Talk:Saturday Night Live season 46/Archive 1

Stop unhiding the cast members
Unless you have sources that all the cast members are returning, please keep them hidden. So far, only Ego Nwodim has been confirmed as being promoted to repertory. I shouldn't have to say this here. - Jasonbres (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Ratings vs Viewers
Why do all the seasons of SNL state the ratings for each episode? Aren't the viewers for an episode a better way to see how the show has been progressing? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * With late night shows most of the ratings information reported is rating/share figures. Occasionally SNL will get viewership numbers and when they are available they are used instead.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    13:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my late response but ShowBuzzDaily always comes out with SNL's viewership numbers, every Monday/Tuesday. With your statement, shouldn't we use viewership numbers instead, as we have them? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2020
I want to post an image of the new SNL logo, because the opening Montage was changed. Simon Waj (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing/OR in the SNL family of articles?
and I had an extension discussion on his talk page about the sourcing in the SNL family of articles. It began because he questioned the sourcing on one of my edits, and my response is that there are many many edits to this article, as well as related SNL articles, that don't meet Wikipedia's usual standard of sourcing. That is, a lot of stuff is added that is effectively sourced to the episode itself, although not explicitly tagged as such. There are occasionally news media sources that get linked, but not for most of the facts (although most of the facts can't be reasonably questioned). A lot of editing happens at high speed during the initial airing of the episode, and some of those edits are sourced later, but lots of them aren't. Is there some discussion of the degree to which this is appropriate? (I don't do a lot of work with Wikipedia's television articles, so I'm not sure if there's a more appropriate discussion location).

When I look at Koavf's recent edits, I see a bunch that I think people would be surprised by, under the above standards:

SNL Band removing the vast majority of current and former members of the band. . And removing "noteworthy" band members as unsourced. . And excision of "Band leaders and musical directors." Chloe Fineman removing "Celebrity impressions" section Maddie Rice removing her membership in the band (despite its being tagged citation needed)

So, I guess…what to do? It seems wrong that people put time and effort into this articles to add material that is subject to instant removal but that removal is not evenhandedly applied. But it's also odd if SNL articles are subject to a different kind Original Research/Verifiability standard than the rest of Wikipedia. Maybe we just ignore this and carry on? I'm not sure. Is this a common issue in WP:TELEVISION, and I should look somewhere else to find discussion?

My inclination would be to presume most of the information is sourced to the relevant episode (easy enough for the SNL 46 page, but less so for the related articles in my box above), and to tag other items citation needed and allow that condition to persist for an extended period (e.g. a year after airing) before taking action to remove such information, unless of course it is actually disputed (rather than weakly sourced). But maybe that is wrong? (One of the edits above removed 1-week old information that was already tagged citation needed...)

On a tangentially related note, why don't we link to NBC's "official" copies of the episodes, e.g. to https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/october-10-bill-burr/4242446 since they are effectively the primary source and are ~95% canonical (not 100% because they omit what happens during commercial breaks, even though that can make it on-air in some markets)?

Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , "but that removal is not evenhandedly applied"... "it's... odd if SNL articles are subject to a different kind Original Research/Verifiability standard than the rest of Wikipedia" Agreed: there are only 24 hours in a day. I could spend my entire life removing unsourced information from this site and literally never be done. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not defending any particular removals from an article, but we can't make a blanket decision to allow unsourced information to remain in an article for an extended period such as one year. Consensus can allow some gray areas, but consensus cannot override fundamental policies. That's just not how Wikipedia works. Let's review WP:V: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace ... must be verifiable.... [A]ny material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced" (bold added). If information in an article does not have a citation and is not challenged, it can stay. BUT, anyone can challenge information that is not cited. That can be done with a "citation needed" tag, or it can be immediately removed, especially if it is about a living person. If it is removed it should not be restored without a citation. There is no requirement to us a cn tag, but that is often the way to go, at least for a while. A problem with cn tags is that sometimes they stay in an article for a long period of time without a source, so I understand why some people remove the information instead of tagging it.

