Talk:Manifest (TV series)/Archive 1

"Guest Starring" and "co-starring"
It may be noted that recurring characters and one-episode characters are commingled under the header "Guest Starring" which appears in the opening credits — usually about five minutes into the episode — as well as under the header "co-starring" which appears in the closing credits. The cast members listed under "Guest Starring" have no indicated character names, while those listed under "co-starring" have specified character names.

Some of the one-episode actors listed under "co-starring", for example, "Elise Santora as Dr. Bortel" or "Joy Lynn Jacobs as Christine" have key speaking roles, while others, for example, "Dylan W. Holmes as Toddler" (no dialogue) or "Bebe Browning as Pedestrian" (two words) have very little to do. The order in which they are listed under "co-starring" may not directly reflect their importance to the episode in which they appear.

The sub-section header "Guest", as it currently appears in the article, is a selected list which includes a minor non-speaking role [* Onata Aprile as Hallie Pyler ("Pilot")], but lacks some important characters, such as "Mark Zimmerman as DHS Director Hughes" or "Cindy Im as DARPA Scientist".

Below, for the record, are the "Guest Starring" and "co-starring" credits for the first five episodes. The underscored/bolded/italicized names indicate one-episode appearances. If those characters make subsequent appearances in later episodes, their form will need to be revised.

5. Connecting Flights
Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

6. Off Radar
This is the first of two episodes in which one of the seven top-billed regular cast members does not appear. Although credited in the opening cast list, Luna Blaise as Olive is absent and her absence is noted in the scene depicting Ben and Grace deciding to rush Cal to the hospital — Ben: "Get Olive"; Grace: "No, she slept at Avery's". Avery, the boy participating in Olive's make-up choices at the cosmetics store where Olive is subsequently caught shoplifting, appears in episode 4 ("Unclaimed Baggage"). Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

7. S.N.A.F.U.
Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

8. Point of No Return
This is the second (following 6. "Off Radar") of two episodes in which one of the seven top-billed regular cast members does not appear. Although credited in the opening cast list, Parveen Kaur as Saanvi is absent and not mentioned (she is, however, seen in the prolog recap of previous episodes). Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

