Talk:Titans (2018 TV series)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Recurring cast status

Is there a guideline that specifies what constitutes a "recurring" cast member? I think we need to cement that in order to avoid a lot more back-and-forth edits. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Recurring character. - Spanneraol (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hah, I meant wiki-guidelines, Spanneraol. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

From MOS:TVPLOT -- 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. The key term there is probably "recurring story arc" by which measure Dr Light should already be listed as recurring. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

When we were editing the series Why Women Kill, YoungForever informed me that what constitutes a "recurring" cast member is typically a guest star appearing in at least four episodes. An exception may be made if there is a reliable source identifying the guest star as "recurring", but we've generally followed the four episode minimum in specifying who belongs in "recurring" and who belongs in "guest". This is seen with Lindsey Gort, Iain Glen, Robbie Jones, and Michael Mosley, who appear in "guest" because they've all made only two appearances so far, although I am not opposed to moving Mosley to "recurring" because I have seen sources refer to him as such. Bluerules (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

When we "generally" do a certain thing, it eventually becomes "typical", but that observation seems to fly in the face of WP:OSE. Its a shame that YoungForever can't weigh in on this discussion, as there are two very reasonable interpretations on how we as editors should look at whether a character is recurring or not. To my reckoning, a character that appears more than once (and not a main cast member) is recurrent (as per the definition of the word). Anyone knowing the comic book source of these episodes knows that Doctor Light is not considered a regular villain of the Titans, but Deathstroke certainly is. But then, that's just my take on it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Light is certainly considered a regular villain of the Titans, appearing multiple times during the Wolfman/Perez run, both solo and as a member of the Fearsome Five. Spanneraol (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I get both sides of the conversation; on one hand, anyone credited as a guest who appears in more than one episode is technically "recurring" and we shouldn't use "general" and "typical" actions as the sole basis for our edits. On the other hand, we don't want the "recurring" section bloated with too many minor characters, which helped lead to the four episode minimum consensus. Ultimately, I've found three factors to take into consideration when separating the "recurring" from the "guest": the number of episode appearances, having a "recurring" story arc (per the definition helpfully provided, which factors into a character's prominence), and any sources that identify a cast member as "recurring". Seamus Dever is example of the second because he's just under the four episode minimum (his episode count is three), but he has a recurring story arc that's central to the plot of the first season. I moved Mosley to "recurring" with the reference factor in mind; there are sources that specifically say he is "recurring".

I feel the best approach would be to add any guest stars who appear in at least four episodes or have a reliable source identifying them as "recurring" automatically to the section because those factors are easily verifiable. For the "recurring story arc"/prominence factor, we would determine if the guest star is important enough to belong in "recurring" through consensus. I noticed there was a similar conversation with The Boys over whether Alex Hassell belonged in "recurring" or "guest". Bluerules (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

In a separate but related issue.. not every single actor that appears on the show needs to be listed in the guest star category. The social worker that managed Dick's adoption??? The imaginary kid of Dick and Dawn? Did he even have any lines? Spanneraol (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I included the social worker who manages Dick's adoption into the guest star category because Cara Ricketts received her own "guest starring" title credit. I'd understand excluding her if she was one of the "co-stars" whose names appear in a list near the end of the credits, but she was deemed prominent enough for her name to appear by itself. I didn't add the imaginary kid of Dick and Dawn, who is listed as a "co-star", but he did have lines and I assume he was included because he's mentioned in a summary. Naturally, it's probable that the guest star category will become too long; the best solution to alleviate this problem is to give each season its own article and move the guest stars to the article of the season they appear in. That'll allow us to keep all the guest stars who warrant inclusion without bloating the cast section. Bluerules (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we are quite swiftly approaching the topic of whether to create a list article of recurring and guest characters in the series. Just a look at the main article here suggests that it might be a good move to do so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