All of that being said, my opinion is that if the information is linked to another article that reliably sources it, a citation is not needed in the SNL article. So, for example, a link to a cast member's or guest's bio article reliably sources the information I personally don't think a citation is needed in the SNL article. But I emphasize that all of the information must be sourced sourced somewhere on Wikipedia in a way that it can be found easily. So, for example, in Chloe Fineman it is sourced that she was announced as a featured player on September 12, 2019. I think those details can go in an SNL article without a citation if her bio is linked. But the celebrity impressions she does is not sourced in her article. If that is added to an SNL article without a citation, it can be challenged. A section on "Noteworthy members" could be challenged unless there is a source that identifies these people as more noteworthy than others because there is personal opinion involved in deciding who is more noteworthy; but that often is not challenged. It also is my opinion that if something is very clear by watching the episode, it doesn't need a citation. For example, I don't think there is any disagreement that there was a tribute to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

As for applying reverts evenhandedly across Wikipedia, unfortunately that is the nature of Wikipedia. There will always be discrepancies in verifiability among article because no one can fix everything and Wikipedia is always a work in progress. We can't defend problems with one article by pointing out problems in another article. The most we can do is to try our best to fix the problems in the other article. Sundayclose (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks,, for your analysis. I don't mean to suggest there should be some sort of different set of rules for the SNL family of articles, but rather to observe that there seems to be. And I'm not advocating for a "blanket decision," I'm just expressing how I would approach the question of deciding whether to remove information versus to cn it. It seems like there is a culture in this group of articles that I'm not quite sure how to evaluate, so I was hoping for some direction.
 * I would not tend to agree with your comments about verifiability though: for the most part the issue here is not verifiability, but rather sourcing (which goes to verifiability). It's easy enough to assume that information added in a particular week might be sourced to that week's episode, but that becomes impractical for an editor 3 or 4 years down the line to evaluate. (OK, perhaps this does fall under "verifiability.") Saying it's sourced "somewhere on Wikipedia" just makes that nearly impossible to do. But I may be a bit out of step on this; if I were making the rules, I would want the RBG tribute to come with a timestamp and a link to the episode, if there were not links to news media articles that summarized the moment. But that's not the culture and practice of these articles, and I don't propose to institute such a [heightened?] standard here.
 * Maybe it's helpful for us (and I want to specifically address here), to remember that this is is a Start-class article, and indeed some of those in question (SNL Band, etc.) are even lower: Stub-class. Looking at the quality scale (click "detail"): "Frequently, the referencing is inadequate, although enough sources are usually provided to establish verifiability." To me, that means we should not be removing this kind of content from the articles. Improve the sourcing ourselves, or tag the fact for improvement, but don't delete unless there is a real dispute as to facts, rather than a fear or concern about true-but-original-research. As you point out, there are only 24 hours in a day, spend our efforts improving articles and pulling them up by their bootstraps, not knocking down the nacent articles that haven't gotten off the ground (maybe it's different for the BLP ones, I'd say not in this situation though?). I'm sorry I didn't raise this point in our earlier discussion, although perhaps it would have contributed to what you saw as a "wall-of-text." (On the other hand, it doesn't seem like these SNL season articles tend to grow past Start-class. Indeed, some of the older ones are List-class. So it's not as if we can reasonably expect them to become C class and then B class anytime soon. Maybe this damages my argument?) jhawkinson (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , "that means we should not be removing this kind of content from the articles": no, all unsourced information (that is not common knowledge) should be removed. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Immediately removing it is one option. It can also be tagged with "citation needed" unless it is a BLP violation. Sundayclose (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * that's just not the standard! Please stop offering it as if it were. It can be removed, but it doesn't have to be. We have other choices. The text of mine you quoted began with "To me," expressing how I thought we should handle this situation, not saying what the rules require (leaving out the two words I started with changes the meaning of my words in a subtle but important way; I'm sorry to harp on it). But let's distinguish advocacy from actual rules. Don't pretend the rules require you to remove facts like this. They allow you to do so. I think, in this context, that is too severe an approach, and I have tried to explain why. Maybe I haven't done a good enough job? jhawkinson (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." Unsourced information is a blight and should be removed on site. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the "negative information" in this particular article that should be "removed on site"? Sundayclose (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't know of any. I do know of unsourced information in general: I never claimed that any of it was "negative". ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that all unsourced information must be removed immediately, with no exceptions? Sundayclose (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , As I quoted above, "this is true of all information" (minus what is common knowledge or the barest synthesis of facts [e.g. R.E.M.'s second studio LP is Reckoning, once you already know that their first was Murmur]). ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to make sure I don't misunderstand you. You are saying that a "citation needed" tag should never be used with unsourced information instead of a removal except for common knowledge? Sundayclose (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yes. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

