separate "Also starring" credits

Honestly, I don't know.

The folks most people think of as the main cast of Star Trek, the show lists most of them as "Featured"

David McCallum and Leo G Carroll are both in the opening credits of Man From UNCLE, but they are listed as Co-Stars.

"Co-Star" was used at the end of credits as well to indicate guest star roles, but the term "Guest Star" wasn't really used much until more into the 1970s.

"With" and "And" also added emphasis to those actors and roles.

Like I said it's messy, and usually only makes sense to the people writing the contracts. :-)

For modern shows (say anything after 1980) the crediting is more like what we would expect. The Main Cast is listed in an opening credits roll, any guest stars are listed after the opening, and smaller guest roles are listed in the end roll credits. Even with the trend toward a splash screen open, there is still a separation of the main cast credits from the guest cast, either a distinct "Guest starring" break or you have the Main Cast credits, a "Created By" credit and then the bigger guest cast credits. I think our current policy deals with those shows just fine.

For shows pre-1980, they may have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis and information added to the edit wiki as to why the cast is listed like it is. (I guarantee there will be mass confusion if Doohan, Koenig, Nichols, and Takei are suddenly listed as guest cast, for example)

The caveat here, is I'm most familiar with how US shows work and I have an inkling on how the UK credits its actors. Beyond that, I have no idea if this is consistent for other countries.

I understand what you're saying with the co-star thing for 60s stuff. Although the ones that are typically referenced as show stars are the ones that have the credits in the opening titles _with_ the show stars (like for Man from UNCLE, noted above). Star Trek didn't roll that way, as I think the example above shows. DTNW weren't listed as guest stars in the opening credits. They weren't listed as co-stars even at the top of the end credits. They weren't listed as Featured at least in some of the episodes (including the third season one above). DTNW were buried deep in the end guest credits, mixed in with the other guest stars and co-stars. And at least sometimes with nothing to differentiate other than font size from each otherat the same "level." If "level" is even relevant.

For instead, Takei has at least as much to do in "That Which Survives" as Batanides. But Takei gets the smaller-print crediting. Why? Who knows? Better agent, I guess. Although it's not like Batanides was some giant of the small screen. ;)

I also think that's part of why Jonathan Harris is a show star even though he's credited as a Special Guest Star. Not only was he in every episode, but he's listed in the same font size and in the same opening credits as the "real" show stars. Really, he was a "Special Star: Harris seemed to think so, judging from his interviews then and now. :) But since there is no such SAG listing as Special Star, I guess they made him Special Guest Star.

I guess that's why I'd disqualify DTNW as "show stars" for Trek. They're listed differently than Shatner/Nimoy/Kelley. Smaller roles, end credits instead of opening credits, different font, smaller font, mixed in with "real" guest and co-stars. I don't know of any other American show (60s or otherwise :) ) that treats supposed "main stars" that way: why start with Trek?

Trek was just an example of how messy crediting is/was.

The difference is likely down to contract wording, Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley had a contract for the season (specifics as to work hours, residuals, time off, other considerations such as director/producer/writer, exclusivity and such) Doohan, Nichols, Koenig, and Takei may have had anything from similar contracts just differences in work hours, to an episode by episode contract. My point wasn't to get stuck on this, my point was the 1960s had a much different way of casting its shows and how those roles were credited than folks are used to today. (And I was looking at season 2 episodes to get that "Featured" credit)

I can think of several shows, mostly westerns, where the actors/characters fans and users of the site would consider main cast are listed much differently in the show's credits. Doctor Who is famous for it even though that's the UK.

It seems to me you could eliminate all of this incessant confusion/arguing by simply eliminating the distinctions of Main Cast, Guest Cast, Co-Stars, Featuring, etc. Simply list the actors who appeared in an episode and the character they played on a single page. Wouldn't this eliminate the problems that result from crediting standards from different eras and countries?

Does it really matter whether someone was main cast or guest star? It doesn't to me, all I care is whether they were in that episode. Or I might want to know what actor was playing the role of "x".

