' section), and I always find that method of presentation inferior to a simple "list" format. (It always ends up looking like a "wall of text" to me...) Prose may work better for unscripted/reality TV series (I dunno), but I'd rather the prose option actually be "left out" of the MOS – that means its use wouldn't be "disallowed", but neither would its use be encouraged either. In general, I think lists work better for cast listings... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I take your point of view, but I respectfully disagree. I think the prose option (and style guidelines that support it) should be inserted, so in cases where it does make more sense to use prose (again, unscripted shows with small casts are going to be the vast majority of cases), there is consistency in its presentation. I agree cast lists are almost always preferable, but prose should be presented as a valid option. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I would tend to support IJBall; information that is essentially multiple, discrete and unconnected is better presented in listed or tabular form. Our own MoS is a case in point; where we are presenting a sequence of guidelines or rules, it remains my view that listing them out (such as bullet points) is easier for the reader than hiding them amongst prose that tries to connect them together but is essentially padding. The same applies to a list of cast. IanB2 (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I know your preference for seemingly everything to be in bullet point form, and I'm not suggesting prose cast sections should be a first or preferred option, but it needs to be included that it is a valid option where warranted (eg. small casts, sole/few presenters, etc). Omission implies it is unacceptable, which is not true. -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Not everything, just lists of information! ;) IanB2 (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Haha fair enough. -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I would propose adding text to the effect of, and taking some inspiration from the last paragraph of the existing text, "In some cases, such as with unscripted programs, it may be more appropriate to include cast information in prose form rather than as a list. This may be a better option for shows with few cast members or where the cast frequently changes, and the information can be presented in a cast section in its own right or as a sub-section of the production section." -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I like that, though it feels a little wordy to me. How about: "In some cases, such as unscripted programs with few cast members or where the cast frequently changes, it may be more appropriate to include cast information in prose form. This can be presented in a cast section or as a sub-section of production." – Reidgreg (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine with that version -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion summary to date
No clear consensus regarding amending text to define a prose option where a list may not be appropriate, most notably unscripted programs with few "cast". Proposals made. Discussion ongoing.
-- Whats new?^(talk) 00:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Just making a note that I'm following this discussion. I have no opinions on the matter and am just going to see how this plays out as I am also curious on how it works after raising this at Talk:Jagger Eaton's Mega Life#Do only scripted series have cast?. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the article you referred to, it seems a good example as a program with few cast that could be adequately covered in prose form. However, it also works as a cast list so there is nothing wrong per se with how it is currently written. This discussion is more about whether to overtly state that prose form is also OK. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Names for reality/competition shows participants

This is something I broght up previously in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Guidelines for naming participants in reality/competition shows?. I'm proposing for a short note on the use of names for participants in reality/competition shows to be added to the MOS, that the participants should be treated as acts or characters rather than how you would treat a person's name according MOS:SURNAME (which indicates that surname should generally be used after the first occurrence of the full name). That means that while the full names may be given if known at the beginning, subsequent use would be whatever they are called in the show, which can be first names, full names, surnames, or aliases or stage names. For example, in The Voice (U.S. season 1), full names are given all the way through. A side issue is about the names of the judges/host/others - here, unlike The Voice, The X Factor (UK series 13) only the surnames are used after the first occurrence of their full names, I'm hoping we can suggest a consistent approach. Hzh (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Glad you raised this here Hzh, I'd forgotten about that discussion. I agree that the name of a contestant used in the show is how they should be referred to outside of cast lists (for example, list John Smith in the contestant list, but in an episode description refer to "John was the winner of the task" rather than "Smith was the winner". -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems the most sensible way to do it, although as mentioned, it does produce the odd cases of well-known people like Arsenio Hall and Clay Aiken being referred to by their first name in The Apprentice (U.S. season 12) (there is also no consistency in that article). Probably need to canvass more opinions on this, and I'm uncertain as to how the names of the judges/hosts should be handled, although it seems that they should be treated as normal (i.e. surname only after first mention of full name). Hzh (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion summary to date
Discussion has not progressed as to how to present names of reality casts. Discussion ongoing.
-- Whats new?^(talk) 00:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree about using common name to describe the person on the show, but I feel it's a little informal for Wikipedia tone when referring to the person outside of the show. For example, Survivor: Borneo refers to winner Richard Hatch by full name on first mention in the infobox, lead, contestants (cast) section, and when he won in the episode list; by first name when referencing him on the show elsewhere in the episode list, season summary and tables; and by surname when referencing him outside of the series in media polls, casting on other shows, and regarding his legal trouble. A convention like this might also help to separate their portrayal on the "reality" show (first name/nickname/stage name) from the actual person that they are (surname). – Reidgreg (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we can add something like Cast should generally be referred to by the name used in the program in plot descriptions (stage names or first name only) but by full proper name, where available, in cast lists and sections to do with real world information. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Character names as per credits

I thought this was already in the TVCAST guideline, as it's common practice at the various TV show articles, but I actually don't see anything about this in the guideline, so it needs to be added – something along the lines of "The names of characters in the cast list should be the same as the character names listed in the series' credits." (Feel free to suggest a better wording for this!)

This comes up quite often, and really needs to be in the guideline for clarity... Any objections? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by this, IJBall? What other names have you seen being used? And characters' names are often not listed in the credits for US TV shows anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Editors (esp. IPs) will often list "full character names" (e.g. "Robert Ex as John "Johnny" Reginald Doe") in 'Cast' sections (taking such "full names" from in-episode dialogue, etc.) when they are only listed as "Robert Ex ... as John" in the show's end credits. So, what I am saying is – character names in 'Cast' sections should reflect the "names as credited" in the show's (usually end) credits (e.g. "Robert Ex as John"). It has been common practice at many TV series articles for some time now to revert such "full character name" additions with a "Names as credited" edit summary... Now, in those cases where character names are not listed in the show's credits (and I think they often are actually listed in the show's end credits), I don't know what we should do – but we may want to consider coming up with something for the guideline for those situations as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

P.S. This same issue will also come up at articles on TV movies. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you are talking about. I don't see why there is a problem listing character's surnames, or adding their firstname even if only their surname is generally used. And having the full name with the middle names and everything I think is fine at character articles, but unnecessary for TV. My experience is that Agent Smith should be listed in the cast as "John Smith: Agent of...", and at a character article as "John Bob Smith, Agent of...". - adamstom97 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm talking about 'Cast' lists at TV series (and TV movie) articles – those should always follow "[character] names as credited". "List of [...] characters" articles have a lot more leeway to list in-universe info about things like full character names, married names, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

So at a TV article, if we are listing a character credited as Agent Smith, but we knew his name was John Smith, you think we should still just list him as "Smith"? I'm not advocating "Agent John 'J' Bob Smith III" or anything, just "John Smith" when he is credited as "Agent Smith". - adamstom97 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: correct. What you'd probably want to do in a situation like that is something like this in the 'Cast' list:

• Robert Ex as John Smith: An Agent of the Phantom League, Smith is...