You have a misunderstanding about "citation needed" tags. Jimbo said it should be removed "unless it can be sourced". "Can be sourced" leaves some flexibility to notify editors that a source is required ("citation needed") and then wait a reasonable period of time before removing. And I emphasize that is the option of the editor posting the cn tag; that editor also has the option to remove instead. WP:V states that information "must be verifiable"; it does not state that notifying other editors about the need for the source before removal is never permitted. Stating that a cn tag is never allowed instead of removal flies in the face of edits from many, many long-term, dedicated editors, including administrators with sterling reputations. I understand that it may be your preference and style to remove instead of tagging, and that's fine. But to state that cn tags are never allowed is simply wrong. Sundayclose (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Great thing that I never said that then. You all solicited my feedback and then misread what I wrote. If you want to know what WP:V says, then you can read it yourself: you don't need me to give any feedback. Any time that I see [citation needed] and a tracking category with "Unsourced information since March 2011", I remove it and I will always remove. I will never leave unsourced information that I find on Wikipedia. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your choice to remove is not the same as your statement that a cn tag is never allowed instead of removal. I'm not asking whether it's your personal choice to always remove. I asked: "You are saying that a 'citation needed' tag should never be used with unsourced information instead of a removal except for common knowledge?" to which you replied with an unequivocal "Yes". Tell me where I "misread what you wrote". Which part of "yes" did I misread? Sundayclose (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I didn't write "they are never allowed", I wrote "they should never be used". ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So would you agree that it would be inappropriate to tell an editor that they should never use a cn tag instead of removing (except for a BLP violation)? Sundayclose (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , No. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So, if use of cn tags is permitted, when would it ever be appropriate (except in the case of a BLP violation) to tell an editor that they are not allowed to use cn tags instead of removing? Sundayclose (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , You're repeating yourself over and over and over again and wasting my time: editors are allowed to use them (I never wrote otherwise). Also, editors should not use them. Anyone who finds unsourced information (with a few caveats) should remove it on sight. It is not difficult to understand these two statements so I don't know why you're asking me to repeat them. Why are you wasting my time and yours? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I'm no repeating myself; I'm trying to get a straight answer. If you consider discussing this issue a waste of time it's your choice to not participate. I assume you understand that it is your opinion (and not a policy) that cn tags should not be used. And I assume you agree that editors should never be told that they are not permitted to use cn tags. If you agree with my assumptions then we can conclude this discussion. Otherwise I would appreciate an explanation. Sundayclose (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , You asked me for my perspective! That's what I wrote before. Who ever said that cn was forbidden? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , You know what: how about I turn the questioning around on you. When should I leave lies, hoaxes, hearsay, nonsense, speculation, misinformation, disinformation, crackpot theories, original research, personal messages, and all of the other unsourced information that I find on Wikipedia? What is the value of leaving in misleading, false, or unknowable claims with a little $"[citation needed]"$ at the end of them? Why is it my responsibility to prove someone else's conjectures? It seems a lot simpler to me to say, "This has no source and isn't common knowledge, therefore, I should delete it". What is the value in making things more complicated and saying, "Well, this could be true and I don't know that it's not, so I'll leave a little template here that will sit around for seven years until someone else deletes it? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * First, I'll gladly respond your questions. You have a choice to remove unsourced information any time you see it, whether or not it's lies, hoaxes, hearsay, nonsense, speculation, misinformation, disinformation, crackpot theories, original research, personal messages; it can be as simple as the statement that a foot is equal to 12 inches. If that's unsourced you are allowed to remove it. It is not your responsibility to prove someone else's conjectures. In my opinion, sometimes there is value to leaving a "citation needed" tag if there is a reasonable expectation that someone will provide a source, but removing the information is also an option.
