Talk:Runaways (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

February 13, 2017 Filming Date

According to My Entertainment World, Marvel's Runaways (working title: Rugrats) has a shoot date on February 13, 2017. --FBISD (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Good to know, but I don't believe that site is a reliable one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Runaways straight-to-series

"Marvel Studios and ABC Signature are also in pre-production on straight-to-series “Marvel’s Runaways” for Hulu." C&D press release. Mike210381 (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. That seems a little strange to bury that reveal in the very end of a press release. Adamstom.97 what are your thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI, it is present in the primary source as well. - DinoSlider (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't seem to access the primary source, but it's not that I don't believe it's there. It's more that it seems like something that would be touted by Hulu or Marvel with an announcement. Or at least the trade sites reporting such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

You have to click on the link under the picture and then it pops up. I agree with you, so that's why I went looking for the original version to make sure it wasn't a typo or something. - DinoSlider (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It does seem a bit odd, but we knew that they were likely to pick up a full season, so maybe someone just didn't realise that it hadn't been announced yet? The timing for pre-production does sound right. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes pre-production sounds right. Do you think we should add it here something like, "By the end of January 2017, Runaways had been ordered straight-to-series."? But what seems odd too, is the supposed filming start info added below, only states it is for the pilot, whereas C&D's states it is for the series. I've already added this Futon source to the C&D draft for the executive producer info for that series, should we need this source, FYI. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a bit of confusion, we could just hold off for now. This is a Freeform press release as well, not ABC Signature Studios, Marvel, or Hulu, so there is a chance that someone at Freeform got it wrong. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

True, though most of the content is the same as what Deadline and Marvel.com had, outside of the bits that discussed each company. But yeah, no problem waiting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems reeally odd that they would order a pilot plus scripts and then pick it up for series before the pilot is made. Perhaps someone at Freeform writing the release mistakenly translated the full season order of scripts to a straight to season order. I agree that waiting is the most prudent action at this point. - DinoSlider (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that reports about pilot order are false. When it comes to press releases, earier Marvel never skiped information about pilot order Legion press release or Most Wanted cast info. About Runaways Marvel never used word "pilot" (I know it's OR) in any press release. Second thing is, what is writen on Marvel's Runaways official Twitter page: "Don't miss Marvel's Runaways, an ALL NEW original series, coming soon to @Hulu!". Mike210381 (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It's missing the blue checkmark to verify it's an official Twitter feed. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Also on Hulu page is as "NEW ON HULU". Mike210381 (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not Marvel's Runaways. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I haven't read all. Mike210381 (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, Deadline is still calling it a pilot. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

An hour ago it was "‘Marvel’s Runaways’ Hulu Drama Series Sets Cast", they had to change, but EW, TV Line, Collider or The Wrap don't use pilot. It's wierd, that Marvel in their press releases don't say anything about pilot, what they usually did. Mike210381 (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I saw that original Deadline title as well, but I believe the article always said pilot. The author of the article doesn't always determine the title. - DinoSlider (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I read it before they've changed the title and it was nothing about pilot. I'm just saying that it's something strange that Marvel don't use word pilot at all. Mike210381 (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll take your word for it. I read it as soon as I got an email that the story had been published, but I didn't pay much attention to that detail. - DinoSlider (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It should also be noted the same sentence says Marvel Studios is producing the series, when it should be Marvel Television. So we know there's already at least one error in that statement. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Missed that on the first time around. That's a big flag there that this might not be the best place to gather this info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Remaining Cast Announced

https://news.marvel.com/tv/59437/marvels-runaways-sets-remaining-cast-television-project-hulu/ -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Cool. Adding now. And given there is a new actress for Tina Minoru and completely different character description (which was kind of a given), it does throw a little doubt on if it is in the MCU. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Is it notable that James Yaegashi appeared in an episode of Daredevil? - DinoSlider (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but it wasn't that big of a role. As a comparison, I don't think we mention that Enver Gjokaj was in The Avengers anywhere for Agent Carter. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