With other series in mind (including other superhero series), I believe the best course of action would be to create articles for each season, which we would move the guest cast and the episode summaries to. Like the guest cast, the episode summaries are bound to bloat the article if we keep all of them here, especially if there are more seasons. Bluerules (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I think spinning off the cast list makes more sense as all those other series have stand alone character lists and keep the main page to just the main cast. Spanneraol (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The keyword there is "character", which isn't the same as "cast". To elaborate, "character" places emphasis on the fictional individuals while "cast" emphasizes the real world individuals. So we wouldn't be spinning off the cast list by creating a standalone character list. All of those other series also have articles for each individual season and that's where the list of non-starring cast members goes. We can make a character list too, but cast lists belong on the main article and the season articles. I do support keeping the main page to just the main cast, however. Bluerules (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Main cast order

What are the guidelines for where to place a main cast member who is added to the credits within a season instead of being there from the start? Chelsea Zhang, added to the main cast for the second season, is currently placed last because her name did not appear in the credits until the second episode of season two. However, when Zhang does appear in the credits, she is billed higher than Minka Kelly, Alan Ritchson, and Esai Morales, all of whom were also added to the main cast in the second season. Do we put Zhang beneath these three cast members because she was identified as a main cast member after they were? Or does Zhang belong above them because that is the intended order for the season and Kelly, Ritchson, and Morales are not main cast members from a prior season? I've seen other series articles follow the latter, such as Doom Patrol with Jovian Wade, The Exorcist with Zuleikha Robinson, and Too Old to Die Young with Cristina Rodlo - all are placed above cast members who appeared in the credits before them. Bluerules (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we use the order that the showrunners intended, which is to list them as they appear in the opening credits. That appears to represent how it is done in other tv articles. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Concurred, I have moved Zhang accordingly. Bluerules (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

No, they are added to the end of the list per MOS:TVCAST. The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. (Also read the hatnote included at the end of that sentence in TVCAST; it's too long to copy here.) That is, the cast are listed as they were first credited in 1x01, then any cast that are added to the primary cast in later episodes (e.g. Kelly, Ritchson, and Morales first being credited in 2x01) are added to the end of the list, and it continues thus: any cast that are added to the primary cast in later episodes (e.g. Zhang first being credited in 2x02) are again added to the end of the list. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing the guidelines, the key factor appears to be "the original broadcast credits", which does support putting Zhang last. While I think a case could be made for Kelly, Ritchson, and Morales also being "new cast members", the aforementioned fact that Zhang was a later addition to the credits is in-line with that guideline. But at the same time, I'm not certain if that's the best approach when it's the showrunners' intent to have Zhang above them.

Respectfully, I think our approach here is not going to work. Take a look at our FA exemplars for tv shows. Almost all of them arrange the cast sections that avoid the in-universe trap that we (imo) are falling into. The main cast is described in prose about the actor's approach to the character (or background into their casting, etc.); recurring or guest characters are split off into their own articles. I think we should do that here. I have no idea how long the actors are contracted to be in these roles (ie. the STNG main cast had 7-8 year contracts, dependent mostly upon the series' success ); we should approach this as if it will last just as long. If it doesn't, the article will pretty much contract on its own over time. We have two seasons; its enough incentive to work to prepare the article for GA and eventually FA status.

Otherwise, what are we doing here? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I do hope this series continues for many years yet, and we'll expand the article as it does, improving towards GA and FA... But we just need to ask one question that debunks listing her first: was she listed before the other three in 2x01? The answer is no. Examples that follow this as Young Sheldon (Annie Potts is credited before a number of the cast, but she was not first credited until 1x03, hence her being listed last), and Once Upon a Time (season 7) (same case; Mekia Cox is is credited before a number of the cast, but she was not first credited until after 7x01, hence her being listed last). This is how TVCAST has worked both before and after its March 2017 mass update. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The nature of this wiki with its numerous editors is naturally going to result in conflicting examples for matters like this; I checked to see which format was used for the Game of Thrones season articles and they go with the former. For example, Aidan Gillen is placed last in season one because he wasn't credited until 1x03, even though Peter Dinklage was last in the credits (courtesy of receiving the "and" attribute). So I don't know what's more common, but I understand why the guidelines dictate putting Zhang at the end. This is one of those issues where both sides have a strong case to be made; on one hand, the showrunners intended to have Zhang above Kelly, Ritchson, and Morales. On the other hand, it's easier to just add the new additions at the end because trying to follow an intended order could lead to confusion and debate over what really was intended, especially if all the main cast members aren't credited in the same episode. I think this is a matter that warrants discussion at TVCAST because it's not clear-cut over which approach works better. Bluerules (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

