Talk:List of Backstage characters

Original Research tag
If the information is assembled from watching the show (which is how I interpret the "General references" comment), then that's entirely original research. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not original research. That is information from primary reliable sources. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 00:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OR: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.". If I sit down and watch a TV show and extrapolate information from the episodes I've seen, where's the "reliable, published source" involved? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY covers that. As long as there is no interpretation or synthesis or extrapolation of what is in the primary source, which a released episode is, it is a valid source of information about what is there. Credits being an example, plot details also. If you go beyond pure factual information than you need a secondary source for that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And therein lies the issue. As long as the statements in this article are sourced (as many of them are), all is well. The problem lies with the "General references" comment waving its hand in the direction of the show and saying "it's all in there, trust me". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Credits are obvious and as long as transcribed exactly don't need a video episode cite to the times in the episode. Pretty much every work of fiction with plot descriptions relies on the work of fiction itself as a source, citing the work itself for factual info that is being described in articles about the work has never been deemed necessary. Other than the fact that plot descriptions must be original creations that describes the plot to avoid copyright violations, everything else is uninterpreted. Using a secondary source for plot descriptions runs into the copyvio problems and credits are better transcribed from the original, not some other intermediate transcriber like IMDb. I don't see the problem with the general note, it probably isn't really necessary as the source is obvious for this type of info in the article. For details about characters it might improve the article to give an exact in show cite to given facts to make verification easier, though, still verification just needs to be possible, not necessarily easy and factual info is in the source material. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * All of which is well and good, but still misses the point. If the source is "In episode X of season Y, bla-bla happens", then there's nothing wrong with saying as much - as indeed this article does. Having a general comment saying "the information here comes from the TV show" is either a duplication of that same point (which is already made by the footnotes, and which is common sense, as you point out) or an attempt to skirt around any policies against OR. Either way, it's not desperately helpful. I'm not going to belabour the point any further than I already have, but either the OR tag is correct or the additional note needs to go. I'll leave you - and anyone else who happens along - to sort the matter out. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Vanessa's "Characterization" and "Relationships" sections
Are those really needed? It doesn't seem to be the standard practice at character lists, when the content of those sections here can just be separate paragraphs as part of Vanessa's bio. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing whoever wrote that intended to do that for every main character, and then abandoned it after doing the first one... But the answer is, "No, that doesn't need to be there." However, most of the character summaries here do need to be fleshed out some more. Also, it doesn't look like this page's 'Recurring' section has been updated for season #2 yet... In short: this article needs work. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)