 * Now, I hope you'll tell me if you agree with my two assumptions, which I'll repeat: "I assume you understand that it is your opinion (and not a policy) that cn tags should not be used. And I assume you agree that editors should never be told that they are not permitted to use cn tags." If you agree, we can wrap this up. If you don't agree I would appreciate an explanation. Sundayclose (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am not discussing this any further: I've told you what my perspective is, I have linked you to the policy, I have explained over and over again the same statements about what is allowed and what should be done. Stop pinging me on this topic. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I see. We're down to the crux of the issue and you don't want to let others know that you are aware of the difference between your opinion and policy, or whether it's OK to tell someone they are not allowed do something that is widely accepted on Wikipedia. That's certainly your choice. Thanks for the discussion, even though you didn't really provide much defense for some of your comments. And since you requested not to be notified (I assume because you have no explanation for any of this), I didn't ping you. Sundayclose (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I explained myself thoroughly. You said that you wanted "straight answers" and there are no answers more straightforward than "No" and "Yes", which I gave. I told you what you are allowed to do, what you should do, what my perspective is, and why. If you don't want my opinion, I don't understand why it was solicited in the first place. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you afraid to tell us that it is your opinion rather than policy that cn tags should not be used? Why are you afraid to tell us that it's inappropriate to tell someone that they are not allowed to do something that is widely accepted on Wikipedia (i.e., use cn tags)? It's very simple. Either you agree with my assumptions or you don't. Since you pinged me I am now pinging you. Sundayclose (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Stop assuming bad faith: I never said that it was policy that cn tags should not be used. I never told someone that they are not allowed to do anything except for the one thing you just did even tho I told you to stop doing. Stop making up stuff. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So just to finalize this, I assume you agree that it's your opinion rather than policy that cn tags should not be used. And I assume you agree that editors should never be told that they are not permitted to use cn tags. Do you agree? If you simply say yes or no instead of evading the issue we can finish this discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Although I am dismayed at what happened here, I want to support Sundayclose here. Koavf, you are coming across as evasive and if it's not your intention to speak in bad faith, you should choose a different way of speaking, because you have repeatedly given confirmation of that impression to others. It started with your questioning why I spoke up on your talk page, and has continued here. There were some pretty simple direct questions about your interpretation of the rules, and the way you answered is not encouraging. Also, the quotation above from Jimbo Wales seems inapposite, both because it was from a footnote, and because in context it was even more specific to BLP-issues than it might appear from the limiting text. Thank you for your attention. jhawkinson (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've done all I can do here and I've explained my thinking on this topic. If I see unsourced information, I will remove it and I can only hope that other editors do, too. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No you didn't. You have not provided a direct, straightforward agreement or disagreement with the questions I aksed, or even tried to explain why you might not agree. Sundayclose (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I pointed you to what the policy says and I never claimed that it says that cn tags cannot be used (if they couldn't, then they wouldn't exist). No one ever said that there was a policy saying that cn tags can't be used so I'm confused as to why you repeatedly bring it up. I dislike this conversation and feel like it's an exhausting mind game. I told you to stop pinging me about this twice now--once explicitly and once implicitly. Stop it. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So it should be very simple for you to agree or disagree and end this discussion. Do you agree that it's your opinion rather than policy that cn tags should not be used? Do you agree that editors should never be told that they are not permitted to use cn tags? By the way, you are free to ignore my comments, but you don't get to tell people to "stop" making comments on an article's talk page. If you don't want me to ping you, then please don't ping me. Sundayclose (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, you deliberately misrepresent what I wrote: I never told anyone to stop posting here, I told you to stop pinging me. Quit your lies. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You simply wrote "Stop it". You didn't say stop pinging you. Previously here you told me to stop pinging you, which I respected. Then you started pinging me. Don't ping me, and I won't ping you. And we're still waiting for whether you agree with my statements above, so I assume you have no defense for your comments. Sundayclose (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Section break