If yiu initiate such a discussion at TVCAST, could you link it here? I think folks might want to migrate to the discussion there instead of seeking consensus on/in two different forums. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Will do. I'll probably start a discussion after the season ends so we know everybody who's in the main cast first. Bluerules (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

MOS:TVCAST has been discussed, developed, and tweaked in intricate detail, and the instruction for new cast members being added to the end of the list was, like most other elements of the guideline, a compromise by "opposing factions" as a means to end edit-warring over format issues. Zhang belongs at the end. Constantly reordering cast lists based on actors coming, going, and moving around in the credits is an exercise in futility that keeps articles unnecessarily unstable. Eventually we may have season articles for this series, and the cast can be reordered in each season as appropriate then.— TAnthony^Talk 23:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

This was just one discussion that went into updating Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television, specifically MOS:TVCAST. The rest of the 2016 update discussions are listed here. We really don't need to reopen these things every time one of us gets fussy about format.— TAnthony^Talk 23:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

"We really don't need to reopen these things every time one of us gets fussy about format" That's kind of a bad faith way to look at it, TAnthony. I think people are presenting legitimate issues, and classifying them as 'being fussy' is denigrating, right? Be nice. And (as I am sure you know) Consensus Can Change through - in part - discussions just like this.

I truly understand what you are saying, but when you talk down about people's dissenting views, it only increases the sound to noise ratio. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I get that this has already been the subject of much discussion, but I haven't seen what was previously discussed regarding the issue I've brought up, let alone if there was any discussion about where to place the leads who are added to the credits within a season. If what I've presented for changing the guidelines has already been addressed, then that would be the end of it. But if it hasn't, I've found that this is a legitimate matter that should at least be discussed. When a main cast member added to the credits within a season is placed higher than other leads who became part of the main cast in the same season, it would appear the showrunners intend to have the former billed higher. Thus, a case could be made that it's more accurate to have the former placed higher. Here, a case could be made that it's more accurate to have Zhang above Kelly, Ritchson, and Morales with the showrunners' intent in mind.

Like I said, I understand the case for putting new additions always at the end. I understand that approach is easier and helps prevent confusion and debate and I wouldn't argue against a consensus in maintaining this approach. But again, I believe there is a case for considering the intended order because that appears to be more accurate. At the very least, we should consider what order to use for season articles if they're created. Looking at other season articles, it appears that Zhang would still be last on a season 2 article under the current guidelines - Game of Thrones' season 1 article, like I noted, puts Aidan Gillen last because he was added to the credits last, even though Peter Dinklage was intended to be last. There's also the season 4 article of Fear the Walking Dead where Jenna Elfman is last because she was also the last addition, but she was billed above Lennie James in the first half of the season after she was added (James received top billing in the second half). One potential solution could be to have Zhang last in the main article, but work on the guidelines for season articles and have her above Kelly, Ritchson, and Morales in the season 2 article if it's made. Bluerules (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I am just as "fussy" and OCD as anyone about this stuff, so please take no offense, but over the years I've also gotten a little tired of the constant back and forth over things like precise cast order that are not super important in the grand scheme of things, especially if they require updating every few weeks. With the reasoning When a main cast member added to the credits within a season is placed higher than other leads who became part of the main cast in the same season, it would appear the showrunners intend to have the former billed higher, you are literally suggesting that we interpret showrunner intent and the terms of contracts (which often actually dictate placement). A cast list is not the kind of thing that should need extensive analysis to construct. Is it really that important that Zhang be moved up to match the latest credits? If so, are you going to suggest we remove cast members altogether when they are not credited, or leave the show? I don't really get the "more accurate" argument here; what you're actually intending is to "match the latest credits", which makes us a slave to the series rather than presenting info our own way under our own MOS, as we have always done. It seems very trivial to me to concern ourselves too much with minutae like this, and honestly it does look fussy to editors who do not edit pop culture articles as much as we do. Perhaps the current "new people last" guideline isn't perfect in all cases, but making exceptions for specific articles, if that's what you're suggesting, just muddies the water. If you intend to reopen discussion to change the guideline, that's fine, but this doesn't seem to me like a good reason to. I'm not sure how you can say there's a question about where to place the leads who are added to the credits within a season when the guideline already says that new cast members are added at the end.— TAnthony^Talk 15:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