Or:

• Robert Ex as Agent Smith: As an Agent of the Phantom League, John Smith is...

I think that's how you'd want to handle the "credited as 'John Smith'" in the end credits, but still acknowledge that he's an agent (or whatever...). However, in the latter case, a lot of editors would probably want to see "Robert Ex as Agent Smith: As an Agent of the Phantom League, Smith is..." without the uncredited first name "John". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we pretty much agree, though my experience is to not list any titles as part of the name. I also tend to add a new source if a first name is revealed (even if the source is just an episode recap from when the name was revealed). - adamstom97 (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It would matter how they were credited – if credited as "Agent Smith", then they should be listed as "Agent Smith" in the 'Cast' section list (though, honestly, an "Agent Smith" crediting seems much more likely for guest cast than a main castmember...); however, if credited as "John Smith" or even just "Smith" then that's how they should be listed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Another reason is that there is a fair amount of name vandalism where people just make up names unrelated to anything shown in the series. Sometimes invent formal names for what is presumed to be nicknames. Other times just pure invention. It is very difficult to verify names mentioned in dialog and much easier to verify names as credited. Also the name as credited is the official name of the character and the out-of-universe name that would be shown in the actor's list of credits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep – the character name from the show's credits (if it's listed in the credits) is by far the most verifiable version of the character's name. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It should be based on how they are credited. I've seen this happen a lot with comic articles. For instance, on Supergirl, random editors want to make "Alex Danvers" "Alexandria "Alex" Danvers", when that isn't what she is credited as nor what she goes by. Just because 1 episode showed her full name. Another example is on Smallville, where they want to make it "Alexander 'Lex' Luthor", even though again that isn't the credited name, nor the name they go by.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, if I'm hearing all this correctly, it sounds like there is support for adding something about this to the guideline, yeah? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd support this. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that all names listed in character and cast sections, both actor names and character names, be exactly as listed in the credits. If that actor has an article that does not match how credited in the series, that is why we have redirects and piping but also WP:NOTBROKEN. Sometimes a character name is not mentioned in the credits, typically with the starring cast in opening credits, so we should permit names supported by official show websites that describe the character. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Excellent point (for a recent example of this, see the Billy Unger/William Brent (actor) back-and-forth at Lab Rats and Lab Rats: Elite Force...) – that can also be easily worked into this. It should only take a single sentence added to the guideline. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Just of note, a bit on Adamstom.97's point, MOS:DOCTOR should be factored in as well (or at least taken into consideration that it exists). Yes that isn't really for fictional characters, but the same mindset can be applied when using a cast list. Especially if you are describing the character right after listing them, doing something like "Robert Ex as Agent Smith: As an Agent of the Phantom League", it is redundant to have Agent again. But, if a description is not used after the listing, the title may be appropriate. Just my $0.02. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

My $0.02 is that crediting would need to trump that – if credited as "Dr. Smith", they should be listed as "Dr. Smith", though again this kind of crediting would be much more likely for a guest role than a main cast role. (This does lead me to ponder how Jonathan Harris' character was actually credited on Lost in Space though...) In general, I don't think "Dr." or "Agent" being included in the credited character name is going to come up very often at all for main castmembers on TV series. (It will come up more for TV movies however, where I think "Det. Barbara Taylor" and "Officer Jack Miller" type of crediting will come up much more often.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: Names under "Cast and characters" or "Characters" should always be credited as they appear in the credits (guest cast) or on the official series' sites (main cast). Now, on series that have enough characters to warrant a separate list of characters article, I'd be fine with using in-universe names revealed in the descriptions of the characters, and I'm echoing Geraldo Perez's words here as I think it was him who mentioned that in another discussion a long time ago on one of the Disney Channel series articles. However, the headings should have the credited names only. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Favre is right, we shouldn't be saying "Agent Smith: An Agent of..." That seems pretty obvious. Avoiding titles is also generally useful for TV shows as they are long running and so titles are likely to change (and we need to reflect the entire history of the show). As for the suggested wording here, I think it is too specific to say 'use the credits or the webite', as that is assuming that the name will appear in those places which I don't think is generally going to be true. I think we should be saying, just because a character's full name is revealed in the show does not meant it should be used. If a character is generally credited and referred to as Lex Luthor, then listing him as Alexander "Lex" Luthor is unnecessary and trivial. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

A couple of things. First my "Agent Smith" example above was something I just came up with as an example for this discussion – it's not going to be part of the proposed guideline, so it's not really relevant. Second, I think Geraldo and Amaury were just trying to come up with some proposed guidance for the guideline for those TV series that don't list main cast in the end credits (and so never list character names for main cast in the show's credits) – my suggestion is going to be that we refer to the use of official press releases, official websites, and reliable sources for character names in those cases where character names aren't credited in the show. Beyond that, I think we're overthinking this – this guideline is to suggest that we list actor and character names "as credited" on a TV show – that's not saying that we can't refer to fuller names at all: just that we list them by the credited name in the cast lists in 'Cast' sections. It's worth noting that many 'Cast' sections at TV articles on the project consist of nothing more than a simple cast/characters lists without even character descriptions/synopses – for those cases we should always be following an "actor and character names as credited" rule, which is the purpose of this proposed guideline. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I realise it was just an example, I have just been using it to illustrate my points as well. I think something along these lines is what we are all moving towards: just because a character's full name is revealed in the show does not meant it should be used. If a character is generally credited or referred to in the series/reliable sources as Lex Luthor, then listing him as Alexander "Lex" Luthor is unnecessary and trivial. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Characters should follow credited names, but if the character is not credited by role, use the common name of the character e.g. Bart Simpson, Lex Luthor, Timmy Turner, Gilligan, Luke Duke, like what you would see in scripts/captions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's a good way to frame it (WP:COMMONNAME), yeah, though I'd advise phrasing it in terms of "...in the absence of crediting, use the character's commmon name, as per official press releases, official websites, and reliable sources, etc." --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion summary to date
Consensus appears to lie with adding to the MOS writing character names as credited or by common name. Discussion potentially ended.
-- Whats new?^(talk) 00:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