We do not mention Gjokaj appearing in The Avengers on the main Carter article nor the LoC. I also believe we did not do the same with Meredith Quill's actress, who had a small role in First Avenger. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Tina Minoru

There has been some discussion about the Runaways being in the MCU or not, and the current idea is to refrain any such claim until Marvel confirms it. But what about the part "The character previously appeared in the Marvel Cinematic Universe film Doctor Strange"? Saying that, at least that way, is basically to say that the film is in the MCU. If we follow the cautious approach of not treating this as a MCU property unless confirmed, we should also avoid the idea of both installments having the same character. They may be two different and unrelated live-action characters that are simply based on the same comic book character, for the same reason that Spider-Man is not the same live-action character in the Maguire, Garfield and Webb portrayals. Recast and reboot are not the same thing. Cambalachero (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Maguire, Garfield, and Holland all play Spider-Man though, and the respective articles for the latter two mention prior portrayals as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Genre

The "Genre" field in the infobox currently lists Action / Adventure, Science fiction, Superhero and Teen drama. But which is the source for that? The character description released by Marvel, for both the runaways and their parents, not only do not mention anything related to the MCU, they do not list anything remotely superheroic at all. So who's to say that it will be a super hero show? It may also fall in the realm of posibility that the adaption uses the character's personalities and the general premise of escaping from home, but avoiding superpowers completely. No dinosaurs, no aliens, no magic staffs, no robots, no time-travel, no evil gods from another dimension, etc.

You can read the press releases: here, here, and here. As you can see, nothing superheroic anywhere. Compare with here, a description of the comic book characters.

"Teen drama" is fine, that one can clearly be understood from the press releases, but I would remove the others for the time being. Cambalachero (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

After looking at the sources carefully, I suppose you are correct but Chase's description does seem to hint at his technopathic skills. I guess we'll have to wait and see.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Update, the teaser trailer shows super powers.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

FWIW - Upfront logo

The logo used during Hulu's upfront presentation today (seen here) is far different than any we've seen yet for a TV series (note there is no indication it is a final one or not). Seeing this though, definitely puts up flags for me that the series may in fact not be in the MCU. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not a logo. They used standard text in the same font and style for all their shows during the presentation (See The Looming Tower and again for I Love You, America) -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for the clarification Anon! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Also this. But who knows how trustworthy Marvel Support can be with this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

An official logo has been released on the Facebook page. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Which I see Favre1fan93 beat me to uploading and adding. Thanks! -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Facebook page is not verified. - DinoSlider (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

True (but that's only a matter of time). It was linked to from the official Marvel Facebook page, which is how I first noticed it. The logo is also featured in images specifically uploaded by the official Marvel page. (likewise for Twitter and Instagram equivalents) -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

And just like that, the page is now verified. - DinoSlider (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I feel like this is becoming WAY to particular when really a whole lot about the show isn't yet known. It's like at the slightest indication that something's different, we jump to say one thing or another. The graphic used at the presentation was obviously not a logo for one. Secondly if you reread that interview with Feige I don't see how it can be misconstrued to be misunderstood as him talking about he comicbooks as opposed to the TV series. Can't wait for the studio to shut down all this nitpicking. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

New comic book

I have noticed that the Runaways comic book may be relaunched, by Rainbow Rowell and Kris Anka. This is not directly related to the TV series, but focused on the original comic book continuity (meaning, this is not "the comic adaption of the TV series", but an actual comic with new stories). Still, it is clearly done at the same time. Should we mention this, in a "marketing" section or similar, or ignore it as if it was a mere coincidence?