To help put this into perspective, let me present the example of Outlander. After four seasons, it has a large main cast, but the nature of the show is that many of the actors/characters come and go and come back. The "main cast" as dictated by who is in the opening credits is practically a revolving door. Many roles we would otherwise consider recurring are listed in the opening credits. A character may be introduced in a later season, placed ahead of older characters in the credits, but then another character will return (for a few episodes) and be credited above this newer one. Or the returning actor will be credited among several people that were not on the show when the actor was previously credited, so there is no basis for comparison. There are also one-offs who were listed in the opening credits. Trying to keep the cast list for this show "accurate" by the above definition would literally require that the list be reordered every other week. And probably create turmoil as editors hashed out who comes before who in the more complicated situations. And to what end?— TAnthony^Talk 16:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

While I don't think we're "slaves" to the series, we serve the external sourcing, which includes the showrunners' intent. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be etched in stone; there is always going to be flux - and sometimes dramatic flux at that. Change is part of the Wiki-editing deal. I think that aiming for stability is good, and the zen approach is to use an editing position that allows for this change without upsetting the article overmuch.

TL;DR: I think we should early-adopt the concept of a table that notes their appearance and departure from the series. A table is a formatting that is easy to break for newer and less-sophisticated users, but in the long run will provide us a more robust article. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Cast tables are fine and can be helpful, but I'm not sure how that would sort out ordering issues. To refer back to Outlander, David Berry debuted as Lord John Grey in season 3, and was listed in the opening credits for the four episodes in which he appeared (not all consecutive). He returned in season 4 for three episodes, not all consecutive, and was listed in the opening credits. A table would make the seasons clear, but I have no idea how you would decide where to place him in the table considering other main characters have come and gone before, between, and after his appearances.— TAnthony^Talk 17:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Start out with the sorting they use for Babylon 5. O'Hare was part of the main cast, until his personal issues had him withdraw from the series except for a few guest appearances after that. Imo, its an elegant decision until the cast list stabilizes somewhat. At that point, a table would be a good option. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I just looked at Babylon 5#Regular cast and I'm not sure I get the methodology. Tracy Scoggins was apparently introduced in season 5 but is listed before several people who appeared in previous seasons, or all seasons. I'm assuming the placement is based on the season 5 credits? I don't know if this format predated MOS:TVCAST or not, but why are we making things so complicated? The current "new at the end" guideline is adequate, not misleading, and eliminates the need for interpretation or complicated methodology. This entire discussion proves that we need the guideline because we all have our own opinions about the placement of Zhang. Do we want to be opening another discussion like this for every new contract actor on every show? I honestly don't really care where Zhang is placed, I just care that we are creating chaos (and subverting our own guidelines) over something as trivial as cast order. And on a side note, the concept of "showrunner intent" is subjective and interpretive on our part, and I disagree that it is somehow akin to a reliable external source in this context. Who says that the credits for a particular episode reflect the show's intended, official order of importance or prominence or whatever? We have no way of knowing the myriad factors that went into it, be it contractual requirements or producer choice or whatever else. But even if we did, does it matter so much that we should be discussing and reordering the lists every week?— TAnthony^Talk 18:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It appears what's being overlooked here is the reason why I have suggested moving Zhang. That reason being she became a main cast member in the second season and is billed above fellow new additions to the main cast this same season. I'm not saying we move Zhang to "match the latest credits". Nor have I advocated for removing anyone who isn't credited or leaves the main cast. We order the main cast by how they're first billed and we put those added in later seasons below those added earlier. Nothing I'm saying is proposing that we stop placing those from later seasons at the end. Again, this is not about "matching the latest credits". As you may have noticed, Kelly and Ritchson alternate in the credits each episode, as do Curran Walters and Conor Leslie, but I haven't proposed any changes because of that. If Zhang was added in the third season, then I'd fully concur that she belongs beneath Kelly, Ritchson, and Morales, even if she was billed above them. Colman Domingo was billed fifth in the second season of Fear the Walking Dead, but he's correctly placed below those he was billed higher than in the article because he joined the main cast in the second season and they joined in the first. The issue here stems from the fact that Zhang, Kelly, Ritchson, and Morales all joined in the same season. It's not clear what defines "new cast members" and a case could be made that Zhang, Kelly, Ritchson, and Morales all fall under this definition because they are all new additions to the same season. Zhang wouldn't be moved up "to match the latest credits", but because she is always billed higher than these three fellow season 2 leads.

