Jump to content

Talk:Runaways (TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by YoungForever (talk | contribs) at 00:22, 21 October 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Cast section

So, what is the edit-warring all about now? The cast can almost perfectly be broken into three groups: kids (protagonists), parents (antagonists) and recurring. As the series is new, I am not expecting a lot in the recurring section, but the parent/kid split is noted in several sources. Since our viewpoints have no weight versus that of reliable sources, we include it as such. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that it was you that started the edit-warring, I am the one that is most interested in your answer to your own question. Especially when it's so interesting that you preach for BRD and against edit-warring, then go against both of those yourself. It is also interesting how you state that other stuff exists, especially when the first paragraph in its lead states "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid" - much like now.
Now onto content, not contributor. The CONSENSUS of the Television WikiProject and Television Manual of Style is that only three sections are necessary in any cast section - Main (as credited in the opening credits or per reliable sources), Recurring (appearances in three or more episodes) and Guest (normally only notable guests, in two or less episodes). That is, real-life groups, not in-universe groupings per INUNIVERSE (and also, for your wording, PROTAGONIST). That also includes no Guest Starring, Special Guest, etc. sections. Yes, that also includes not having any specific Kids and Parents section. This is a consensus - different editors adding it to the article without starting any form of discussion, that's their personal belief on what should be in the article, that's not a consensus, as you state.
It is far more than two editors want it, one doesn't, as you also stated - if you open up the page history to a lot more than the past fifty contributions, you'll see that there are a far lot more edits concerning it. (However, we all know that content disputes are never solved by how many people there are on each side; that is, after all, a vote.) That means that the bold edit is adding the headers, and once these have been reverted, the discussion needs to unfold here on the talk page. -- AlexTW 03:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, since you decided to champion this (goody), let's look at your asserions, bypassing the personal attacks:
other stuff exists arguments can be valid or invalid" - much like now.
So, feel free to argue how it is invalid.
The consensu of the Television WikiProject and Television Manual of Style is that only three sections are necessary in any cast section - Main (as credited in the opening credits or per reliable sources), Recurring (appearances in three or more episodes) and Guest (normally only notable guests, in two or less episodes)...that also includes not having any specific Kids and Parents section
You might want to give that MOS another look; it doesn't say what you think it does. But please, feel entirely free to note how we only note main/recurring/guest. It isn't INUNIVERSE to note the basic breakdown of characters. Plus, you note a "guest star" who isn't credited as such. I'm not opposed to Main/Recurring/Guest but ignoring the elephant in the room is stupid.
Additionally, you make the feeble argument that consensus decided against noting the adversarial nature of the cast of characters; I guess I just don;t see that. So prove to me that you have a valid consensus. That's all I am asking. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Amusing how you accuse others of personal attacks, then do the same. Clearly you're such the companion here, bucko.
Let's go on a journey, an unexpected adventure, and read WP:TVCAST: It may be appropriate to split the cast listing by "Main" and "Recurring" cast or characters. I'm not seeing anything about a Kids or Parents section? I also recommend that you read the archives of both the Television WikiProject and Television Manual of Style talk pages, not just the latter; you might find it most enlightening.
It is certainly INUNIVERSE to split the cast into sections that are based on in-universe events. In the credits of the series, which is determined by the series producers, there is no differentiating between the ages of the characters, and thus, there should be no such differentiation here. If you wish to gain consensus to update the cast guideline and support the addition of extra sections, then that's up to you to start a discussion elsewhere. -- AlexTW 03:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Your Information. My edits was so a person a more easy to read the Cast section list and the Parents group is named the Pride or calling them that in the Article would work too. Brownshoes22 (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would work for me, esp. since the Pride is wikilinked. Add that to the adversarial nature of the charcters as cited by sources, and that might work just fine. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, for the very reasons as presented above. You have no essay, guideline or policy support, or WikiProject or Manual of Style to support, to split the credits into sections that are not displayed as such in the credits. Shall we have the same discussion twice in the same section? -- AlexTW 03:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alex is correct. If a cast list needs to be split, we do say based on crediting and not any other subjective measure—particularly not in-universe categorisation. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, we appear to have a marked difference of opinion, equally supported and opposed. Let's initiate an RfC, and get some more opinions on the subject. I haven't heard anything yet that alters my opinion that articles have the freedom to present themselves how they wish, and I believe that the cast separation is helpful and germane to the article, and not in-universe. As others disagree, lets get more eyes on the discussion, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
articles have the freedom to present themselves how they wish[citation needed]
Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old Lace placement in article