You can see some details here, but have a care, there is a huge spoiler on the content of the first story arc. You have been warned. Cambalachero (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Marvel generally tends to publish comics related to their upcoming TV projects or films before or around their release. I wouldn't call it a "coincidence", but I also wouldn't call it anything that should be mentioned here, since it is not a tie-in to this series, just a relaunch of the title in general. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Premiere date November 21, 2017

https://twitter.com/runaways reports "A @Hulu Original series based on the @Marvel cult classic comic series. Coming November 21. #Runaways" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bflaminio (talk • contribs) 16:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Third party sources (ie Deadline) are reporting. Will add. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe installment

I know there has been a big debate about whether or not Runaways can be listed within the MCU, for various reasons. One thing that Marvel Studios has done with it's official Marvel Cinematic Universe television series is include the "Marvel's" intro word. The pilot episode has now been filmed and wrapped production and those involved in the series are posting on their social media platforms the news while calling Runaways Marvel's Runaways. It's also worth nothing that the series is a regular topic on the MCU Exchange at www.mcuexchange.com --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The Marvel's thing is a good indication to us, as fans, that the series will likely be set in the MCU, but it is not actual confirmation that we can use here. And MCUExchange is just assuming, like many fans. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I just discovered something when I was reading about Doctor Strange Easter eggs. Now I know that we usually don't use Comicbook.com as a source, as it is secondary -- but in few cases they have an exclusive article. In the article here it can be read that in the site's interview with Producer and head of Marvel Studios Kevin Feige, Feige stated that the brief scene featuring Tina Minoru wielding the Staff of One -- whether it was a deleted scene or not (I'm not sure because it's been a while since I've seen the movie) -- was intentionally shot so as to 'set up' or connect to Runaways, as similar strategies are used to set up connections to related properties in the MCU. Does this not confirm that the show is a part of the MCU?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The link is broken for me. --Cambalachero (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Try this one, copy and paste it to your url. http://comicbook.com/marvel/2016/10/14/first-look-at-major-runaways-easter-eggs-in-doctor-strange/.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Dang it won't let me embed the link here for some weird reason... search "runaways easter egg in doctor strange" on Google, and it's the first article to come up, and is directly from Comicbook.com in an exclusive interview.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

For everyone else article is titled, "First Major Runaways Easter Eggs in Doctor Strange" and is a Comicbook.com exclusive article. Not sure why it's not letting me link the page here...--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You have some extra characters at the end of your links. Here is the article in question. However, as I stated at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series: At no point in that source does Feige say anything about the TV series. The author of the article mentions it, but does not explicitly connect it to the film. - DinoSlider (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Just in case someone else has problems with the links, Siege said this: "Drumm, you do hear the name in the movie. That's how we always build the universe. There are so many characters in the books, that if we have the need for a person to be in this place at this time and have a line, or have no lines, we still want it to be someone. Often times, that's how the names come about. The names that we pull usually are the ones that are relatively top of mind or have been amongst characters that we've thought about, like the Runaways for a long time. I would call that an Easter egg that most people won't even see".

Which, as pointed by DinoSlider, does not say anything about the TV series. He is talking about the minor character in the Dr. Strange film, that Tina Minoru is a character from the Runaways comic, and why did they name that character as "Tina Minoru" and not "average joe with magic powers". Cambalachero (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, as can be seen via the article, the actress playing Tina in the TV series is not the same as the one who played her in the film, and their character descriptions are vastly different. Was this simply a recasting? We don't know at this time, so we can't use that as a confirmation. Plus, all that Dino and Cambalachero pointed out: Feige talking about the character in Doctor Strange makes absolutely no mention of the TV series. (And regardless, all this info about this appearance is in the "Cast" section stating as much as we can at the moment.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it is: source - DinoSlider (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

And there we have it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

There's actually some good info in here that might be useful on the main MCU article about how even though the films do not reference the series, placing the series into the universe is still useful to the showrunners since they do not have to try to introduce new concepts.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Man, it's great that that article is finally enough for all of you to agree that it is a part of the franchise. Was obvious from the beginning. Now we can all look and see that my observations were indeed correct. Bam.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Your "I told you so" attitude towards the editors here is an extreme turn-off towards editing collaboratively with you. It won't be appreciated or tolerated by anyone here, so please act in a more civil manner. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 02:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