Going back to the basics, we first place season 1 leads in the order they were first billed in. That becomes immovable - we continue to present info our own way under our own MOS instead of becoming "a slave to the series". Then we place season 2 leads in the order they were first billed in after season 1 leads and continue that process. In other words, the season 1 leads remain static as the season 2 leads are added in their billing order. But herein lies the question - what is the correct order for the season 2 leads? Is it accurate to have Zhang last because she appeared later? Or is it accurate to have her above Kelly, Ritchson, and Morales because she's billed higher than them when she does appear? Showrunner intent or terms of contracts, it's a clear-cut fact that Zhang receives higher billing and Kelly, Ritchson, and Morales are intended to be at the end because of the attributes they receive ("with", "and", "special appearance by"). With all due respect, you have misinterpreted why I am suggesting a re-order. My focus is on a single season, not the entire series. It is about determining what the correct order is for those who became leads in the same season and once it is determined, it becomes static. Again, the reason for re-opening this discussion is because "new cast members" doesn't have a clear definition - Kelly, Ritchson, and Morales are also "new".
Above all else, my objective on this discussion page is to have a discussion about potential improvements. It may be a trivial and minutiae thing, but we should still make these articles the best they can be, regardless of how minor the issues are. And I don't think it's an important thing to have Zhang moved up either. What I am seeking is to make certain her placement is the correct one and I've continually stated I am not opposed to a consensus supporting her current placement. I even suggested keeping her in her current place for the main article, but having her higher in a season 2 article. However, I am not opposed to moving her above Kelly, Ritchson, and Morales in the main article either. If a change in the guidelines was made, it would apply to all series articles, not be utilized as an exception for specific articles. As seen with the articles I cited at the beginning, there is a disagreement over how this issue is handled, even editors are not aware of it. The "end" of determining where we place leads added during a season will end any potential disputes, ensure accuracy, and make articles the best they can be. Bluerules (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying regarding Zhang. All I can tell you is that in practice, MOS:TVCAST has generally been executed by adding performers to the list as they appear, in this case Kelly/Ritchson before Zhang, with no updates based on subsequent credit layouts. I totally get what you're saying though, it's just that I think we're giving a little too much weight to the nuances of credits, which can be inconsistent. If Zhang, Kelly, Ritchson, or Morales do not appear in an upcoming episode and are not credited, does that have an effect? As far as the articles with formats that don't follow MOS:TVCAST, I obviously can't say if they predated the guideline, were changed and no one tried to enforce the guideline, or there was an article-specific discussion that established it. Whether the guideline is ultimately updated or not, I really think we should be consistent across all articles in the Project, otherwise we create situations like this where existing articles that diverge from the guideline are used to justify further digressions from the guideline.— TAnthony^Talk 21:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I just realized I didn't address the wrinkle that probably prompted this, namely that Kelly and Ritchson were in season 1 but credited as guest stars. But although they only moved up in season 2, they did appear in episode 1 and Zhang came in episode 2. If we are following the guideline, I believe that fact trumps Zhang's placement before them in ep 2. I mean, if Drew Van Acker or Josh Orpin are credited as main cast members before Zhang when they appear, would we place them above her in the list? It's a slippery slope.— TAnthony^Talk 21:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

