Seperate current and previous cast on show page

I second that

This won't be that easy to do I guess, what defines a "not current" main cast member.

Some actors are rejoining main cast at some point, do you use "year" or "season" or "last two seasons" as the value for that ?

What about a main cast member that is currently only a recurring guest cast member, shall he be removed from the main show page as well ?

I like the general idea, but it is not that easy to set the ground for it.

cheers
Juan

JuanArango wrote:
This won't be that easy to do I guess, what defines a "not current" main cast member.
Some actors are rejoining main cast at some point, do you use "year" or "season" or "last two seasons" as the value for that ?
What about a main cast member that is currently only a recurring guest cast member, shall he be removed from the main show page as well ?
I like the general idea, but it is not that easy to set the ground for it.
cheers
Juan

The answer to that question is very easy Juan but you guys won't allow it and that is to allow us to put years in parenthesis to indicate when they were active main cast like this (1999 - 2009) (2015 - present), etc., etc. that would easily resolve the problem. They won't be moved down on the cast list but at least you can spot them right away without having to look at 100's or episodes separately to see if they were there or finding episodes with no cast listed in them?

JAGUARDOG wrote:
The answer to that question is very easy Juan but you guys won't allow it and that is to allow us to put years in parenthesis to indicate when they were active main cast like this (1999 - 2009) (2015 - present), etc., etc. that would easily resolve the problem. They won't be moved down on the cast list but at least you can spot them right away without having to look at 100's or episodes separately to see if they were there or finding episodes with no cast listed in them?

This would be a solution, but the "year" does not have to be visible and must be entered in a seperate field, as we only want the character name in the character field.

cheers
Juan

JuanArango wrote:
This would be a solution, but the "year" does not have to be visible and must be entered in a seperate field, as we only want the character name in the character field.
cheers
Juan

That is what I expected but it is necessary to be visible or else it is not of any use!

JAGUARDOG wrote:
That is what I expected but it is necessary to be visible or else it is not of any use!

Maybe this can be automated, but I do not know :)

JuanArango wrote:
Maybe this can be automated, but I do not know :)

If every cast-member has all his/her appearances filled in it's perfectly possible to calculate it automatically (if not also, but then the calculated years can be incorrect) and show it next to the name.

But I think it's maybe a better idea for doing it like the first suggested idea and like Melissa suggested here, but that will require a restructuring of the database, so that won't be for the near future I think... :-)

Exactly, there's no need to add something like "(1999 - 2009)" to a character, as the data is already there in detail, using cast appearances.

I think the first step here is for us to expand the season pages, like showing the cast from that specific season on a season page. When that's done, we can see about how to handle the cast that's visible on the show main page. (I agree that the current system isn't ideal for a few particular shows)

david wrote:
Exactly, there's no need to add something like "(1999 - 2009)" to a character, as the data is already there in detail, using cast appearances.

I agree that the years or seasons shouldn't be part of the character name. My only two observations here would be that a) sometimes users like to see all of the info in one place. The show page, the season page, whatever. Instead of clicking individually on each character; and

b) The format should be consistent, whatever format you use. Having S01s on one page, and 1999-2000 on another, and Ep 53-66 on another is kind of confusing.

I was about to post the same suggestion. In my opinion, one way to do this could be to link each cast member to each season, pretty much like they are already linked to each episode. The cast page could show the active cast members for the most recent season, with an additional tab/page showing both current and past cast members.

NathanDrake83 wrote:
I was about to post the same suggestion. In my opinion, one way to do this could be to link each cast member to each season, pretty much like they are already linked to each episode. The cast page could show the active cast members for the most recent season, with an additional tab/page showing both current and past cast members.

Why linking them to the season if they're already linked to the episodes?
If you know the episode, you automatically know the season

MichaelDeBoey wrote:
Why linking them to the season if they're already linked to the episodes?
If you know the episode, you automatically know the season

I think he means that each season page has an overview of the main characters and recurring guest stars of that particular season, so you have it all on one page.

cheers
Juan

MichaelDeBoey wrote:
Why linking them to the season if they're already linked to the episodes?
If you know the episode, you automatically know the season

That's true, theoretically it could be enough, but checking at the episode level instead of season level could be a little redundant, and maybe even misleading in certain situations: new regular menbers that don't appear in the first episodes, or previous members that return as guest stars. If this is acceptable, I guess checking at episode level should work fine! :)

JuanArango wrote:
I think he means that each season page has an overview of the main characters and recurring guest stars of that particular season, so you have it all on one page.
cheers
Juan

... or this one, too! ;)

Yeah, linking them on the season level as well as the episode level would be quite redundant. When we work on this, we can simply do something like consider a cast member part of a season when he/she appeared in over 80% of that season's episodes.

The suggestion topic disappeared or i can't find it (There is no forum history in my profile, so i can't find it). Some of it was moved to chat and reformulated.

But is that you are talking about, Dragen http://www.tvmaze.com/threads/428/episode-cast-cha...

david wrote:
Yeah, linking them on the season level as well as the episode level would be quite redundant. When we work on this, we can simply do something like consider a cast member part of a season when he/she appeared in over 80% of that season's episodes.

Yep, I like that! :)

Another thing I'd like to suggest about this, is the possibility to give some ordering cast members, like main/secondary/other, or something like that. Taking again the example of Doctor Who, it's weird to see the companion listed before the Doctor! :D And it could also help until the separation between current and past members is implemented.

NathanDrake83 wrote:
Yep, I like that! :)
Another thing I'd like to suggest about this, is the possibility to give some ordering cast members, like main/secondary/other, or something like that. Taking again the example of Doctor Who, it's weird to see the companion listed before the Doctor! :D And it could also help until the separation between current and past members is implemented.

We already have special guest star, guest star and co-guest star, but david or jan still need to order them according to this. If they get to it, the cast should be displayed more consistent :)

cheers
Juan

JuanArango wrote:

We already have special guest star, guest star and co-guest star, but david or jan still need to order them according to this. If they get to it, the cast should be displayed more consistent :)
cheers
Juan

Actually I'm just talking about the main cast: not all the regulars have the same "weight" on the show. Again in DW, the current Doctor is more "important" than the current companion. And this is even more relevant for larger cast: in Game of Thrones, Tyrion and Daenerys are more "important" than Melisandre or Bronn, or in Agents of SHIELD Coulson and Skye are more "important" than Mac or Hunter, but they are all main cast members.