FTR, I think it should be clear that the "names as credited" applies to actor names too – this can eliminate some issues, like some editors insisting on the use of diacritics in actors' names that don't appear in the actors' crediting on a show, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

TV pilots with different cast listings/orders than the rest of the series

Granted, I don't think this comes up too often, but a discussion about this elsewhere reminds me that there are cases where the cast listings and/or cast orders for the pilot of a TV series is different than the cast listings/orders for all the subsequent episodes starting with episode #2. Now the current TVCAST pretty much states that we should go with the cast listing/order of the pilot, but I'm going to suggest that we want to think carefully about this (i.e. there are going to be situations where this is not advantageous). At the very least, situations like this are going to require the use of 'notes' to explain the situation. Anyway, bringing this up because I just thought of it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Would you argue differently if the order changed in later seasons? I can think of plenty of times when the order of cast was changed in later seasons because certain actors garnered greater audience power later and they were moved up (Smallville did this a couple of times), but the order on the page itself reflected the historically accurate order. The fact that someone was moved later doesn't change that, nor do I suspect that there would be constant edit wars over it. The only time I could see a war is if there was an immediately change from episode 1 to episode 2. In this respect, I would say that unless a cast member is replaced (which can happen with pilots going into a second episode), the order should still be reflected as original. The reason I say this is because if you argue the flip side, which is "this is the way it is the majority of the time", then you're going to have people wanting to change the order of the cast once certain actors occupy certain spots for longer than others.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a different case. If the order of the actors was A, B, C, D for the first two seasons, but then changed to D, B, A, C for the third season, we would still order it as A, B, C, D because the starring list covers the whole series, not just, in this case, the third season. That's why when actors are promoted from having a guest starring role (recurring) in, say, the first season to having a starring role (main) in, say, the second season and onward, even if the credits in the opening sequence are displayed in the following order: A, B, E, C, D—E being the promoted actor—we should still display it here on Wikipedia as A, B, C, D, E. IJBall is talking more about, for example, a pilot that doesn't have an opening sequence, and instead just shows normal-type credits on the screen after the cold opening. So let's say the order is A, B, C, D, but then in the second episode which introduces the official opening sequence with the starring credits in it, you see A, B, D, C, in which case we should follow the order from the second episode and onward. Stuck in the Middle is an example of this. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The one issue I see with the Stuck in the Middle example is that there is currently no 'note' indicating that Bechtel and Barton were flipped in the cast order in the show's pilot. There should be a 'note' indicating this, IMO. Ditto a note for Brown and Sullivan on Henry Danger. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't having the discussion or a note—if no one else but you (so far) participated in the discussion—about it on the talk page enough? There's no mention of this for Henry Danger on its talk page (yet), but there is mention of this for Stuck in the Middle on its talk page. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

IMO, no – there needs to be an in-article 'note' explaining stuff like this. General readers of Wikipedia probably don't even know those Talk pages exist, and so would never see this info if it's just left there. Again, I like the way The 100 (TV series) uses a note to explain the Kelly Hu situation if you want to see an example how this can work... I'll probably try to add 'notes' about this to those two articles myself, later today. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The issue I see here is that TV pilots are sometimes almost entirely different productions from the later TV series – there's often a lot of "churn" between pilot and series, including even wholesale cast and crew changes. Now, oftentimes, it's not so radical a difference, but sometimes it is. It's worth noting that the way we currently handle this is often satisfactory – e.g. the way The 100 (TV series) handles Kelly Hu is I think the right way. But there other examples, such as Nia Peeples on Pretty Little Liars or Jeffrey Nicholas Brown and Kelly Sullivan (actress) on Henry Danger – people who were credited as "main" cast in the pilot, but then subsequently dumped down to recurring post-pilot: in these cases, I actually think they should be listed under the "recurring" cast, not the "main" cast (though, with a 'note' indicating they were main credited for the pilot). I think Amaury has handled the related issue of cast ordering in his followup – again, the issue with that is that the pilot is almost a "different production" in some cases, and I think we should follow the cast ordering for the "regular series" (though again using 'notes' to note different ordering in the pilot). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if this is necessarily something that we need to address here, but I think in these cases we should go off the subsequent cast. For instance, Lucy Griffiths was cast as a series regular in the pilot for Constantine, but they subsequently made some changes and her character was not brought back for the rest of the series. So, in terms of the scope of the whole show, she isn't really a series regular and it was decided that she should just be listed as a guest. This is a different situation to something like Agent Carter, where Shea Whigham left the show after the first season, so in terms of the overall scope he was still a member of the regular cast for a significant portion of the show. I think differences from the pilot is the only time where we would want to break our usual rules.

I agree that we should mention if someone is briefly credited as something else, as was done for Griffiths at Constantine, but if the difference between the pilot and the rest of the show is simply the cast order, then we definitely should not be noting that change in the article. The specific crediting order and cast listing is used as a way to come up with an order that removes any bias or decision making on the part of us editors. It isn't a significant fact that should be discussed in the article. If a pilot stars Bob and Jim, and then for the rest of the show the listing is Jim and Bob, then we should just list Jim and Bob with no mention in the article that their names were swapped around (unless there is some reliable sources discussing a significant behind-the-scenes reason for this change, of course). - adamstom97 (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint, and I realize not everyone will agree, but I'm generally a big proponent of "more information over less", and I find the use of "informational notes" like this to be generally advantageous to our readership and I usually prefer having them to not having them. But I likely wouldn't object if consensus at an article Talk page went against using them. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Actor photos to actor articles, character photos to character articles?

I'm not sure TVCAST is the section to cover this, but can we please get a ruling that only pictures of the characters should be shown at character-specific articles and "List of [...] characters" articles? (I'm quite sure that is the norm at the soap opera articles – e.g. Sam McCall is showing a picture of the character on the show, not a shot of Kelly Monaco. Ditto Jack Abbott (The Young and the Restless)...) 'Cos I'm looking at List of The 100 characters and nearly all of the pictures shown there are photos of the actors NOT of the characters! (Only the image at the top of the article is correct.) It's a similar story at List of The Originals characters, etc. The guideline really needs to say something about only images of the characters should be displayed at "List of [...] characters" articles, if not in TVCAST then at least somewhere in MOS:TV. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe your issue is covered further down in the Character article structure section -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

