247:", one could argue that 5 appearances doesn't inherently mean someone recurs on a show or that 15 appearances doesn't inherently mean someone recurs on a show. The paragraph suggests that the determination should be left open to the discretion of the editors of the article in question. Honestly, whether or not an actor or character recurs largely depends on context. How big was the role? How many episodes? What significance did they play? Were the appearances consecutive or nonconsecutive? A blanket policy of the three or more doesn't take that context into account and would seem to be a large reason as to why the paragraph was written the way that it was. –
279:
guidance while still being open enough to to take into account specific context that varies from series to series (such as season length, screen time, significance in plot, etc.) One need only look at the many, many articles about television series to note that the barometer at which recurring and guest cast and characters are judged varies from page to page. No, a reliable source is not found here but it isn't needed. A three-episode rule doesn't exist as it currently written and
191:
413:
policy. I was, however, debating what constitutes recurring and what currently supports one side or the other via
Knowledge policy or the Manual of Style. Basically, I was arguing that in the specific case of this article, the threshold had already been met. Either way, I have little interest in continuing the debate on my end for at least the short term future. –
412:
Like I said, I'd prefer to put a pin in this discussion but since my words have been brought up, I'll make one more comment. My statement, and my overall position, was not debating as to whether reliable sources are needed for future casting information. Of course that is the case and sound
Knowledge
368:
Though I am certain I could continue to debate here and argue my point as I've elaborated upon above, in the interest of moving on to other editing tasks on
Knowledge tonight and due to my exhaustion on this subject for today, I think I will go ahead and take the suggestion of comprise as stated
330:
has always been that 2 episodes is almost never enough to qualify for "recurring" status, and even 3 episodes often doesn't cut it... A possible compromise is to put those that only appear twice or thrice in a 'Guest' section in the meantime, though some of us despise 'Guest' sections and think
278:
As it is currently written, the MOS does not explicitly state a threshold for a specific number of episodes needed to classify a cast member or character as recurring. Furthermore, the word "never" is not used at all. Rather, as I've stated above, the wording has been left vague as to provide
242:
say that three episodes is some sort of threshold for being considered recurring as has been suggested. That sentence is very much open to interpretation. In the way it currently is written, with the inclusion of the phrase
283:
covers the the full breadth of the section. A further discussion can be held here as to how one wants to classify the cast and characters in this specific article but it needs to be made clear as to what MOS:TV does, and
237:
would seem to suggest a consensus between those editors whom edit the article in question. Furthermore, the sentence you've cited above says "in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes". It does
153:
232:
Right. But you also left out the following sentence: "If reliable sources cannot adequately distinguish between recurring or guest roles, then local consensus should determine their status." The phrase
373:
and move the character in question back to the guest sub-section for the time being. I hope that this will settle the issue as it relates to this article, for now at least. –
216:, "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." —
147:
79:
323:
265:, appearing in only 2 episode is almost never recurring. Where is the reliable source say that he is set to recur? IMDb is not a reliable source. —
85:
44:
331:
they're generally inappropriate. But if you can secondary source someone, then they can probably go in a 'Guest' section for now. --
99:
30:
104:
20:
168:
135:
74:
443:
337:
198:
65:
392:
129:
109:
125:
405:
361:
308:
271:
222:
175:
161:
55:
400:
356:
303:
266:
217:
70:
418:
396:
378:
293:
280:
252:
51:
370:
341:
141:
437:
24:
414:
374:
352:
327:
289:
248:
332:
302:
I am waiting for other editors to join this discussion to reach a consensus. —
262:
213:
422:
407:
382:
363:
346:
310:
297:
273:
256:
224:
324:
Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Television#Guest stars and recurring
261:
Again, the character has only appeared in 2 episodes. According to
184:
15:
389:
No, a reliable source is not found here but it isn't needed.
160:
395:. Again, IMDb is not a reliable source on Knowledge.
197:This article has not yet been rated on Knowledge's
399:does not apply because it has not happen yet. —
355:I am referring to the WikiProject Television. —
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
174:
8:
190:
188:
388:
7:
23:for discussing improvements to the
14:
189:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1:
42:Put new text under old text.
423:06:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
408:05:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
383:00:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
364:00:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
347:23:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
311:23:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
298:23:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
274:23:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
257:21:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
225:21:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
326:– the general consensus in
322:See related discussion at:
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
460:
208:Guest stars and recurring
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
75:avoid personal attacks
100:Neutral point of view
105:No original research
444:Unassessed articles
199:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
393:WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL
391:is wrong because
345:
205:
204:
183:
182:
66:Assume good faith
43:
451:
335:
194:
193:
192:
185:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
459:
458:
454:
453:
452:
450:
449:
448:
434:
433:
235:local consensus
210:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
457:
455:
447:
446:
436:
435:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
300:
209:
206:
203:
202:
195:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
456:
445:
442:
441:
439:
424:
420:
416:
411:
410:
409:
406:
404:
403:
398:
394:
390:
387:Furthermore,
386:
385:
384:
380:
376:
372:
367:
366:
365:
362:
360:
359:
354:
351:
350:
349:
348:
343:
339:
334:
329:
325:
312:
309:
307:
306:
301:
299:
295:
291:
287:
282:
277:
276:
275:
272:
270:
269:
264:
260:
259:
258:
254:
250:
246:
241:
236:
231:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
223:
221:
220:
215:
207:
200:
196:
187:
186:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
25:Queen America
22:
18:
17:
401:
357:
321:
304:
285:
267:
244:
239:
234:
218:
211:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
288:, state. –
148:free images
31:not a forum
397:WP:Primary
369:above and
281:WP:Primary
263:MOS:TVCAST
214:MOS:TVCAST
371:WP:BEBOLD
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
438:Category
338:contribs
286:does not
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
415:BoogerD
402:Lbtocth
375:BoogerD
358:Lbtocth
353:BoogerD
305:Lbtocth
290:BoogerD
268:Lbtocth
249:BoogerD
245:or more
219:Lbtocth
154:WP refs
142:scholar
333:IJBall
201:scale.
126:Google
328:WP:TV
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
419:talk
379:talk
342:talk
294:talk
253:talk
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
240:not
212:On
176:TWL
440::
421:)
381:)
340:•
296:)
255:)
156:)
54:;
417:(
377:(
344:)
336:(
292:(
251:(
243:"
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.