9. Dead Reckoning
Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

10. Crosswinds
Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

11. Contrails
This is the third (following 6. "Off Radar" and 8. "Point of No Return") of three episodes in which one or more of the seven top-billed regular cast members play no part. Although credited in the opening cast list, Luna Blaise as Olive and Parveen Kaur as Saanvi are absent and not mentioned (Parveen Kaur is, however, glimpsed in the airplane flasbacks). It may be also noted that in 1. "Pilot" Leajato Robinson is credited as "as Co-Pilot Danny Clarke", but in 11. "Contrails" he is credited as "Co-Pilot Amuta". Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Announcements
The development section is currently eight sentences. Four of them contain the phrase "it was announced", and a fifth uses the variation "it was reported." I have tried to improve the flow twice, but was fully reverted first and partially reverted second, both times by User:BoogerD. I get the concern about misrepresenting the source of the information, but surely there's a better way to write this. Any thoughts? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. It's kinda ridiculous. Many of these "it was announced" can be removed. Just because the source in this article is not from NBC doesn't mean they didn't actually announce/take the action that day. Like the series order/backorder are all news sources reporting from he NBC press releases from those dates. - Brojam (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Initials
MW Cartozian Wilson is how it is credited on episodes (without the periods). According MOS:INITIALS, Use initials in a personal name only if the name is commonly written that way. An initial is capitalized and is followed by a full point (period) and a space (e.g. J. R. R. Tolkien), unless: the person demonstrably has a different, consistently preferred style for his or her own name; and an overwhelming majority of reliable sources use that variant style for that person. Another editor keep adding the periods, but this isn't how it was credited on episodes. Should MW Cartozian Wilson be credited as how he is credited on-screen on episodes (without periods) or with periods (he is not credited this way on-screen)? — Young Forever (talk)   22:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Go with the credits, as per WP:TVCAST. Some editors seem to believe that the MOS is more important than what sourcing does – many of us do not agree with that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your explanation is correct. For TV series articles, we should be listing people exactly as they are credited on-screen, as that is their preferred crediting for X series. If there are periods, we put them; if there are not, we don't. Same with commas. If someone is credited as John Smith, Jr., we list them exactly like that. The WP:PRIMARY credits overwrite MOS:INITIALS or whatever other guideline is quoted. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 15:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Conforms to MOS:INITIALS as well as "MW Cartozian Wilson" is how listed in the overwhelming majority of reliable sources which includes most places he is credited so should be treated as a self-published name change. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. — Young Forever (talk)   21:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:INITIALS states unless it's the preferred style or majority of reliable sources use it, not when the on-screen effect based font styling of a series chooses the ignore the use of periods. If you had a copy of the printed script that which would not use on-screen font styling for effect and had the periods removed then the unless exceptions would be valid. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The periods have nothing to do with styling and effect on-screens in episodes. — Young Forever (talk)   00:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe it should be written how the person is credited onscreen. I've done this for the few shows I've added credits for. I wouldn't dream of doing any different because it seems disrespectful to me. Esuka (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought according to other editors as it say so on MOS:TVCAST which is clearly covered by WP:PRIMARY. It has nothing to do with styling and special effects. — Young Forever (talk)   01:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Uhm no, this is the specialist style fallacy. MOS:INITIALS is global and overrides MOS:TV and MOS:TVCAST. WP:PRIMARY applies to information, not to how that information is styled. We list "KJ Apa" not because that's how he's credited on Riverdale but because nearly all sources refer to him as "KJ" not "K.J." or "K. J." etc. The only question here is whether this person is nearly always listed as "MW Cartozian Wilson", not how they are credited on one particular TV show. If they are widely known by "MW", then yes, we list them as "MW". If not, we go by our Wikipedia style guide, which says "M.W. Cartozian Wilson". —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On Audiobooks, he is credited as "MW Cartozian Wilson" as well. As said "MW Cartozian Wilson" is how listed in the overwhelming majority of reliable sources which includes most places he is credited so should be treated as a self-published name change. He is widely credited as "MW". —  Young Forever (talk)   01:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:INITIALS is still a guideline. The primary sourcing, the credits themselves, trumps everything else. How the credits are displayed is how the actors and crew preferred to be credited on whatever series, and we honor that, so how someone is referred to in sources is irrelevant once a series premieres. Crediting is handled the same way as a direct quote. Are we going to remove periods in a direct quote because of some silly initials guidelines? No. The actors and crew should be listed how they are credited for each individual series. If Series X credits an actor as John Smith, we list them as John Smith for that series; as such, we do go by how someone is credited on a particular television series. If that actor is widely referred to as Jonathan Smith in sourcing and/or is credited as Johnathan Smith in 20 other television series, that is irrelevant. He is credited as John Smith for Series X, and that's what we would list in the Series X article. This is no different. Wrong, as always. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 01:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Amaury – MOS:INITIALS doesn't "trump" another guideline like MOS:TVCAST. And, indeed, as previously indicated, MOS:INITIALS doesn't even "require" periods in cases such as this one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor who reverted several times is making up his or her own rules/guidelines. — Young Forever (talk)   02:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well said Amaury & IJBall, I think the same. And I think most editors adding credits would go by the episode itself too. Esuka (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Amaury: Wrong, as always. You really do need to review WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.
 * But to get back to the matter at hand, we most definitely would remove periods from a direct quote, just like we would replace hyphens or incorrect dashes in direct quotes based on MOS:DASH/MOS:HYPHEN... because those are changes. And in fact if you check the quoting guidelines, it does allow for even minor typo corrections when said typos are clearly unambiguously errors. So treating how something appears in a source as 100% sacrosanct all the time is not only not a good approach, it's not the approach we take. We regularly make tweaks that result in not 100% exact replicas.
 * Yes, if someone is listed by, say, a different name in credits, like Rebecca Romijn who is credited in the early X-Men films under her married name at the time of Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, then yes, we would follow the credits because that's different, not simply a different way of that information. But if there's a direct quote that says "K.J. Apa did this particular whatever", then yes, someone who changed that to read "KJ Apa did this particular whatever" would be following MOS:INITIALS—as we are supposed to. Now... it's a small change and probably not worth making a big deal about... but it would be more in line with our guidelines. Conversely, if someone who is mainly referred to as "A.B. Cee" is in one instance credited as "AB Cee", per MOS:INITIALS, we should be listing them as "A.B. Cee". Again, not necessarily worth making a huge brouhaha over but more in keeping with guidelines.
 * Per WP:CONLEVEL, I'm afraid a site-wide guideline like MOS:INITIALS actually trump project-specific ones like MOS:TV and MOS:TVCAST. Specifically: For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.
 * And finally, I don't want to be misunderstood (since some people do seem to love that as a tactic) as saying we should be using "M.W. Cartozian Wilson" per a misreading of MOS:INITIALS. I just want to be clear we should be looking at sources overall, not the credits in one show, to make the determination of periods or no periods. Sounds like "MW" wins out. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * His Twitter account is using "MW" as well. He is tagging the Manifest Official Twitter account and posing pics with cast. — Young Forever (talk)   07:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For stuff like this, onscreen crediting from the show should be considered to be the "preeminent" source and should be given more WP:WEIGHT as a result. But, in general, secondary sourcing will usually follow the onscreen crediting anyway. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid RfC, there is no clear statement of the problem. See WP:RFC also how the RfC at the RfC listings. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I just fixed it. I cut down what I originally posted before the bot maintenance to one sentence. — Young Forever (talk)   17:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you mean ? That's no good: it's a bot-maintained page, and any edit by anybody other than Legobot will be automatically overwritten the next time that the bot runs, . You need to fix the problem at its source, which means observing WP:RFC, which in turn means placing the template immediately before the opening statement. Once that is done, Legobot will copy everything from the  template (exclusive) to the next timestamp (inclusive) onto the RfC listing page. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I was really confused. Did I fix it now? See above (I moved it). — Young Forever (talk)   22:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you should not have attempted to - you would have been shown this message when editing, in order to warn you not to. Legobot is perfectly capable of doing that itself (check through [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Media,_the_arts,_and_architecture&action=history the history] of that page to see just how few non-Legobot edits there have been), and has gone to the trouble of  for you. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am so sorry about that. — Young Forever (talk)   00:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Follow the onscreen credits. Secondary sources aren't useful for a style issue because those outlets will follow their own style guides. The (non)use of periods after an initial isn't something that can be cited. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what I always thought based on MOS:TV. — Young Forever (talk)   01:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I support the position that names, which are listed in Wikipedia articles dealing with film and television, should be depicted in those names' on-screen form. In this specific case, the on-screen pen name is, indeed, "MW Cartozian Wilson" and that is how the name should appear in Wikipedia's printed credits. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