But also, given the fact that image guidelines for real people should be free, Commons images, it is a lot easier to add images of the actor rather than copyrighted character images. At least at character lists, when there are bound to be multiple needs for images. However, character articles should use a non-free character image in the infobox, if available. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Just so I'm clear, are you saying that you think using actor pictures at "List of [...] characters" articles is OK? (I guess we can save the actual discussion on this until we get to the 'Characters' MOS discussion, as per Whats new?...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to still answer you're question, yes that is what I meant. And that was coming from a WP:NFCC stand point (mainly points 1 and 8). Non-free images should always be kept to a minimum in articles where ever possible. So in character lists, where it is potentially viable to have an image for each of the main cast members, that can easily require 2+ images. A free equivalent of the actor is preferable in that instance. But a stand alone character article should display a non-free image of the character if one exists. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, in that case, let's put a 'pin' in this discussion, and save it for then... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Proposal 1

• Shortcuts WP:TVCAST, MOS:TVCAST

Generally, information about cast and characters should be presented in one of two ways:

• Cast list: In a section labeled "Cast" or "Cast and characters", indicate the name of the cast member and his or her noteworthy role(s), followed by a brief description of the character. Example: The Newsroom (U.S. TV series)
• Characters list: In a section labeled "Characters" or "List of characters", indicate noteworthy characters, including the name of their portrayer, followed by a brief description of the character. Example: Mutant X (TV series)

In accordance with the Manual of Style guidance on boldface, actors and roles should not be bolded, nor should they be italicised. Lists should not include any forced line breaks. Follow correct syntax when compiling lists (including MOS:COLON). Examples include:

• Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock Holmes: a former Scotland Yard consultant
• Frasier Crane (Kelsey Grammer), a radio psychiatrist

In some cases, such as unscripted programs with few cast members or series where the cast frequently changes, it may be more appropriate to include cast information in prose form. It could be presented in an appropriately titled section (eg. "Presenters") or as a sub-section of the "Production" section (such as at The Price Is Right). To avoid redundancy, use only one method for delivering this information. It may be more appropriate to use a character list for series where an actor portrays several characters.

Remember to follow the notability guidelines when creating a cast list: not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed and even fewer will deserve an individual article. It may be appropriate to split the cast listing by "Main characters" and "Recurring characters". If the series is long-running, and has a large number of recurring guest stars, it may be better to create a separate list of characters articles (see below for style guidelines on "List of ..." pages).

The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series. Please keep in mind that though "main" cast members are determined by the series 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 in which they appear, so their place in the list should be based on the order of credits in the first episode that they appear. The cast listing should not contain an episode count, e.g. (6 episodes), to indicate the number of episodes in which the actor or character appeared. If an actor misses an episode due to a real-world occurrence, such as an injury that prevents them from appearing, this info can be noted in the character's description or "Production" section with a reliable source. New casting information for forthcoming characters should be added to the bottom of the list, with their position readjusted if necessary based on the method defined above.

A cast member or character appearing in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes, does not necessarily mean that character has a "recurring" role. An actor or character may simply have a guest role across several episodes, rather than a recurring story arc throughout the show. If reliable sources cannot adequately distinguish between recurring or guest roles, then local consensus should determine their status.

All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source. For unscripted shows where cast are referred to in a program by a stage name or first name only, that name should be used in episode descriptions, but their full proper name (where available) should be used in cast lists. In subsequent sections dealing with real-world information, their surname should be used.

Cast tables (such as the one found at The Killing (U.S. TV series) § Cast) can be used as a visual representation of cast duration for multi-season programs but should not be used for programs with fewer than three seasons or where cast changes are minimal. Only cast members who have been part of the main cast for at least one season should be included. If a program has a separate article about casting, the table should only appear in that article or in the parent article but not both. A separate cast table for recurring cast can be included in articles listing characters and cast but should never be included in parent television series articles.

Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that belongs in the plot summary; instead, focus on real-world information on the characters and actors (this could include, but is not limited to, casting of the actor or how the character was created and developed over the course of the series). The key is to provide real-world context to the character through production information, without simply re-iterating entertainment websites such as IMDb.

Associated note

Proposal 1 discussion

I've attempted to collate the existing text with the topics raised here. I've kept much of the existing text, and tried to weave in the issues raised through this disucssion, as well as some re-ordering of content and adding in some examples which may help inexperienced editors. Please support, oppose or otherwise here -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Can I ask why these proposal are always put up in the middle of the discussion where they are so easily lost track of? Can't we put them at the end of the page, which makes them less likely to be missed and more accurately represents "when" they happened? The current practice made the TVPLOT discussions super-hard to follow. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

They're put in a seperate section, away from the discussion given they are a finished piece of work. Just following the format of previous discussions -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The proposals can be put where ever it is best for users. When we started out, I felt it would be good to see proposals, and then have discussions about them. But since the format has changed, with discussions first, then proposals about them, it can be placed below us. Everything about this is malleable to be the best it can be and easiest to follow. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Moved to just above this section -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• OK, this looks mostly fine, but I have at least two issues. Firstly, I prefer Ian's wording below: "All names should be referred to as credited, or as the common name supported by a reliable source." Ian's version is better as it implicitly covers actors' names (and crew names) as well (if we want to specifically say "All character and cast [and crew?] names..." that would be fine too); your second sentence after that re:unscripted shows is fine. Second, as we discussed above – cast tables for 2 season shows are nonsensical. Therefore, what we should say on this is: "Cast tables... can be used as a visual representation of cast duration for multi-season programs but should not be used for programs with less than three seasons or where cast changes are minimal. (emphasis mine) As I said above, I'd actually prefer it to say "less than four seasons", but I'm willing to compromise to three. (I definitely like the last sentence of the "cast tables" paragraph, though – good call!) And I don't love the "recurring" section, but it's acceptable as a compromise and does appear to rule out all 2-episode "appearances" as being labeled "recurring". I think that's all I've got (for now!...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: No issues with that substitution re names. Don't mind the substitution to three seasons, even though I still think they serve useful value on 2 season articles, but given not much input on that disussion, a compromise to three as you've written is no issue with me. If no one disputes your proposed subs I'll add them into the text (I'll give others a chance to take issue first) -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Coolio! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

OK with me; technically it should be "fewer than three seasons" ;) IanB2 (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Prose vs. lists: I think we should omit "unscripted" in the phrase In some cases, such as unscripted programs with few cast members or series where the cast frequently changes, and possibly alter "few cast members" to "smaller casts" ("few" means like five or six to me). In general, prose is preferred to lists in articles, per WP:USEPROSE and WP:LISTBULLET, for readability. Obviously, we decided at some point that larger casts with longer descriptions were more readable as lists, but there are probably more than a few cases where prose would work as well or better. Moonlight (TV series) and Frankenstein, MD are two single-season shows (which I chose randomly from the list of Good Articles) that would read just as well with the cast in prose. Featured Articles The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. and Pride and Prejudice do it, though those sections are more or less written from a real-world "casting" perspective. Cast lists like the one at The Newsroom would probably read fine if formatted this way, and it would be a more efficient use of space (though in the particular case of Newsroom, the guest stars might be too numerous). House has a unique character/story combo. I'm not saying prose should necessarily be a third bullet-pointed option, or that we should be converting existing lists, but it's a stylistic choice I think we should note and allow.