That or it's simply verifies that sources I have used are indeed reliable and dependable. That's all that was intended here. Not so much an 'in your face' but more of a 'yeah, I knew those were good sources'. Given the fact that Runaways and New Warriors has been confirmed to be in the MCU, perhaps it is logical (and perhaps expected by the studio(?)) to assume that if it says "Marvel's" in a title announcement for a live action series - it means it is a part of the MCU? Sounds like it's the case thus far. Apologize to those offended.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The sources were probably reliable all along, that doesn't mean what they were say was correct or able to be used. WP:Verifiability, not truth. As I replied on the List of MCU TV series talk, we still can not assume "Marvel's" in the title automatically makes it an MCU series, without the individual verification for that series. Coincidence is not verification. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Old Lace

@DisneyMetalhead and Favre1fan93: The cited source only says that the poster "seemingly confirms the Deinonychus for the series". That sounds a little iffy to me. - DinoSlider (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Old Lace is on the poster. This source from Den of Geek is more definitive (and includes the poster in the source for visual reference). I'd be happy to replace the Comicbook.com source with this one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

As User:Favre1fan93 stated, the character is very plainly on the poster for the TV series.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Both the ComicBook.com and DenOfGeek.com sources are simply observing what is on the poster. Neither source provides any knowledge of what is actually in the series. While we can all agree that it is likely, these sources are only speculating just like us. - DinoSlider (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

We'll hopefully get clarification at the NYCC panel in 2 days, at which point even if we kept the source we had now, it would be mute because a better one will become available. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Here we go. From CBR, "Loeb then rolled a teaser from the second episode of the series, which features a cameo from Old Lace." Reach Out to the Truth 07:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Perfect. - DinoSlider (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore - the trailer officially released gives the viewers a glimpse of Old Lace, and each of the Runaways abilities too.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Character powers

User:DisneyMetalhead has listed the characters' powers multiple times, only for other editors to revert them stating that the trailers aren't evidence enough. Well now we have the actors discussing their characters powers here, and here. It's indisputable now.--206.81.136.61 (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for finding these other sources. I have now added this information with citations to the page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Logo

Who changed the logo?! The one that was there before was much better looking aesthetically than the dark-colored bizarre version that is there now.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what is better looking aesthetically, apparently this is the version of the logo that was in the actual episode. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The new one is the actual title card for the series, which is what will be used eventually. Might as well just do it now, as I saw the episode. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Since when has Wikipedia used on-screen title cards for pages? This is news to me.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It is the standard practice. See also WP:TVIMAGE. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Episode Titles

Here is a review of the first four episodes. According to them, the titles for episodes three and four are Destiny and Fifteen, respectively. It is a review, so they must have seen them, but I have never seen this site used as a reference. Thoughts? - DinoSlider (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I've seen the site here and there. It is definitely fringe in terms of using as a source, and I'm not sure if it would be consider reliable. I would be okay holding off, or adding these hidden on the article until a better source came around. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

January 9, 2018

from the article intro:

the 10-episode series streaming on Hulu from November 21, 2017 until January 9, 2018

from the Release:

scheduled to conclude its season on January 9, 2018

Does that mean the last episode is scheduled for a January 9 release? If so, i request the intro be edited, because the part i quoted above reads to me like the series will not be on Hulu after January 9.

Thanks.

--71.121.143.161 (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

What do you suggest it be changed to? -- Alex^TW 02:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

That depends if i'm reading what it says now correctly or not--and it depends if what it says now is correct or not. IF the 10th episode is first available on Hulu on January 9, 2018, but ANY episodes are still available on Hulu after that, maybe something like...

Runaways premiered in Los Angeles on November 16, 2017, and on Hulu on November 21, 2017. The tenth episode, currently intended as the last episode of season 1, is presently scheduled to be on Hulu on January 9, 2018.