Of course I realize that changing the coding at this point would probably be a nightmare, but food for thought.

LadyShelley wrote:
Trek was just an example of how messy crediting is/was.

The difference is likely down to contract wording, Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley had a contract for the season (specifics as to work hours, residuals, time off, other considerations such as director/producer/writer, exclusivity and such) Doohan, Nichols, Koenig, and Takei may have had anything from similar contracts just differences in work hours, to an episode by episode contract. My point wasn't to get stuck on this, my point was the 1960s had a much different way of casting its shows and how those roles were credited than folks are used to today. (And I was looking at season 2 episodes to get that "Featured" credit)

I can think of several shows, mostly westerns, where the actors/characters fans and users of the site would consider main cast are listed much differently in the show's credits. Doctor Who is famous for it even though that's the UK.

Yep, I mentioned the 2nd season credits in the Doohan et al threat elsewhere.

The problem is, that Doohan and the others are listed as Featuring along with about six other guest stars. i could see Featuring being significant if they were listed on their own screen with the Featuring credit. But they're not. They're just lumped in with the guest stars.

See the 9-10 second mark below to see what I mean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXPW5QV4Ymw

If Doohan and Nichols are listed as show stars, then should Pataki and Reimers? They're all on the same page, and they're all listed as Featuring. If they're not, then the determination seems to be based on something other than them just being listed as Feature.

pentar wrote:
It seems to me you could eliminate all of this incessant confusion/arguing by simply eliminating the distinctions of Main Cast, Guest Cast, Co-Stars, Featuring, etc. Simply list the actors who appeared in an episode and the character they played on a single page. Wouldn't this eliminate the problems that result from crediting standards from different eras and countries?

Does it really matter whether someone was main cast or guest star? It doesn't to me, all I care is whether they were in that episode. Or I might want to know what actor was playing the role of "x".

Of course I realize that changing the coding at this point would probably be a nightmare, but food for thought.

IMDB seems to get along fine without making the distinctions. I'd have no objection to doing so at TVMaze, but I imagine quite a few site users would.

That said, I think the main cast listing does show who are the "important" actors/characters, and some users want to know that. It's a poor/inaccurate tool, but it's the only one available.

Gadfly wrote:
IMDB seems to get along fine without making the distinctions. I'd have no objection to doing so at TVMaze, but I imagine quite a few site users would.

That said, I think the main cast listing does show who are the "important" actors/characters, and some users want to know that. It's a poor/inaccurate tool, but it's the only one available.

Maybe something should be written about this, e.g. in policy, so the people wouldn't be confused. The separation between main and guest cast have nothing to do with the importance of a character or his part in episode plot, but rather how the actor is credited in the particular episode, pure and simple.

tnt wrote:
Maybe something should be written about this, e.g. in policy, so the people wouldn't be confused. The separation between main and guest cast have nothing to do with the importance of a character or his part in episode plot, but rather how the actor is credited in the particular episode, pure and simple.

This is absolutely correct.

tnt wrote:
Maybe something should be written about this, e.g. in policy, so the people wouldn't be confused. The separation between main and guest cast have nothing to do with the importance of a character or his part in episode plot, but rather how the actor is credited in the particular episode, pure and simple.

And as I mentioned above, for modern shows, this shouldn't be a problem, ever. The issue is with older shows (usually pre1980) where the *Hiring* practices were different. Most shows in the 1960s through about the mid 1970s, had regular characters on a monthly or episode by episode contract to save money (and thus different crediting as well) Would not these characters be considered "Show/Series Regular" that is listed under Main Cast in our data policies?

This is why I said we may have to look at these older show on a case-by-case basis and make a determination as to how actors should be credited, then note in the edit wiki why it is the way it is for future editors.

LadyShelley wrote:
And as I mentioned above, for modern shows, this shouldn't be a problem, ever. The issue is with older shows (usually pre1980) where the *Hiring* practices were different. Most shows in the 1960s through about the mid 1970s, had regular characters on a monthly or episode by episode contract to save money (and thus different crediting as well) Would not these characters be considered "Show/Series Regular" that is listed under Main Cast in our data policies?