I would like to give my two cents to the discussion as an uninvolved onlooker. If we do want to source the actual closing credits for the episodes, we can always use the cite episode template and add the closing credits to the "time" parameter. I've also asked, an uninvolved user, for his thoughts on the matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding, yes, you can use that to cite closing credits where the SNL band members are listed. They're listed under "the live band" in this episode credit selection for example:
 * As for the usage of, the immediate removal depends on whether the material is contentious or is a contentious claim about living people.
 * You can also discuss whether it's worth listing more than just the musical directors. I suggest treating this group like WP:ALUMNI and list only members that have their own articles. This would be consistent with conductors / concertmasters / orchestras.
 * Should you want to list some or all the band members, the next question is whether instruments can be cited reliably. You can't use the actual episode to indicate the instrument since that would be original research, but you can cite primary sources (person's website/resume) or other news articles. Years played would also need to be cited to cite episode credits: if they didn't get credit in the next season opener, then they're probably not in the band that season.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Kate McKinnon breaks character during Weekend Update
Hello again, everyone! As confrimed by a few different sources that have previously been cited in articles about Saturday Night Live, during last weekend's episode, Kate McKinnon broke character while appearing on Weekend Update. That is verified here, here, here, here, and here, to name a few. Would that be sufficiently notable to include here? Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The real (underlying) issue isn't notability, it's…truth. Did McKinnon "break character"? Or did she merely appear to break character in a way that was scripted? That's not obvious from watching the episode, and the links you offer don't appear to have seriously researched this question. There's been some press that has suggested it looks like she was reading cue cards during the "break" incident, but I don't have any links handy. (It's certainly possible to know. Was this what happened during the dress rehearsal, which, at least in pre-COVID times, had a studio audience? And of course, journalists with access can talk to the cast, crew, and the producers to find out what was intended.) If the conclusion of this exercise were, "Kate McKinnon broke character during the Weekend Update sketch," I think that would be fairly notable. But if the conclusion is, "Kate McKinnon appeared to break character during the Weekend Update sketch, but it was probably just scripted," then that wouldn't seem to match the level of notability usually found in these articles. And if we just don't know, in my opinion it doesn't meet notability. jhawkinson (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Cast members frequently break character on SNL. YouTube is full of such clips. We can't put every detail about episodes in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of trivia. Sundayclose (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both. As I might or might not have previously mentioned, I have been editing here on Wikipedia for almost 15 years now, but I'm relatively new to articles about network TV shows in general and SNL articles in particular. I felt it best to raise the issue here becaue I was fairly certain that someone would know better than I would on the question. And that is a great point: was it scripted for McKinnon to break character? If it was, would we find sufficient evidence one way or the other to include it? I also understand that there is a difference between a scripted character break (such as the weekly proclamation: "Live from New Yotk, it's Saturday night!") and something unscripted (like last season's premiere episode, when an early entrance by a wardrobe assistant caused Aidy Bryant to break, making it hard for her fellow sketch participants to keep it together as well). Since we don't know which is the case here, I can see and support the reason to not mention it at all. My thanks to both of you for your help on this question. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * she didn't break character to begin with -- JOST did!