There has been some disagreement about where to place Old Lace's description in the article. The WP:STATUSQUO from this article state on November 18, 2017, has the info in the cast section, under main. My reasoning and support of this location, is yes, there is no actor attached or credited as Old Lace, but she is still a character, and the section is called "Cast and characters", not just "Cast" (if it was just that, then yes, listing Old Lace would not be correct). "Main" felt like the best subsection of "Cast and characters" to place the info since Old Lace is considered a Runaway member in the comics. However, adding it under "Recurring" or "Guest" would also be acceptable in my opinion, simply as long as the content is listed under the level 2 "Cast and characters" heading. I don't feel it is quite accurate to include it in the "Production" section. Casting doesn't work in my eyes, because the issue of no actor attached becomes more apparent here, when all the other info in this section is about actors joining the project, and I don't feel any of the other subsections there currently would work, nor the need to create a single one just for this info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And to me, it is clear the cast section is meant for actors, as in humans, who appear in the credits, hence the reason there is so much guidance on listing entries there based on the series' credits as per MOS:TVCAST. No one is being credited for "playing" Old Lace—this is not a motion-capture performance like Andy Serkis in Lord of the Rings or Planet of the Apes. These sections, sometimes called "Cast" or sometimes called "Cast and characters", all share the same type of information:
  • [real person] as [fictional character]: [description]
or
  • [fictional character] ([real person]): [description]
The key point being: "real person". A visual/animatronic effect like Old Lace should be in the "Production" section. I don't have a preference on where... I'm guessing "Filming" would make the most sense, but Old Lace is not a cast member. Old Lace is VFX.
Also, would have been nice if, while we were discussing, you had left the status quo as it currently stood, as opposed to reaching into the past to find an edit that supported your interpretation. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But as formatted (without a bullet), that is not indicating that anyone is "playing" Old Lace in my opinion, and I think others will not think that as well or get that interpretation. And as I stated, if it is a matter of credits, I'd be fine moving the info out of the "Main" section, and to the bottom of "Recurring". Also, as to the WP:STATUSQUO, the version I linked was how the info initially was added to the article before its premiere. Then you edited the article to move the info elsewhere, which I took as "Bold". I believe I then reverted it, for you to undo my edit, (so "Revert") and we did that once more before I started this discussion. So the version I put the article to, is the STATUSQUO as it is the version before the disputed change (the moving of the info out of the "Cast and characters" section). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Favre that the Old Lace information should be placed in the "Cast and characters" section and not in any of the "Production" subsections as it doesn't fit in any of those per WP:TVPRODUCTION. Since the character has not appeared in series regular manner, I would put it at the bottom of "Recurring". - Brojam (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PRIDE stand for..

Peomoting Reslerce Independoe Dedication Excellence

I think as on the big check on one episde!--Brownshoes22 (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 201

Hi there friends. I was at New York Comic Con and saw the first episode of season 2. Here's some info if we want to put this on the article:

  • Director: Allison Liddi-Brown
  • Writers: Josh Schwartz & Stephanie Savage
  • All main cast members are still credited, with Julian McMahon being promoted to starring (and receiving last billing)

Won't discuss plot here, but will just note that the episode features DeVaughn Nixon as Darius Davis and Marlene Forte as Graciela Aguirre. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Runaways_(TV_series)&oldid=922259730"