This is why I said we may have to look at these older show on a case-by-case basis and make a determination as to how actors should be credited, then note in the edit wiki why it is the way it is for future editors.

this seems to be a good solution :)

I most definitely do not agree with LadyShelley's proposal. Determining shows case by case who would be main or guest would cause only more quarrel and controversy. Our policy is quite clear about it. Main cast is only the cast that is listed as main. Also starring should be considered simply as guest, no matter their importance of their role.

Many users do not even bother to read our edit wiki in this current state, so it would not work anyway.

Also starring tend to be recurring guest stars so yeah I agree with Thomas that keeping them as guests makes the most sense.

Thomas wrote:
I most definitely do not agree with LadyShelley's proposal. Determining shows case by case who would be main or guest would cause only more quarrel and controversy. Our policy is quite clear about it. Main cast is only the cast that is listed as main. Also starring should be considered simply as guest, no matter their importance of their role.

Many users do not even bother to read our edit wiki in this current state, so it would not work anyway.

I'd tend to agree with Thomas. I thought the point of open-edit was that 'we" don't make determinations. If you're going to do that, you might as well have a moderated system. At least then "we" see the edits as they occur. Instead of finding them days/weeks/months/years later.

The problem is that "listed as main" doesn't necessarily make much sense. Many shows, even modern ones (see animation shows) don't list actors as "main" It may be a lot of shows, but it isn't all shows. And therein lies the problem.

Unless we have a precise and comprehensive list of any possible crediting, which will describe, who is considered main, who is guest and who is co-star, we will have basically case by case scenario, where the person who adding the cast decides, who is main and who is guest, based on his/her comprehension in any particular case. So we either ok with that and move on, or we need that list.

Thomas wrote:
Also starring should be considered simply as guest, no matter their importance of their role.

Wait, I was told that "also starring" was to be considered main. Which is it? Main or guest? I'm talking about a show that uses "guest starring" for most guest roles.

Thomas wrote:
Many users do not even bother to read our edit wiki in this current state, so it would not work anyway.

What edit wiki? Seriously, what wiki?

tnt wrote:
Unless we have a precise and comprehensive list of any possible crediting, which will describe, who is considered main, who is guest and who is co-star, we will have basically case by case scenario, where the person who adding the cast decides, who is main and who is guest, based on his/her comprehension in any particular case. So we either ok with that and move on, or we need that list.

IMO, the problem is that there can't be a comprehensive list of all possible crediting. Not when TVMaze covers thousands of shows in hundreds of different countries. To have a comprehensive list of possible crediting, every TV studio and network would have to agree to one comprehensive list.

I think in a sense, open-editing is "choosing to move on." But we're not. The confusion, to some degree, seems to come from the top. For instance, David is the one who determines what crew roles are listed and which ones aren't. So it's as comprehensive as he chooses to make it. TVMaze seems to want it both ways: "closed editing" when it comes to cast and crew types and roles, but "open editing" when it comes to moderation or the lack thereof.

Gadfly wrote:
IMO, the problem is that there can't be a comprehensive list of all possible crediting. Not when TVMaze covers thousands of shows in hundreds of different countries. To have a comprehensive list of possible crediting, every TV studio and network would have to agree to one comprehensive list.

I think in a sense, open-editing is "choosing to move on." But we're not. The confusion, to some degree, seems to come from the top. For instance, David is the one who determines what crew roles are listed and which ones aren't. So it's as comprehensive as he chooses to make it. TVMaze seems to want it both ways: "closed editing" when it comes to cast and crew types and roles, but "open editing" when it comes to moderation or the lack thereof.

Then we just have to reconcile ourselves with the fact, that we have a system that works for most cases. And the cases where it doesn't work should be discussed. It's not perfect, but it's a working scenario.

Like with TWD for example. The mess made by AMC in the opening credits was confusing. So we discussed it and made a decision, which actors we consider a main cast.

I think that's what we are doing. The question how much discussion is necessary and how much isn't.