 * he addressed her as "kate" plop dab in the middle of this seriously unfunny skit. after that, she just followed.


 * either way, these things are common enough not to be noteworthy.

the stagehand "straying in" was a special case.

66.30.47.138 (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * quick question: WHY is my last line there landing in a quote box?! i have tried repeatedly to shake that off!  66.30.47.138 (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You began the line with a space. Take the space out and it will look normal. Sundayclose (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Oct. 17, 2020
Bieber’s performance of Lonely had Benny Blanco on the piano TheRealAndrewPrep (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it notable when cast member don't appear?
It seems that for past seasons (particularly last season with the absence of Pete Davidson in the first 2 episodes) it is noted when cast members do not make appearances on the show. Any reason why we would not make similar notes this season? This is now the subject of an edit war.

The only reason I can see for not noting it would be if this season the cast is so large that not all cast members get to appear on all episodes. Otherwise, I would think that it would be expected for all cast members to make appearances, meaning that not making appearances (yet still getting credited) would be notable. Banana Republic (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There are lots of things that don't happen in every episode, and it's trivia that doesn't need to be included in a table because tables can contain limited information. An episode may not have a sketch in black and white. An episode may not pay tribute to someone who recently died. Alec Baldwin may not appear as Donald Trump. Trump may not tweet in response to a Baldwin portrayal. Players may not break character in an episode. A particular writer may not have helped for a sketch. The taped broadcast for the west coast may not have anything removed. An episode may not show members of the audience. There may not be a parody of a particular notable event. It could go on and on and on. Nonevents are unnecessary trivia unless there is something particularly special about it, such as a cast member not appearing because he was arrested earlier that day. Sundayclose (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think your definition of a non-event is applicable. A cast member who is credited, yet does not appear, is an event that does not meet your definition of a non-event. Your definition of a non-event applies to the 10 billion people around the world who did not appear on the show. Banana Republic (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * it is not noteworthy. on any given week 12 of the 15 or so appear.  there are always a couple on vacation, out sick, or there but simply not called up into a skit.  it is the norm.
 * the pete davidson thing was special b/c it was ongoing and there were threats of suicide. as Sundayclose said, a cast member ARREST might be worth noting.
 * cast member staying home feeding his cat is not.... 66.30.47.138 (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is notable when they do not appear in an episode. We include all of the guest stars in an episode. Why shouldn't we include the people who don't appear in the episode but were credited? JDDJS ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 23:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My definition of non-event is quite applicable. In the last few years, Alec Baldwin has appeared as Donald Trump more often than he has not appeared, so if we include nonevents that one should be included. Cast members frequently break character, and it's noted in SNL episode descriptions. If that doesn't occur, it should be included. Writers are in the credits every episode. If I find reliable source that a particular writer didn't help with a sketch, it should be included. Episode descriptions have included what was removed for the west coast broadcast. If there was no removal, it should be included. My definition of non-event is no more arbitrary than deciding that non-appearing cast members should be noted. Sundayclose (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're using the slippery slope argument, which is a known logical fallacy. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 23:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No offense, but my comments have no relationship to the slippery slope argument. I could just as easily pull a fallacy out of thin air to characterize your comments. I could say that you are using the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, but that doesn't make it true. Sundayclose (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm misunderstanding your comment (which is possible), you are saying that if we mention cast members who do not appear in the episdoe, then we have to include every "non-event". That is a slippery slope argument. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 00:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes you misunderstood. "Have to include" is a meaningless statement because no one is forced to make an edit on Wikipedia. I'm saying that if it is standard procedure to mention cast members who do not appear, anyone can add other nonevents that I described and, in fact, will be encouraged to do so. It is not required to add other non-events, but listing cast members who do not appear encourages addition of such useless trivia. There's a reason Wikipedia discourages trivia; it encourages excess and usually is unencyclopedic. Sundayclose (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Up to now, it has been rare that a cast member is credited and does not appear. Unless this becomes a common practice with the larger cast, sounds like the "non-event" argument doesn't really apply here. Banana Republic (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * NOT RARE AT ALL!! happens like EVERY WEEK....
 * carry on. 66.30.47.138 (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're gonna have to explain that more clearly. How does the rarity of the non-event negate anything I have said? It's a non-event regardless of how rare it is. Additionally, I disagree with your premise. It has not been rare. That's obvious if you read through the episode summaries; and those are only the ones where someone bothered to state than that a cast member did not appear. We're only three episodes into the current season and someone has already tried to add statements about six cast members who did not appear. Sundayclose (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So far, nobody seems to be buying your argument that it's a "non-event". But specifically, if something is common and routine then it's not notable. If something is rare, it's notable for its rarity.
 * For now, I think we should list all the non-appearances, and if by the end of the season it turns out that the majority of the episode had non-appearances of credited cast members, we could revisit. Banana Republic (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You haven't made a case that non-appearance of cast members is so rare that it's notable. Six absent cast members in three episodes is a long way from evidence of rarity. And by the way, it is entirely inappropriate for you to add non-appearing cast members while this discussion is ongoing. It may be your opinion to add them "for now", but that doesn't mean you have the authority to make a decision about it right now. Please carefully read WP:BRD and WP:CON, and then revert your edit. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Currently, you are the one going against WP:CONSENSUS. I'm not seeing consensus going in your direction. You are the only one promoting your position, and at least two are in this discussion in opposition of your position.
 * You cannot draw a conclusion from only 3 episodes for this season. When looking at the overall series, it has been rare for credited cast members not to appear. We won't know if there is now a new trend of not all cast members appear on all episodes until the season matures. Banana Republic (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * u are a consensus of ONE!
 * i'm with Sundayclose (and others). pls. don't vandalize the article.  66.30.47.138 (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As long as it doesn't lead to episode counts / attendance records. We don't need to know that a certain member appeared in only 15 out of 18 episodes that season. Also if it is anything like pro wrestling shows, there are dark matches and off-screen entertainment. If the show this season treats their roster like a sports team, and only some of the folks play / start, then no, don't need to; but it is weird if they're announced to "start" and don't appear on the show.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