A key reason for this discussion is I'm not certain which approach works better for the article. I feel that they both could work - putting Zhang higher is closer to the information provided by the series, but putting her lower prevents a can of worms from being opened. Here, I don't think it would have an effect if Zhang, Kelly, Ritchson, or Morales do not appear in an upcoming episode and are not credited because being already credited ensures they remain and it's already been established that Zhang is billed the highest when they all appear. In fact, Morales did not appear and was not credited for 2x02, but since the credits established that he's last, we would still place him last if we follow this approach. Any further additions to the main cast this season would added the same way as Zhang - although Van Acker already received guest credit (he had a split-second cameo in 2x03), Orpin would go above her if he's a main cast member who's billed above her. Nevertheless, there is a slippery slope present if try following this approach for this series - that being the aforementioned rotations that occur in the credits. It would not surprise me if Zhang and Orpin swap billing for each episode they appear in together. If that happens, then it's best to leave the guidelines as they are and keep Zhang last (and then Orpin if he's added) unless we can come up with a solution for how to factor in rotations.

I've always sought consistency myself, which is another reason why I brought this matter to the talk page; seeing those articles had me wondering what the correct format was and if we were to be consistent with the format they utilized. I can understand why the articles chose to order their respective main casts based on when they all appeared instead of based on when they first appeared, but the guidelines definitely support the latter. The real key component of the guidelines, which I noted earlier, is the mention of "the original broadcast credits" and since Zhang came afterwards, she belongs lower with that in mind. Ultimately, this is a low priority for me - I'm more focused on keeping the cast updated and writing the episode summaries - so even if I do end up pursuing this, it'll be after more pressing and important matters are addressed. Bluerules (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Has Kory Anders been called Starfire yet?

I don't recall hearing that name mentioned. Maybe Koriand'r, but even that i am not sure about. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe in the episode where they found her ship it was mentioned that her alien name translated as Starfire.. but I don't think anyone has actually called her that. Spanneraol (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Then why are we listing the character as Starfire? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

She should be just listed as Kory anders really as thats all they have called her. Spanneraol (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The only reference to Starfire (at least that I could find) is in episode 1x08 (Donna Troy) where Donna says, "It's definitely a mission statement for your friend Kory, who's referred to by name or as Night or Starfire." I could not find any other moments where the name was used, including in the ship episode (1x10 - Koriand'r); she is never directly called Starfire and never refers to herself as such in the released episodes. Bluerules (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think she has been referred as Starfire yet. I agree with Spanneraol, she should be just listed as Kory Anders for now. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Like I noted above, there is the one reference in episode 8, but that's it. That's also the only time Rachel is referred to as "Raven". I don't know if that's enough to warrant her being called "Starfire" in the article, especially when it's not clearly established that's her name. Bluerules (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Kory and Donna's superhero names had been used in the Shimmer article, and I've altered the text to reflect the result of this conversation. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem. In Donna's case, her superhero name has been clearly used, but its removal is warranted from the Shimmer article because she doesn't go by it during the present day events (including the Shimmer fight). If no one is opposed to it, I'll remove "Starfire" from this article. Bluerules (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Episode summaries prior to broadcast