About the Guest section
The Guest section is already long as is it is with season 2 coming soon the Guest section is expected to be even longer. Should we cut down the Guest section to only Notable guests so the section isn't excessively long? — Young Forever (talk)   17:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that sounds like a good idea, but I'm not certain how best to define a notable guest. Perhaps roles that appeared on 2+ episodes, or actors that have blue links? Argento Surfer (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Notable guest stars are those billed as special guest stars. From there, notable guest stars are also those who are or were main cast on other series on the same network. And from there, it's based on local consensus. For example, a famous athlete can be considered notable even though they don't meet the first two aforementioned criteria. Amaury • 17:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why does being on the same network matter? Argento Surfer (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The answer is this – "notable" guest cast is: actors that already have a standalone Wikipedia article (generally – there can be exceptions, but "have their own standalone article" is a good "first cut"), have a meaningful guest appearance on the show (e.g. a character that was meaningful to the "plot" and not just incidental), and preferably have a reliable secondary source reporting their appearance. Looking at this article, both the 'Recurring' and the 'Guest' sections should be substantially trimmed back. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Was that supposed to answer my question directly above this comment? Argento Surfer (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the guest section should be removed entirely. There's no real need to list people who have only appeared in a single episode. The recurring section should be trimmed to notable characters who have appeared in at least three or four episodes perhaps? Looking at the page I don't remember a lot of these recurring characters being in a lot of episodes. Esuka (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the Recurring section should be trim down to cast members who appear in 4+ episodes and Guest section into Notable guests only. — Young Forever (talk)   20:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In the case of this series, I think the "cut-line" for 'Recurring' is going to need to be higher that just "4+ episodes" (though I'd want to see what that looks like first). But this is the kind of series that has so many "recurring"-type characters that it should possibly just be restricted to those that are in 4+ episodes and have standalone articles... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of these recurring credits also seem nonsensical. Why is there a "Kenneth Maharaj as Subject #4," one for example? Was this even a notable character? Did they even get more than a few lines of dialogue? Let's trim credits like this if we need a place to start. Esuka (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

For the Recurring section (4+ appearances) — Young Forever (talk)   21:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

For the Recurring section (5+ appearances) — Young Forever (talk)   02:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