LISTBULLET always makes me smile, because although it begins as you say by saying prose is preferred, that whole section of the MoS is presented in bullet list form and is actually a perfect example of why the bulleted format is far clearer and easier when it comes presenting a set of discrete guidelines as in a manual! IanB2 (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The related topic that we should also probably mention somewhere is the convention that we (sometimes) will have a robust cast/character "intro" section in the main article when there is a standalone main list, like in the Featured Articles Carnivàle or The Simpsons, or in Lost, Supernatural, Glee, and others. This is in contrast to how it is (probably more often) done with a main cast list in articles like 30 Rock, Friends, or The West Wing.— TAnthony^Talk 06:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I think there is pretty strong feeling that lists are almost always preferred when listing cast members. Prose is more appropriate for casting info in a production context and for shows with limited casts (eg. a game show which has one host change throughout its run). I don't think there would be much support for promoting prose over lists as you describe. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Except that the overall MOS prefers prose to lists, and there is a precedent in FAs. We can at least remove "unscripted". If an article is using prose well, we don't need editors converting it to a list and citing this guideline.— TAnthony^Talk 19:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I've compared the two proposals side-by-side. I feel the first has a better introduction, lists and other examples; the second is more concise which makes it a little clearer on certain points. Overall, I feel it's easier to work from Prop 1. I agree with the talk-quotation notes in the discussion above. My notes are on application to reality shows and general copyedit:

1. It could be presented in a section titled "Presenters" or as a sub-section of the "Production" section. I feel this may be too specific for general advice, and it could be taken to mean that these are the only two options for prose. Suggest replacing with "It could be presented in an appropriately titled section (e.g.: "Presenters") or as a sub-section of the "Production" section." It would also be helpful to link to a prose example like The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. or The Price is Right.
2. For reality show contestants who are referred to in a program I feel this should be broadened, as it also applies to non-competitive reality shows (eg: The Situation on Jersey Shore). Suggest "For unscripted shows where cast are referred to", and change "plot descriptions" to "episode descriptions" or "descriptions of in-show events" or something similar.
3. Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock Holmes: A former Scotland Yard consultant as noted in earlier discussion there should be no capitalization after the colon for a sentence fragment (and certainly there should be no period/full stop as in Proposal 2). The case for a colon introducing multiple sentences is covered earlier by the cast and character bullet points, and together I feel this does a good job of showing the valid possibilities.
4. Could the mention of IMDb linked at the end be changed to something generic like "entertainment websites"?

It could also use a smattering of hyphens for compound modifiers and additional polishing once content is settled. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

No issues with 1 or 2. For 3, you are correct - when I initially wrote the proposal I copied that example I copied it from an existing article with multiple sentences, but cut it down for the purposes of the example and obviously forgot to change it in the process. Your final comment, I didn't alter that from the original text, but have no issue either way. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Further:

I'll just wait for any opposing views, as with other points above, before adding to proposal -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• where we are linking to articles as examples of good practice, we should link directly to the relevant section of the article;

No issue with that where possible

• we are using the terms 'main', 'recurring' and 'guest' without defining them for editors, and if the difference between the last two is a matter of objective fact then it remains my view that it cannot be defined by 'local consensus', only by appropriate referencing;

This was all discussed, and while not the strongest consensus in the world with differing ideas and proposals, I put that forward as a compromise position with minimal objection to date

• I read the wording on cast tables to mean that something like this is not compliant; is that right?

Yes. Some editors suggested allowing a seperate table like that be allowed for recurring/guest only, but without a real consensus on it I've left it out for the time being. It is something that could be re-visited if there's interest.

FTR, I would support adding wording to this to allow for 'Recurring cast/character' tables at "List of [...] characters" articles, as in the example. I think deprecating those will cause much more trouble than it's worth. That said, I do fully agree that 'Recurring cast/character' table should not be allowed at the main/parent TV series articles at all, and should only be allowed at 'list-character' articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I also think it would be good to mention something about this. Brojam (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Brojam: I'm not opposed to this (at list of.. articles only), although I think there was some opposition from others, thus it didn't quite attain a strong consensus. If you, IJBall and IanB2 all support it then I am happy to back it in. Again, I'll wait for any opposition for a day or two before adding it to the proposal. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable – if there's no opposition in this thread, you can add it to the guideline, and then we'll see if there's any opposition at that point... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with tables like my example - we should need a very good reason to prohibit something in an MoS that editors have put a lot of work into in some articles (we don't want a re-run of our experience on the last discussion). And Vikings is a good example where prominent long-running and clearly noteworthy characters don't appear in the main cast; if they don't appear at all in a cast table we will have the usual scenario of editors quite reasonably wanting to add them into the main table. With a table like that I am more concerned about the basis for deciding who is recurring and guest than I am about having the table there to begin with. IanB2 (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• With such a notable character as Sherlock Holmes, surely the correct syntax would include a wiki link to the character article?

I only didn't link to it because there was no specific article for the character within the show, like there was with Frasier Crane, but no opposition to linking to Sherlock Holmes, nor changing the example