As per this re-added edit, I am curious as to why we are adding edit summaries for episodes which have not been aired yet. I have no idea upon what the ep summary is based upon, but I do know that plot summaries are based upon consensus. If only one of the editors working the page have pirated the ep (or whatever), that prevents other editors from weighing in on the summary. I am not going to even get into the COPYVIO issues of airing a plot summary before broadcast.
Feedback? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI, it has been released on the DC Universe already by the time Bluerules wrote the episode summary. I don't understand why you keep saying it has't been released yet when it has already. DC Universe is a streaming service network. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Episodes apparently release at 6am the day of (Pacific), so this is likely not a case of someone obtaining the episode early. The DC Universe streaming service has now settled into a pattern, meaning viewers can expect each Titans season 2 episode to release online at 6 am PST/9 am EST on Fridays, beginning on September 6. from here. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Joeyconnick Well, that it isn't a shadily-obtained episode is a bit of a relief, but that still leaves us with a problem. Plot summaries need to be verified. How do we verify the plot summary without having the primary source available to verify? And why are we acting like there is a deadline? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean you don't have the primary source? Do you not have a DC Universe subscription? How else are you gonna access it anyway? Spanneraol (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Plot summary don't need to be verified as the episode has been released already and you need to put the summary in your own words. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

What Spanneraol said: everyone has as much access to it as anyone else. The episode is out. It's available to anyone with DC Universe. What is the issue here? —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Some people don't, Spanneraol. The point is, how does one edit a primary source that is only available behind a paywall? I mean, this is an easy enough issue to resolve with regular broadcast tv shows - before an air-date, we don't post plot summaries. When the air-date is behind a paywall, how do we verify the veracity or even existence of the plot until after it has been reviewed by secondary sources? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no issue here... being behind a paywall does not make a source unreliable or unverifiable. See WP:PAYWALL. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

If the primary source is behind a paywall, and plot summaries are molded by a consensus of editors, how can that occur if not all have access to the same source? It seems to turn into a pay-for-play issue. I mean, there aren't even secondary source reviews of the episode as of yet. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the same issue with every show airing on a streaming service, if you don't pay for it you don't have access. Doesn't mean that there aren't enough editors who do have access to form a consensus. Spanneraol (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not much different from cable exclusives, like HBO, and to a lesser extent theatrical releases. DonQuixote (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Seems kind of like pay-for-play to me, but the clear consensus is for inclusion of a plot summary before even secondary sources are presented in the form of reviews. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Well.. if you had looked.. there are reviews online already [1]. Spanneraol (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I had looked, Spanneraol; the OP posted the summary before a review was posted online. Now, there are plenty. I don't see why we're in such a hurry to beat the reviewers. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I also want to point out the DC Universe is the original/primary network of Titans. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep, that point was made, YoungForever. Thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight because I wrote the episode summary in question, I watched the episode this morning on DC Universe after it released, as I've done since the season began, and I attempt to write up the summaries as soon as possible. I wrote this episode summary earlier than I have in the past, so I assume that's where the confusion lies, but the episode had indeed been broadcast before I wrote it. I don't know exactly when the future summaries will be written, whether by me or another editor, but my plan is to get them in the day the episode broadcasts to ensure there's no missing information. My goal is to keep the article up to date, regardless of when the reviews are published, and the summaries as concise as possible. Bluerules (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, it is perfectly acceptable for a plot summary to be written immediately after a creative work is released, we have no restrictions in this regard, including spoiler-related issues. Film and TV episode information should be verifiable, but that is not the same as "freely accessible". If there's a reasonable possibility that the work can be viewed by multiple people (which is the case here), there is no issue. Are you suggesting that we cannot write plot summaries for old films and shows not available for streaming or on DVD, or new films with a limited theatrical release? The fact that episode has been publicly released is enough.— TAnthony^Talk 19:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)...And I have all the confidence that your plot summaries are on the nose, Bluerules; my initiation of this discussion was never about the content of the plot summary. My point was that when presented with a pay-to-play scenario, only those who can pay get to discuss the content of the episode. That seems unfair, as well as adding plot summaries before the majority of people - even subscribers behind the paywall - have even seen the episode. It feels like interference in the showrunner's intent. I understand that streaming services change the editing approach drastically; I just think that taking advantage feels..wrong. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand that the issue stems from the accessibility of the episode and when the summary was published; as I noted, the difference between this summary and my past ones is this was written earlier than the rest. There's definitely an unfairness to the scenario, but this same issue applies to any content that only those who can pay get to discuss, whether it be from HBO, Netflix, Amazon, Showtime, Starz, Epix, or another subscription service. The pay-to-play approach is how they stay in business. As editors, I feel we cannot delay adding information that's been officially released. That includes episodes of series that require a subscription to watch, regardless of who can discuss it and if the majority of people, including subscribers behind the paywall, have seen it. If the showrunners did not intend to have information released this early, they would not have released the episode when they did. We all know Wikipedia's policy towards spoilers; once something has been officially released, its content is fair game to be published here. I don't see it as taking advantage; I see it as making certain the article is properly updated. Bluerules (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I was reminded in another discussion that WP:SOURCEACCESS states Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange). — TAnthony^Talk 21:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we're all in agreement that a series being on a subscription channel/service doesn't warrant exclusions of episode summaries, so long as the episode has officially aired in some form. If the episode has not officially aired, then that will raise questions over the reliability of a summary being published, but as far as I've seen, that has yet to occur in this article. Bluerules (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Wintergreen in the cast list

