Talk:USS Callister

"White male" analyses
Good job placing a "fuck white people" article in the analysis, this is what Wikipedia users need, self-flagellation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.179.100.215 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * has just removed a significant portion of the existing Analysis section – seemingly, the content that discusses Daly's race and gender and how it impacts on the episode, along with the episode's relation to Star Trek. I think technically I could claim exemption under exception #4 of 3RR and just revert it (removal of sourced content with no edit summary seems like pretty clear vandalism to me), but I'll refrain. As a white male myself, certainly my intention is not to disparage any white males; I was merely summarising the comments of reviewers. I think in fairness, "Daly fits a common archetype of white males who participate in prejudiced online echo chambers due to ostracisation in real life" is a bit much, and I was trying to work out how to rephrase it – but on the other hand, it seems like a fair assessment of this critics' opinion. The other parts of the section were corroborated by numerous reviewers, and doubtless there are many more similar reliable sources out there making the same point about the gender and race politics of the episode.
 * Could another uninvolved editor come and see what should be done of content from the version of the Analysis section I wrote – whether it should remain removed, be added back or be rephrased? If it's either of the last two, semi-protection may also be necessary for a few days. Pinging as active editors in this area who have edited this article (though anyone is very welcome to add to the discussion). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this edit (warning: page has "Arkangel" spoilers) by the same editor who blanked Analysis content here – they may be a single-purpose account with a non-neutral gender agenda (pun intended). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking sides on the race and gender issue, but you have no "exemption" for WP:3RR. Such self-bestowed exemptions usually result in a block. Get consensus before reverting again. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fair, and the reason I started this discussion. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 18:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't care at all that you're a white guy and you shouldn't care yourself. I very much hate when people say as a white guy or as a woman or as a gay dude. So what? That makes your opinion higher in caliber than mine just because you're gay, black, or white. Just care about being an editor because that's what you enjoy. You shouldn't make what you are who you are and you shouldn't disparage people just for being "white". That's what I hate about those articles as they very much "screw white guy" articles while putting ideologies and politics on something where it doesn't exist. They take the enjoyment out of everything. Just think if you said "black male's abuse of authority" that would be considered racist(which it is), but when replaced with "white male" it fine(though it is racist too). It shouldn't be fine on any account white, black, etc. I guess it would be fine if Charlie Brooker said that was the message of the episode, while I would very much disagree with it, I would still put it on the page because that is what it's about regardless.

I mean if the analysis were well-versed and put together, I would respect that. However, all those analyses come from "journalists" who try to put "mansplaining" on a Better Call Saul episode or Thomas the Tank Engine "fascist", which I very much hate those terms like "toxic masculinity" and "white privilege" as they're very much sexist and racist terms (though surprisingly excepted) and it takes the fun out of everything. They're not analysis, they're ideological rants. They're like "modern game journalists". Even worse, when people see the "fuck white people" analysis they're going to think that was the writer's true intention which is perhaps wasn't and people will say "oh the writers of this show are anti-white and anti-male". I'm very tired of hearing politics, gender, and race all the time on something that just wanted tell a story but got caught with progressives or modern feminists or SJWs. I'm just tired of seeing those words all the time these days on articles. Though, I'm probably just wasting my time here.