• i don't like the 'associated note' at the end; this seems convoluted and unnecessarily prominent for what appears to be a relatively trivial point; either drop it or cover it (briefly) in the main text? IanB2 (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It is only formatted that way for the purposes of this discussion. The note appears at the bottom of TVMOS. It was existing text I hadn't changed, and no one brought up removing it in the discussion so I didn't touch it. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Now that the discussion points have been integrated into the above proposal, as well as some minor typos and formatting from other editors, are there any further issues/notes on the proposal 1 which, failing anything new, appears to have support. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I do think "ordered" rather than "organised" is the right word for the cast list section - the latter is vague and from the context appears to mean "ordered" anyhow. And it would be good to get rid of the somewhat clunky 'associated note' by building the point succinctly into the main text, along the lines of my proposal 2? Otherwise good job. IanB2 (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no preference re ordered/organised, but status quo might be best unless anyone else seeks a change. The note deals with uncommon scenarios which is described in great detail, so I think it best to keep it as a note rather than integrate a lengthy explaination of something not key, or reduce it to a point where its not clear or helpful. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I would definitely say we should switch to "ordered" over "organized" because people misordering the cast list is a super-common error and "ordered" is more specific in this case. The note content seems fine as a note because it elaborates the more concise point. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree about using the word "ordered" rather than "organized", and everything else looks good to me now! – Let's put this one to bed soon!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Haven't really been following the discussion on the proposal, but proposal 1 looks good to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I've amended organized to ordered from the original text. Seems agreement from interested editors on the modern day version of proposal 1. I'll leave it to Favre1fan93 to close. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Whats new?: Have you already pinged every editor who posted a comment in the discussion above to have a chance to comment on this proposal (sorry, didn't see anything quickly looking back through all of this)? And have all discussions above been resolved? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought someone had pinged but doesn't look like it happened. The individual discussions had either been resolved or have since formed consensus as part of the proposal discussions here with those interested editors as far as I'm aware. I'll ping those who haven't already participated in proposal 1 discussion -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Final call @Adamstom.97, TAnthony, AngusWOOF, Bignole, Reidgreg, JimsMaher, Wikipedical, EvergreenFir, Amaury, and Hzh: for opposing proposal 1 as new text for the cast and characters section in the MOS, which can be read here. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to bold the changes. When we have two giant walls of text, it's hard to know exactly what is different. It's easier to see what changes are proposed in each version when you can see the differences.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bignole: Not that I know of. In any case, there are minimal differences between 1 and 2, and to this point consensus favours working with proposal 1. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bignole: Here is a diff of original versus proposal 1, here is a diff of original versus proposal 2, and here is a diff between both proposals. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that for unscripted shows, the part that says "where cast are referred to in a program by a stage name or first name only", add a parentheses after stage name - "(which may be a full name or an alias)" just to let people know that if a full name is used, then it would be treated as a stage name? Hzh (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the point of that - if their full name is used then there is no stage name, they're using a full name? -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Some do introduce the contestants by their full names, especially music competition shows (and some used aliases/stage names). The names in whatever form they used are usually the names they use after the competition is over (e.g. Kelly Clarkson, RaeLynn, One Direction). The name used in the show is therefore considered the name of the act. This is to avoid future argument about whether someone like Kelly Clarkson should be "Kelly" or "Clarkson" in the article - it would be "Kelly Clarkson" all through the article because that is the name of the act (it of course does not apply for article outside of the show). Perhaps replace stage name with another more suitable word, or say something like "For reality shows, the cast should be referred to by whatever names they used on the show, which may be stage names, first names, or full name." Hzh (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry that I haven't been keeping up with the discussion. The only major issue I have with this proposal is the paragraph on cast tables. I disagree with us setting hard limits such as three or more seasons for a table. As I have said multiple times throughout this discussion, that seems inappropriate to me for a MOS, and ignores all sorts of potential situations. Instead, we should just be heavily suggesting that longer series/more complicated casts are what the tables are for, so that editors can use their judgement based on the actual facts of each series. Also, I think we should mention the other form of cast tables—such as that used for recurring characters here—which, as discussed above, cause accessibility concerns per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Tables. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I remain concerned that determining someone's 'status' by 'local consensus', in the absence of identified sources, is effectively Group-OR, and not encyclopaedic. But I see my concern hasn't been picked up by anyone. Otherwise the proposed changes are fine. Regarding the 'associated note', I read it simply to say that "new" means new to the list, not necessarily new to the series. This could easily be dealt with in the body of the text with a few words in brackets; the amount of detail in and the prominence of the note is out of proportion to the relatively minor point being made? IanB2 (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I agree with you on cast tables but others do not and think the limit should be higher, so 3 seasons was the compromise position. Assuming you're referring to the recurring table in the Dukes of Hazzard article (not the graphical cast table which looked fine to me there), there's nothing in the existing text nor proposal here that would allow that - the MOS says to list cast, and the proposal adds the prose option - but table listings aren't mentioned here and therefore don't comply and can be removed now as far as I can see. -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@IanB2: I'm afraid that despite your concerns, there is a need to permit local consensus in certain circumstances, which may very well rationalise removal of cast with the very points you mention. I and other editors have disagreed with your views about the existing note, which is an explanation better left out of the main text as a footnote. -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

has anyone else disagreed with me on the note? If so I must have skipped over it IanB2 (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

FTR, the 'note' is fine, and should stay. It is actually fairly common for things like MOS's to use 'notes' in this way to clarify certain points. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Joey also disagreed with removing the note. It wasn't brought up by any other editor in the earlier topical discussions either, so I don't see an appetite to remove it. -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no objections. Looks good overall. Thank you for the ping. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

No problems, thanks for participating. -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Nothing in opposition, just a few additional nit-picking copyedit notes:

1. It was suggested to link Sherlock Holmes. In the context of the example's article, I believe this is overlinking. Elementary has Sherlock Holmes linked in the lead and the Plot section. There's no need to also link it in the Cast section. (I'd thought of mentioning overlinking issues but felt it diverged too much from the scope of this MOS section.)✓
2. If the series is long running, and has an overwhelming number of recurring guest stars I think "overwhelming" might be a little too strong, and may send a mixed-message with the earlier not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed. Prop 2 used "multiple"; I'd suggest somewhere between, perhaps "large".✓
3. (# episodes) I feel this should be specific as with the other examples and give an actual numeral, e.g.: (6 episodes). Or otherwise, the numero should be avoided and replaced with {{abbr|No.|number}} or "number of".✓
4. actor/character to "actor or character" per MOS:SLASH and section consistency.✓
5. Hyphenate long running so it's a little easier to read.✓ Arguably, one could also use "few cast-members", "new cast-members", "recurring cast-members", "parent television-series articles" and "recurring story-arc" but this might cause confusion on whether they should generally be hyphenated.
6. Following Lists should not include any forced line breaks could there be a parenthetic link to MOS:LISTGAP or piped to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Line breaks? It's a bit of an obscure point.✓
7. Redundancies: As per Prop 2, a few terms can be simplified to reduce the length:
   • It may be appropriate to split up the cast listing✓
   • it may be appropriate to split those into a separate list of characters articles replace with "better to create"✓
   • according to the series original broadcast credits, ✓ with new cast members being added to the end of the list
   • forthcoming recurring or guest characters ✓
   • appearing in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes, replace with "multiple" and remove the trailing comma
   • For unscripted shows where cast are referred to in a program by a stage name
   • information that really belongs in the plot summary✓
   • Note that "new cast members" does not necessarily mean cast members new to a series, although it can. It refers to any cast member new to the respective cast list.
8. This is the longest, most-complex sentence: Please keep in mind that though "main" cast members are determined by the series 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 in which they appear, so their place in the list should be based on the order of credits in the first episode that they appear. Prop 2 says the same thing with 20% fewer words. Modifying Prop 2 slightly, how about: Although the "main" cast is determined by the producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count) and generally has a set order in the credits, recurring and guest stars will not necessarily be credited in the same order for each episode; their listing should be based on the credits of the first episode in which they appear. (If the semi-colon is too subtle, a dash could be substituted.)
9. but their full proper name (where available) should be used in cast lists and sections dealing with real-world information. Just to be clear, for real-world information this should be full proper name on first occurrence and then surname afterwards, right? Perhaps change the underlined part to "and surname in sections"? It might also read better with a dash separating this from the first half of the sentence, to clarify the opposition for cases of using first/stage name and full/surname. ✓