I've just reverted out Demore Barnes' appearance as Wintergreen. How does Mr. Barnes appear in the opening or closing credits? We cannot simply count on our fingers how many times a person appears in the series before listing them. We follow the credits. Does he even appear in the opening credits? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The credits do not identify if a cast member is "recurring". Credits only separate the main cast from the guest cast. "Recurring" is simply an individual billed as a guest star who, as the term indicates, makes multiple appearances. So while we follow the credits for determining if a cast member is "main", separating the "recurring" from the "guest" is based on how many times a person appears in the series, in addition to reliable sources. In the case of Titans, there are no opening credits; the entire cast appears in the closing credits. There are three main identifiers to establish a cast member's status: "starring" for the regulars, "guest starring" for the prominent non-regulars, and "co-starring" for the minor non-regulars (and in the case of Iain Glen, he's credited as a "special guest star"). Barnes appears in the "guest starring" segment, as do other cast members listed in the "recurring" section - Rachel Nichols, Seamus Dever, Reed Birney, Michael Mosley, and Chella Man (Jeff Clarke, Melody Johnson, Jeni Ross, and Logan Thompson appear in the "co-starring" segment and Glen, as noted above, appears as a "special guest star").

Since cast members do not appear as "recurring" in the credits, we go by consensus in determining if those outside of the main cast belong in "recurring" or "guest". The general consensus is they are "recurring" instead of "guest" if they appear in at least four episodes or a reliable source identifies them as "recurring". Barnes is "recurring" because he has made recurring appearances and has met the minimum appearance requirement to be deemed as such in the article. Bluerules (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I've been watching, and I am not convinced that Barnes' character is key to the article, whereas Glen's is. Maybe I am overthinking it. I just think - with such a shifting//growing roster of cast members, we should opt to be conservative on who we add until new appearances slow down a bit. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Barnes has been in the article since the second season began, in part due to his character's importance to Deathstroke's story; my edit moved him from "guest" to "recurring" because of the multiple appearances he's made in the season and he's since returned to "guest". I think we should start drafting individual articles for each season, especially if a third season is confirmed, and move all the non-regular cast members to the articles of the respective seasons they appear in. That way, a reference exists for all the notable non-regulars while we also prevent the main article from becoming too long. In the interim, I don't see the article becoming too long with only two seasons, but we'll definitely need to start moving the non-regulars (and the episode summaries) if there's a third season. Bluerules (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)