Talk:Firefly Lane

Special guest star vs. guest star

First of all, Martin Donovan is credited as a Special guest star. He isn't credited with the regular guest stars. A simple "Guest star" or "Guest starring" labeled as a subsection would open doors to editors adding anyone who isn't recurring or starring cast to the subsection. This is not appropriate as the regular guest stars (not recurring) list is long. — YoungForever^(talk) 05:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support listing as 'Special guest star' at the article – this is an actual crediting difference, and there's no substantive reason to not just follow the crediting in this case. No opinion on a separate 'Notable guest stars' section. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support: I think that keeping the heading as Special guest star makes sense and the distinction that the section is not for all guest stars makes sense, reducing chances that a passing editor will add additional less notable appearances. The only explanation I have read for removing it here was: the term is Netflix "marketing spiel" which I don't think holds up. Terasail^[✉] 14:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Somewhat support: Except label it as "Notable guest" or "Notable guests". Quoting another editor at WT:TV: A special appearance by, is a special guest, is a special guest star, is a guest. Anything that isn't a main casting is a guest. It's all guest, irrelevant of the marketing techniques. We don't need the peacock-worded heading. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Except that's wrong (and doesn't have consensus support in WP:TV either) – it's a specific crediting. In fact, the distinction between "special guest" and "guest" is actually greater and more substantive that between "recurring" and "guest" – the former is an actual crediting difference, while the latter is just a circumstantial difference based on number of appearances. IOW, the latter is actually more "arbitrary" than the former. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

    A guest is a guest is a guest. Marketing terms are irrelevant on an encyclopedia. In fact, the idea that we use "recurring" is the more arbitrary term, given that there's either main cast or guest cast; we've given our own definition as to what is "recurring". -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly – rather than actually following the crediting as established by production and showrunners (and it's not a "marketing term" – do you even know what "marketing" is?!), we're substituting our own editors' "definitions" and ideas of "what's important" over the people who produce the work. That's actually anti-encyclopedic. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I get that they're "special". But that has no relevance here. But thank you for your opinion. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You could argue that executive producer is a producer. Is executive producer that same as producer? No, executive producer is not same as a producer. Special guest star is not the same as a regular guest star just like starring is not the same a guest starring and recurring. With that being said, I strongly oppose just "Guest starring" or "Guest stars". "Notable guests" or "Notable guest" are better than just "Guest starring" or "Guest stars". I do think the best is go with according to credits, " Special guest star". I don't believe "Special guest star" is a marketing term as it is not even on any promos. On-screen credits are not even for marketing. Promos are for marketing. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, another point that shreds this argument – we already use guest cast crediting in terms of deciding appropriate content for our TV series articles. What I mean by this is that some series have guest cast "crediting levels" – "guest starring", "co-starring" and "featuring" – and we only list people under 'Notable guest stars' who are at the "guest starring" crediting level ("co-starring" and "featuring" are too minor – esp. the latter which is only one step up from "extra"). So this "any guest star is just a guest star is just a guest star" argument is flat out wrong, as we already make content decisions based on guest cast crediting level. And if that's the case, clearly the difference between "guest star" and "special guest star" actually matters, and is not some "trivial distinction", just as the difference between "guest starring" and "co-starring" isn't "trivial" either. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Notable guests heading should be used. That way, you are highlighting, well, the "notable" guests, be it Donovan, or anyone else who is simply a guest and isn't recurring. And that will cut down on every guest listed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • But Donovan is not credited as a "regular guest star" – he is specifically credited as a "special guest star". IOW, he's not a regular guest star. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

    So, the only difference is the term "special"? -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a contractual difference – "special guest star" means either the actor negotiated the special crediting, or the production people decided that a "special" crediting was warranted for some reason. It's not some "trivial" distinction – it has both real world, and often in-universe, ramifications. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per OP. Amaury • 02:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

"Firefly Lane (upcoming TV series)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Firefly Lane (upcoming TV series) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#Firefly Lane (upcoming TV series) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)