I feel this helps a bit for clarity and ease-of-reading. Thanks again. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

1. You're correct, and it remains unlinked

2. No particular concern either way, but I'll leave as is unless other editors have strong feelings

3. Not sure such a change is necessary, but again no strong feeling. That section was from the original text

4. Done

5. Done, but I disagree with the others

6. Not sure linking is required but not opposed if others would like to

7. Agree with some of these, but not all, and have changed some

8. I don't see the sentence as complex personally, and it is not much longer than your proposed version all up.

9. I see what you're saying, but proper name needs to be distinguished and I think what you suggest confuses the issue. Surname should be used after first occurrence, but I don't think that needs to be explicitly stated given it applies to nearly every other article in Wikipedia. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

2. I would support rewording to If the series is long-running, and has featured many recurring guest stars; "overwhelming" is a bit overkill here.

3. I agree we should pick a specific number. It's listed as an example and this will be clearer. Not everyone understands numeric placeholder variables. 😀

In addition to giving a specific example, there are issues per MOS:NUMERO (Reidgreg)

5. long-running, yes. The others... I've never seen those terms hyphenated.

The GOCE seem to like hyphenating compound modifiers for ease-of-reading and to avoid possible ambiguity, but in these cases I agree that it looks out-of-place and could have readers coming to a false conclusion about their use. (Reidgreg)

6. I would support including a link to the relevant MOS page/section because it is probably quite a new idea to most people and given how prevalent these linebreaks are in TV articles, it will be nice to direct people to a broader discussion of why they need to be removed.

7.

• It may be appropriate to split up the cast listing—definitely agree; "split up" is too informal WP:TONE
• forthcoming recurring or guest characters—agree, because the forthcoming characters could also be main/lead characters

• also: with their position readjusted if necessary based on the method defined above.

"split up" is informal and redundant. (Per the "opposite test" does "split down" make any sense? If not, then the "up" likely offers no added meaning.) If it is absolutely necessary to keep the "up", though, I would prefer it be hyphenated "split-up". Of the 8 instances I mentioned it seems 2.5 were taken into the proposal. (Reidgreg)

8. I agree strongly that it would be good to break up this one long sentence with a semicolon. I'd go further and be even more specific/exact: ...recurring and guest stars will not necessarily be credited in the same order for each episode; their order in the listing should be based on the order of the credits of the first episode in which they appear.

I feel that's covered through ellipsis and doesn't have to be specified (saying "will not necessarily be credited in the same order" tells us that the order is what's important in the following discussion and applies to "listing" and "credits".) But I'm not strongly against it.

It seems that the complexity was increased by taking the suggestion of being more specific without also dividing the sentence. For my own sanity, I try not to have "strong feelings" about copyediting (see WP:DGAF). But I do feel the MOS should be reasonably MOS-compliant and as easy as possible to read. I'm thinking of new editors who are trying to figure things out, are tired after finally locating the right section of the MOS, and skimming the text for the help they want. I understand the desire to be specific (especially with subjects where editors are making errors) but it's also important to be concise. If you can say something in fewer words, it's almost always clearer. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Would people support providing a specific example here? I know we don't want to make this section overly long but cast list ordering seems to be an area where many, many people screw up and I think specific examples could help considerably.

9. I see Reidgreg's point. As it's worded, it sounds like their full proper name should be used in multiple locations in the article, which is directly at odds with Surname should be used after first occurrence, but I don't think that needs to be explicitly stated given it applies to nearly every other article in Wikipedia. It should read, from what I can tell, something like: but their full proper name (where available) should be used in cast lists. In subsequent sections dealing with real-world information, their surname should be used.

—Joeyconnick (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Whats new?: I'm becoming uncomfortable with replacing the "Han Solo" examples from the current TVCAST with links directly to articles as in your Proposal. Too much can go wrong with direct article links like that – for example, I just checked Mutant X, and it's cast/characters sections wasn't even titled "Characters" as it should be per TVCAST. It only takes one IP editor to mess up an article like this by changing headers contrary to guidelines. If WP:TV project members are uncomfortable with the "Han Solo" example (because that's a "film" character), we can easily replace that with a famous TV character (like Arthur Fonzarelli, or something) in the example. But, like I said – I'm worried there's too much that go wrong if we don't include an actual example in the guideline (like we do currently), and just link to an article. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand your concern? -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I read the concern to be that we might cite a good example article in the MOS, but what if the page subsequently gets edited so that no longer conforms with our agreed guidelines? So he suggests giving examples of good practice directly in the MOS (like we do for syntax) rather than wikilinking to other pages IanB2 (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand that concern... linking to actual articles is problematic because by the time someone looks them up, they may have been mangled. Unless we start linking to specific versions of the article that we know include the good example, I am in support of just providing examples. We definitely do not want to use Han Solo, though... a famous TV character/actor will do. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you guys got it. At the top of this page is the current TVCAST guideline, and we include a specific example for a "Cast (and characters)" list entry, and then a specific example of the same for a "Character" list entry. But Proposal 1 instead no longer includes specific examples, but links to a couple of TV series articles instead. There are actually several problems with linking to specific TV series articles (for example, I actually don't like The Newsroom example in the proposal because it does not have a 'Recurring' section, but does have a 'Guest cast' section which I actually oppose having at all). We are much better off IMO with keeping a specific couple of examples in the TVCAST guideline, as we do now. But I agree with Joeyconnick – the Harrsion Ford/Han Solo example should be replaced with a TV-specific example. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

So just keep the Frasier and Sherlock example we have proposed without linking is fine then? -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

