![]() | For more info on the format of the discussions, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates#Discussions |
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.
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):
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. [n 1] 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.
Generally, information about cast and characters should be presented in one of two ways:
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:
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. [n 1] 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.
relevant ones to be added
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
"...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 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)
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)
<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)
**
or *:
.
Reidgreg (
talk)
14:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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:
IanB2 ( talk) 19:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Or:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
Generally, information about cast and characters should be presented in one of two ways:
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:
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. [n 1] 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.
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)
"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)
Prose vs. lists: I think we should omit "unscripted" in the phrase In some cases, such as
, 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.
unscripted programs with few cast members or series where the cast frequently changes
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'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:
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.
For reality show contestants who are referred to in a programI 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.
Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock Holmes: A former Scotland Yard consultantas 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.
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)
Comments
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 have no objections. Looks good overall. Thank you for the ping. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Nothing in opposition, just a few additional nit-picking copyedit notes:
If the series is long running, and has an overwhelming number of recurring guest starsI 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".✓
(# 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".✓
actor/characterto "actor or character" per MOS:SLASH and section consistency.✓
long runningso 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.
Lists should not include any forced line breakscould 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.✓
It may be appropriate to split✓upthe cast listing
it may bereplace with "better to create"✓appropriate to split those intoa separate list of characters articles
according to the✓seriesoriginal broadcast credits,
with new castmembersbeing added to the end of the list
forthcoming✓recurring or guestcharacters
appearing inreplace with "multiple" and remove the trailing commamore than one episode, or in two or more consecutiveepisodes,
For unscripted shows where cast are referred toin a programby a stage name
information that✓reallybelongs in the plot summary
Note that "new cast members"does not necessarily mean cast members new to a series, although it can. Itrefers to any cast member new to the respective cast list.
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.)
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)
If the series is long-running, and has featured many recurring guest stars; "overwhelming" is a bit overkill here.
It may be appropriate to split—definitely agree; "split up" is too informal WP:TONEupthe cast listing
forthcoming—agree, because the forthcoming characters could also be main/lead charactersrecurring or guestcharacters
with their position readjusted if necessary based on the method defined above.
...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.
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.
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)
Information about cast and characters should generally be presented in one of two ways:
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:
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.
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)
![]() | For more info on the format of the discussions, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates#Discussions |
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.
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):
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. [n 1] 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.
Generally, information about cast and characters should be presented in one of two ways:
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:
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. [n 1] 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.
relevant ones to be added
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
"...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 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)
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)
<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)
**
or *:
.
Reidgreg (
talk)
14:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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:
IanB2 ( talk) 19:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Or:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
Generally, information about cast and characters should be presented in one of two ways:
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:
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. [n 1] 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.
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)
"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)
Prose vs. lists: I think we should omit "unscripted" in the phrase In some cases, such as
, 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.
unscripted programs with few cast members or series where the cast frequently changes
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'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:
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.
For reality show contestants who are referred to in a programI 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.
Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock Holmes: A former Scotland Yard consultantas 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.
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)
Comments
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 have no objections. Looks good overall. Thank you for the ping. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Nothing in opposition, just a few additional nit-picking copyedit notes:
If the series is long running, and has an overwhelming number of recurring guest starsI 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".✓
(# 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".✓
actor/characterto "actor or character" per MOS:SLASH and section consistency.✓
long runningso 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.
Lists should not include any forced line breakscould 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.✓
It may be appropriate to split✓upthe cast listing
it may bereplace with "better to create"✓appropriate to split those intoa separate list of characters articles
according to the✓seriesoriginal broadcast credits,
with new castmembersbeing added to the end of the list
forthcoming✓recurring or guestcharacters
appearing inreplace with "multiple" and remove the trailing commamore than one episode, or in two or more consecutiveepisodes,
For unscripted shows where cast are referred toin a programby a stage name
information that✓reallybelongs in the plot summary
Note that "new cast members"does not necessarily mean cast members new to a series, although it can. Itrefers to any cast member new to the respective cast list.
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.)
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)
If the series is long-running, and has featured many recurring guest stars; "overwhelming" is a bit overkill here.
It may be appropriate to split—definitely agree; "split up" is too informal WP:TONEupthe cast listing
forthcoming—agree, because the forthcoming characters could also be main/lead charactersrecurring or guestcharacters
with their position readjusted if necessary based on the method defined above.
...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.
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.
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)
Information about cast and characters should generally be presented in one of two ways:
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:
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.
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)