You have a misunderstanding about how the consensus process works. First, consensus is not a vote, so announcing a daily tally is meaningless. Secondly, consensus is not declared after one day of discussion, especially by someone who is a participant in the discussion. As you can see in this discussion, opinions have been expressed after your pronouncement. And finally, there is no consensus, so if you don't want to "draw a conclusion from only 3 episodes for this season", please revert your edit adding non-appearances until this discussion is finished, per WP:BRD and WP:CON. You can't have it both ways. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are mixing up two articles. There is the 45th season - where non-appearances were rare, and this season, in which we don't know how rare it will be. Banana Republic (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

And you seemed to be mixed up altogether. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saturday_Night_Live_%28season_46%29&type=revision&diff=984258242&oldid=984249434 Season 46. Three episodes. Six casts members' absence]. I'm waiting for your compelling case for rarity. (Yawn). And please don't declare consensus again. Sundayclose (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Sundayclose. And if no one else will, I'll sign on to the slippery slope fallacy, why not. It's purely trivia to list what isn't happening in an episode, and no one has made a particularly compelling case why we're only agreeing to cast absences. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:TVCAST, "If an actor misses an episode due to a real-world occurrence, such as an injury that prevents them from appearing, this info can be noted in the character's description or "Production" section with a reliable source." I think the compromise should be, if editors really think absences this season are particularly notable, to create a short subsection in Cast about notable absences this season citing a reliable source – and not to write about it in the summary of each individual episode.  If no secondary source can be found – or if the absence is due to something like all of the cast member's sketches were cut – the absence should not be noted.  This should also apply to the Season 45 article, which currently lists individual absences in the Episodes section.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a perfectly reasonable compromise. I agree that separating cast absences from the episode summaries is necessary, if the absences are to be included at all, as well as the need for a reliable source that notes a significant reason for the absence other than cut sketches or other trivial reasons. Examples of trivial reasons would include (but are not limited to) the cast member had a mild illness or cast member was not needed in any sketch. That would mean that for the most part the absences that have been added up to now would not be included. I think missing more than one episode because of other commitments (e.g., making a film) is notable if well sourced. And this should apply across the board to all articles on SNL seasons. It is impractical to have this discussion for 46 different articles. If anyone wishes to put a link to this discussion on talk pages for other seasons feel free to do so. Sundayclose (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Official skit name
The skit's name was renamed in the article from "Uncle Ben" to "Fired Mascots". SNL's official YouTube channel calls the skit "Uncle Ben". Banana Republic (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

November 14, 2020
there WILL NOT be a new episode. they don’t usually do a new episode during the week of Thanksgiving. There are, as is usual for off weeks, two reruns on Saturday night. The first, at 10 p.m., and another rerun at 11:30. In fact, there aren't any new SNL episodes announced at this time.
 * https://www.thewrap.com/is-there-a-new-snl-episode-airing-this-week-november-14/
 * https://www.newsweek.com/snl-new-this-week-how-watch-after-monumental-election-episode-1547386
 * 2601:646:200:120:C0B3:FD0E:F5C8:B992 (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)