For the Recurring section (6+ appearances) — Young Forever (talk)   21:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the four plus thing is best. Though I think people need to avoid adding characters that are literally just background characters per the example I gave. He had like no dialogue and was one of the people who appeared only when they were doing experiments on him. If I remember right whenever he was shocked it affected Cal and that was literally his only purpose. Esuka (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify, does "4+" mean "5 or more appearances", or does it mean "4 or more"? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4 or more. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   02:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, that makes a difference – based on that answer, I would only list those who appeared in "5 or more episodes" (e.g. "5+", I guess) as "recurring" – "4 or more" is still including too many, but "6 or more" is probably too high a "cut line". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not include include 5+ appearances because it didn't make much of a significant difference. —  Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   02:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC) Added the 5+ appearances. —  Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   02:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd still put the "bar" at 5 or more for this particular series. Then, as Esuka, we also need to eliminate anyone that's not a "significant" recurring character as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a better list IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, 4+ appearances would be the best because I think those characters had a lot of interactions or significant impacts with some of the main characters. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   04:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If we're going with the five plus suggestion, I would say the Danny character needs including too. He was the focal point of the family drama on the show and had some fairly significant scenes. Other than that I don't think it would be a bad choice as some of the characters in the four plus weren't really important to the plot. Esuka (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Autumn Cox was pretty important in the plot. She was the doubled agent until she wasn't. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   21:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair point, so Daniel Sunjata & Shirley Rumierk should stay on the revised list. Was there anyone else? If not then we have a notable recurring cast list going forward. Esuka (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think also Fiona Clarke. As she was the scientist who uncovered alot stuff to Michaela and Ben. As the rest of the 4 appearances, they aren't that important to the plot. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   01:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do we have a consensus to cut down the Recurring section to 5+ appearances, but will include Daniel Sunjata as Danny, Shirley Rumierk as Autumn Cox, and Francesca Faridany as Fiona Clarke as they are important recurring characters to the plot? And also to remove the Guest section and only add notable guests? — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   19:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. Esuka (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅: Upon this discussion. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   21:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually Francesca Faridany as Fiona Clark was in 6 episodes. So it wouldn't make a difference. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   21:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine. We can always revisit the discussion should any objections be raised in the future. Esuka (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are keeping Shirley Rumierk (4 episodes) and Yasha Jackson (2 episodes) on the recurring list, Geraldine Leer should be added (4 episodes) as her character is a major source of motivation for the main cast of characters. Erika3536 (talk)
 * Yasha Jackson is reliably sourced as recurring. In addition, IMDb is not a reliable source. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   16:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I would agree Erika3536, feel free to write an article about her with suitable references James Kevin McMahon (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Enough for a Season 3 table?
The official Manifest twitter account has posted a picture of the script written for the first episode of Season 3 minus the title. Would that be enough for a season table? Its here 81.97.84.42 (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ It is from the Manifest official Twitter account (verified with a check mark) so, it should sufficient as it has a director and writers, so the entire row is not almost empty. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   21:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Would this be enough for a 2021 release date entry in the episodes table? Same Twitter account. 81.97.84.42 (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ It should also be added on prose sections as well which I just did. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   18:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Modify character outlines?
Spoilers in character descriptions. 2001:56A:FA13:B200:503:F9E:28DD:186 (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Character descriptions can contain spoilers, but they should not read like plot summaries. Character descriptions should be brief. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   00:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Do NOT add Netflix?
Why do we not add Netflix to the infobox yet? Plenty of sources saying that Netflix is the new network for Manifest! c87d98b10 16:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The fourth season is yet to premiere on Netflix, WP:NOTCRYSTAL. It is not a Netflix original until the fourth season actually premiere on Netflix. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   00:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Even though every single reliable source states that season 4 will premiere on Netflix? I don't see Crystal balling here at all. No one is making predictions, we should go with the sources. c87d98b10 00:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Will premiere" is considered to be WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Have the fourth season premiere on Netflix yet? No, the fourth season have not premiere on Netflix yet. The information on Netflix picking up the series for a fourth season is already on the body. When moving from an original network to another original network, we do not include the new original network until the new season premieres on the new original network on the Infobox. The parameter on the Infobox is pretty like number of seasons and number of episodes, "Only increment as a new season or new episode premieres, per the documentation of the template!" — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   18:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, please drop the sarcastic tone in your future replies to me, as is it hardly befitting of Wikipedia's Civility policy. This is a place to discuss potential edits to the article in good faith. Secondly, you may want to brush up on what WP:CRYSTAL actually means, because it doesn't mean ignore reliable sources. If your logic for applying CRYSTAL here is it might not happen despite what the sources say, then better get Paris out of the infobox for the 2024 Olympics article because y'know, it might not happen... c87d98b10 20:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your accusations of me being uncivil and not assuming in good faith are completely baseless. TV series is completely different from the Olympics. As I stated, the information is already on the body supported by the reliable source. That is not ignoring reliable sources. The Infobox is not place to put the new original network until the new season actually premieres on the new original network. In addition, there is no set premiere date yet either. This is the common practice on WP:TV and MOS:TV. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   21:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)