--71.121.143.161 (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

You're reading it correctly, yes - the final episode of this season is set to be released on January 9, after which the whole season will remain on Hulu indefinitely. -- Alex^TW 03:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio concerns

I am noticing that a lot of the character section seems to be a direct lift from the press materials for the series. I urge a rewrite to remove the similarities, before someone (read: me) starts excising parts of the section for being copyright violations. I'll wait a week. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Be bold, go for it, do it yourself. -- Alex^TW 14:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: Examples? Earwigs Copyvio Detector only returns one source with a moderate level of possible copyright violations and that source isn’t used in the cast section.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Cast section

So, what is the edit-warring all about now? The cast can almost perfectly be broken into three groups: kids (protagonists), parents (antagonists) and recurring. As the series is new, I am not expecting a lot in the recurring section, but the parent/kid split is noted in several sources. Since our viewpoints have no weight versus that of reliable sources, we include it as such. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, given that it was you that started the edit-warring, I am the one that is most interested in your answer to your own question. Especially when it's so interesting that you preach for BRD and against edit-warring, then go against both of those yourself. It is also interesting how you state that other stuff exists, especially when the first paragraph in its lead states "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid" - much like now.

Now onto content, not contributor. The CONSENSUS of the Television WikiProject and Television Manual of Style is that only three sections are necessary in any cast section - Main (as credited in the opening credits or per reliable sources), Recurring (appearances in three or more episodes) and Guest (normally only notable guests, in two or less episodes). That is, real-life groups, not in-universe groupings per INUNIVERSE (and also, for your wording, PROTAGONIST). That also includes no Guest Starring, Special Guest, etc. sections. Yes, that also includes not having any specific Kids and Parents section. This is a consensus - different editors adding it to the article without starting any form of discussion, that's their personal belief on what should be in the article, that's not a consensus, as you state.

It is far more than two editors want it, one doesn't, as you also stated - if you open up the page history to a lot more than the past fifty contributions, you'll see that there are a far lot more edits concerning it. (However, we all know that content disputes are never solved by how many people there are on each side; that is, after all, a vote.) That means that the bold edit is adding the headers, and once these have been reverted, the discussion needs to unfold here on the talk page. -- Alex^TW 03:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, since you decided to champion this (goody), let's look at your asserions, bypassing the personal attacks:

other stuff exists arguments can be valid or invalid" - much like now.

So, feel free to argue how it is invalid.

The consensu of the Television WikiProject and Television Manual of Style is that only three sections are necessary in any cast section - Main (as credited in the opening credits or per reliable sources), Recurring (appearances in three or more episodes) and Guest (normally only notable guests, in two or less episodes)...that also includes not having any specific Kids and Parents section

You might want to give that MOS another look; it doesn't say what you think it does. But please, feel entirely free to note how we only note main/recurring/guest. It isn't INUNIVERSE to note the basic breakdown of characters. Plus, you note a "guest star" who isn't credited as such. I'm not opposed to Main/Recurring/Guest but ignoring the elephant in the room is stupid.

Additionally, you make the feeble argument that consensus decided against noting the adversarial nature of the cast of characters; I guess I just don;t see that. So prove to me that you have a valid consensus. That's all I am asking. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Amusing how you accuse others of personal attacks, then do the same. Clearly you're such the companion here, bucko.

Let's go on a journey, an unexpected adventure, and read WP:TVCAST: It may be appropriate to split the cast listing by "Main" and "Recurring" cast or characters. I'm not seeing anything about a Kids or Parents section? I also recommend that you read the archives of both the Television WikiProject and Television Manual of Style talk pages, not just the latter; you might find it most enlightening.