For the 'good examples' we can either link to a perm version, or update if there are major changes later. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, yes, we should keep those. But I think we might want to move them back up to the top, like it is with the current TVCAST – I actually didn't notice the direct relevance of those before, and they'd probably go better directly below the "Cast and characters" and "Characters" bullet-points just like in the current guideline. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the paragraph up one to be directly after that passage, but I disagree it should be within each point only because the part about not bolding, etc applies to both examples and its better to keep these together. I've also removed "overwhelming" per point 2 above, replaced # with 6 per point 3 above, and most other points raised in that list not already altered. With regards to further copyediting, may I suggest that unless there is anything serious or hotly disputed, that any further minor sentence restructures or minor rewording be left alone in the interests of implementing the new text with more substantial issues in a reasonable period. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine – I think I still want to "tinker" with that section (probably by reworking the "example" part some to call attention to the examples directly below the bullet points), but that can be taken care of after the proposal passes, yeah. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Well with lack of further discussion, would I be incorrect in saying proposal 1 can be implemented and we can move to the next session? -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: If you're happy to draw a line under this and move to the next section? -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what the proposed wording for reality/competition show is, can you clarify? If you see for example RuPaul's Drag Race (season 8), you'd find a mix of stage names and real names, using surnames in other sections after the cast list would not make sense. It should be clarified that competitor's names, be they full names, first names or stages, would be treated as the name of an act if that is how they introduced on the show, i.e. the guideline that "surname should be used after first occurrence" does not apply as the names are treated as acts rather than individuals. Hzh (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That's correct, that's why it states "where cast are referred to in a program by a stage name or first name only, that name should be used in episode descriptions" and "sections dealing with real-world information, their surname should be used" which all occur in that article as far as I can see. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess I must have misunderstood something. In the case of Derrick Barry, that's his full name, and full name is used all the way through. This is also the case with The Voice (U.S. season 12) which is also a mix of stage names and full names, if you feel that it complies with the wording, then I fine with it, it'll be entirely a misunderstanding on my part. Hzh (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It does all need to be consistent, so again I don't see any issue. The Voice article you mention could arguably use surname only in some of the real world parts, but beyond that nothing I see that is an issue. "All names should be referred to as credited..." which applies to episode descriptions, cast tables, etc given that's how Voice contestants are known in show. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

If there's nothing else pressing, shall we move on? @Favre1fan93: -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (v3)

Rather than make further detailed comments, I have had a go at editing the useful proposal from Whats new, as well as suggesting a slightly stricter approach for types of cast member and clarifying (as I understand them) a few smaller points. I have also picked up the point about not listing actors in the plot section, which we agreed in the earlier discussion to address here. I hope this is all useful and appropriate to suggest below as Proposal 2 IanB2 (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC). I have updated it to reflect a few points raised that appear to have consensus in the above discussion IanB2 (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Shortcuts WP:TVCAST, MOS:TVCAST

Information about cast and characters should generally be presented in one of two ways:

• A cast list, titled "Cast" or "Cast and characters", should list the noteworthy cast members with a brief description of their role(s) (for example: "John Gallagher Jr. as James "Jim" Harper: Senior Producer who follows MacKenzie to News Night. At his new job, he develops feelings for Maggie.")
• A character list, titled "Characters" or "List of characters", should list noteworthy characters and the name of their actors, with a brief description of the character (for example: "Lexa Pierce (Karen Cliche) was the first member of the original Mutant X. As a Chromatic Molecular, she can bend light to make herself and anything she is touching invisible."). This approach can be more appropriate where an actor portrays several characters.

Exceptionally, for programs with a small cast, or where the cast frequently changes, it may be better to include this information in prose form, as an appropriately titled section (e.g. "Presenters") or as a sub-section of the "Production" section.

Use only one method for delivering this information, and avoid including actors’ names in other sections such as for the plot.

The names of actors and roles should not be in bold type, nor italicised, and lists should not include forced line breaks. Examples of correct syntax are:

• Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock Holmes: a former Scotland Yard consultant.
• Frasier Crane (Kelsey Grammer), a radio psychiatrist.

A cast list should follow the notability guidelines; not every character will deserve to be listed and fewer will merit an individual article. It may be appropriate to split the cast listing into "Main” and "Recurring” characters, if this information can be referenced or is evident from the credits. For a long-running or multi-season series with many guest stars, it may be better to create a separate ‘list of characters’ article (see below for the style guidelines).

The cast list should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new members (whether to the series, or as a past guest now joining the list) added at the end.

Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, with actors remaining on the list even after their departure. Although the "main" cast is determined by the producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count) and generally has a set order in the credits, recurring and guest stars will not necessarily be credited in the same order for each episode; their order in the listing should be based on the credits of the first episode in which they appear.

The number of episodes in which each actor or character appears should not be included within articles. If an actor misses an episode due to a real-world occurrence (such as an injury), this can be noted and referenced in the character's description, or in the "Production" section.

New casting information for forthcoming characters should be added to the bottom of the list, with their position adjusted if necessary as above, once the series has been broadcast.

A cast member or character who appears in several episodes does not necessarily have a "recurring" role; they may simply have a guest role across several episodes. Reliable sources should be found to distinguish between recurring or guest roles in articles where these distinctions are made, or otherwise this should be decided by local consensus.

All names should be referred to as credited, or as the common name supported by a reliable source. For unscripted shows (including reality shows) where cast are referred to only by a stage or first name, that name should be used in descriptions of in-show events, but their full proper name (where available) should be used for the first reference in cast lists or sections dealing with real-world information. but their full proper name (where available) should be used in cast lists. In subsequent sections dealing with real-world information, their surname should be used.

Cast tables can be used as a visual representation of cast duration for multi-season programs, but should not be used for series with fewer than three seasons, or otherwise where cast changes are minimal. Only those who have been part of the main cast for at least one season should be included, although where a cast table is used on a separate 'list of characters' article, it may be appropriate to include also the recurring characters. A cast table should never be used in both an article about the cast and a parent article about the series.

Avoid using the cast section for "in-universe" information that belongs in the plot summary; instead, focus on real-world information about the characters and actors (for example, casting, how the character was created, or develops over the series, etc.). The key is to provide real-world context for the character, without simply re-iterating entertainment websites such as IMDb.

Discussion of Proposal 2 (v2)

I was going to say that names in bold could work for character listings if they are styled as a dictionary definition. Also, there should be care about mixing linking of characters to their individual character pages for the show Azazel (Supernatural) and general characters as with Dracula. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to keep a more succinct drafting on the table as an option for people, I have updated proposal 2 to take account of points with consensus that I have picked up from the above discussion IanB2 (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2017 (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.