It is certainly INUNIVERSE to split the cast into sections that are based on in-universe events. In the credits of the series, which is determined by the series producers, there is no differentiating between the ages of the characters, and thus, there should be no such differentiation here. If you wish to gain consensus to update the cast guideline and support the addition of extra sections, then that's up to you to start a discussion elsewhere. -- Alex^TW 03:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

For Your Information. My edits was so a person a more easy to read the Cast section list and the Parents group is named the Pride or calling them that in the Article would work too. Brownshoes22 (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

That would work for me, esp. since the Pride is wikilinked. Add that to the adversarial nature of the charcters as cited by sources, and that might work just fine. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, for the very reasons as presented above. You have no essay, guideline or policy support, or WikiProject or Manual of Style to support, to split the credits into sections that are not displayed as such in the credits. Shall we have the same discussion twice in the same section? -- Alex^TW 03:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Alex is correct. If a cast list needs to be split, we do say based on crediting and not any other subjective measure—particularly not in-universe categorisation. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Cool, we appear to have a marked difference of opinion, equally supported and opposed. Let's initiate an RfC, and get some more opinions on the subject. I haven't heard anything yet that alters my opinion that articles have the freedom to present themselves how they wish, and I believe that the cast separation is helpful and germane to the article, and not in-universe. As others disagree, lets get more eyes on the discussion, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

articles have the freedom to present themselves how they wish
Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Old Lace placement in article

There has been some disagreement about where to place Old Lace's description in the article. The WP:STATUSQUO from this article state on November 18, 2017, has the info in the cast section, under main. My reasoning and support of this location, is yes, there is no actor attached or credited as Old Lace, but she is still a character, and the section is called "Cast and characters", not just "Cast" (if it was just that, then yes, listing Old Lace would not be correct). "Main" felt like the best subsection of "Cast and characters" to place the info since Old Lace is considered a Runaway member in the comics. However, adding it under "Recurring" or "Guest" would also be acceptable in my opinion, simply as long as the content is listed under the level 2 "Cast and characters" heading. I don't feel it is quite accurate to include it in the "Production" section. Casting doesn't work in my eyes, because the issue of no actor attached becomes more apparent here, when all the other info in this section is about actors joining the project, and I don't feel any of the other subsections there currently would work, nor the need to create a single one just for this info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

And to me, it is clear the cast section is meant for actors, as in humans, who appear in the credits, hence the reason there is so much guidance on listing entries there based on the series' credits as per MOS:TVCAST. No one is being credited for "playing" Old Lace—this is not a motion-capture performance like Andy Serkis in Lord of the Rings or Planet of the Apes. These sections, sometimes called "Cast" or sometimes called "Cast and characters", all share the same type of information:

• [real person] as [fictional character]: [description]

or

• [fictional character] ([real person]): [description]

The key point being: "real person". A visual/animatronic effect like Old Lace should be in the "Production" section. I don't have a preference on where... I'm guessing "Filming" would make the most sense, but Old Lace is not a cast member. Old Lace is VFX.

Also, would have been nice if, while we were discussing, you had left the status quo as it currently stood, as opposed to reaching into the past to find an edit that supported your interpretation. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

But as formatted (without a bullet), that is not indicating that anyone is "playing" Old Lace in my opinion, and I think others will not think that as well or get that interpretation. And as I stated, if it is a matter of credits, I'd be fine moving the info out of the "Main" section, and to the bottom of "Recurring". Also, as to the WP:STATUSQUO, the version I linked was how the info initially was added to the article before its premiere. Then you edited the article to move the info elsewhere, which I took as "Bold". I believe I then reverted it, for you to undo my edit, (so "Revert") and we did that once more before I started this discussion. So the version I put the article to, is the STATUSQUO as it is the version before the disputed change (the moving of the info out of the "Cast and characters" section). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Favre that the Old Lace information should be placed in the "Cast and characters" section and not in any of the "Production" subsections as it doesn't fit in any of those per WP:TVPRODUCTION. Since the character has not appeared in series regular manner, I would put it at the bottom of "Recurring". - Brojam (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)