Though, I guess I should have been a bit more apprehensive on the Arkangel edit as I just don't care about what directed it (first[blank] to make something I don't care about what you are, I just care about what you made.) which is why I made the change, though I guess I should have been more thorough. I'll do better next time. - Franz Biberkopf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz biberkopf (talk • contribs) 18:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you've re-added some but not all of the content. What's your opinion on this? — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe you are referring to the phrase "psychological traits associated with rape culture", am i right? First of all, i want to say that i do not believe this episode was about racism or sexism at all, but this is my personal point of view. In Vulture's review we read: though there’s a romantic dimension to the Callister simulation, Robert never rapes the female voyagers; in a moment both hilarious and profoundly disturbing, Simpson reveals that they all have Barbie-doll-esque blank surfaces where their genitals should be. Still, the psychological foundation that has manifested in rape culture — the entitlement, the skewed dynamic of power, the erotics of unwillingness — is all right there. I believe the phrase "it's all right there" is too simplistic, and not justified in the review. In particular, it is not explained how Daly treats the women of the crew differently than the men. Especially, compared to the extent that the "white male nerd" subject is covered in other reviews. MOS:TVRECEPTION states that vague and non-descriptive claims should be avoided and if a review only contains such claims, without providing any rationale and examples to back up their opinions, then the review, in most circumstances, should not be used in the article. In the closing paragraph of Telegraph's review we read: the script was co-written by Brooker and William Bridges long before the Weinstein scandal broke, though as the #metoo campaign grows, it couldn’t feel more timely. Cole’s victory over her creepy boss in the high-fiving finale might not feel very Black Mirror, but it’s the kind of story it would be good to hear more often, and this is the first mention to this subject in the review. Once again, it's not explained how the narrative of an attractive younger woman who falls for the "nice guy" is associated with sexual scandals and rape culture. -- Radiphus  21:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's actually a bit more as well. Here are the exact parts that were removed and never added back:
 * (difference from current bolded; also sentences restructured but that's minor)
 * Take another look at this diff for the exact removal.
 * First of all, I commend you for making those edits despite personal disagreement; that shows a genuine respect for NPOV and other Wikipedia guidelines. As it happens, my opinion is that gender and to a lesser extent race are a key part of the episode – I did pay particular close attention to this content as I thought it might be challenged, and don't want my personal view to come across in the article.
 * So I think #1-3 and #5 are completely uncontroversial, with the authors and Brooker explaining their opinions fully (tell me if you disagree though). With the Vulture review, I think each of his female compatriots rewards him with a chaste close-mouthed kiss contributes to the explanation, and part of the quote you pasted (the entitlement, the skewed dynamic of power, the erotics of unwillingness) is also an explanation of why the reviewer thinks it is related to rape culture. It looks to me like MOS:TVRECEPTION is a very low threshold – Non-descriptive claims do not provide the reader with the context necessary to understand why the reviewer liked or disliked an episode. – and the reviewer's opinion seems clear to me (they like the episode because of the moral about rape culture that they perceive to be there; they give three examples of traits allegedly shared by Daly and rape culture perpetrators). The rest of the sentence is "white male nerd entitlement", based on quotes "a particular kind of male nerd entitlement" and "even its depiction of white guy nerds’ toxic sense of entitlement". For the Telegraph, we have It's not just Daly who's creating an sexist fantasy: half of Hollywood is, which I think links the two things very overtly. Daly created a sexist fantasy in the same way that Weinstein did, along with other sexual harassers that are the subject of #metoo, at least according to the reviewer. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, i missed some of these sentences. As i said, i disagree that the episode was about sexism (kisses with no tongues, no genitals, hesitant to get in the water with a sexy half-naked girl, etc. - Daly was just living in a fantasy world), but i do not disagree with including any of these reviews, as long as it is made clear that interpretive statements represent a reviewer's personal opinion (like i did with the white male archetype by saying "critics have noted"), similarly to the "reception" section. -- Radiphus  23:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally, I feel the Weinstein reference is one of the more pertinent points explored in the section, and I'm sure I've seen it elsewhere, but maybe not. However, I haven't watched all the episodes yet as I'm trying to avoid a lot of reviews generally, so if this needs to be left out for the time being I will wait. I do agree with Bilorv on the other points though. I'm not sure how why you can't see the sexism angle, but there you go, at least you have made an active contribution to this discussion. I hope Franz biberkopf makes use of the edit summary in future (especially when making large removals), so other users can understand why he is making them; it makes things a lot easier for everyone from all sides of the debate. Somethingwickedly (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just found this article, which is almost solely about Weinstein comparisons. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 02:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So I think #1-3 and #5 are completely uncontroversial, with the authors and Brooker explaining their opinions fully (tell me if you disagree though). With the Vulture review, I think each of his female compatriots rewards him with a chaste close-mouthed kiss contributes to the explanation, and part of the quote you pasted (the entitlement, the skewed dynamic of power, the erotics of unwillingness) is also an explanation of why the reviewer thinks it is related to rape culture. It looks to me like MOS:TVRECEPTION is a very low threshold – Non-descriptive claims do not provide the reader with the context necessary to understand why the reviewer liked or disliked an episode. – and the reviewer's opinion seems clear to me (they like the episode because of the moral about rape culture that they perceive to be there; they give three examples of traits allegedly shared by Daly and rape culture perpetrators). The rest of the sentence is "white male nerd entitlement", based on quotes "a particular kind of male nerd entitlement" and "even its depiction of white guy nerds’ toxic sense of entitlement". For the Telegraph, we have It's not just Daly who's creating an sexist fantasy: half of Hollywood is, which I think links the two things very overtly. Daly created a sexist fantasy in the same way that Weinstein did, along with other sexual harassers that are the subject of #metoo, at least according to the reviewer. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, i missed some of these sentences. As i said, i disagree that the episode was about sexism (kisses with no tongues, no genitals, hesitant to get in the water with a sexy half-naked girl, etc. - Daly was just living in a fantasy world), but i do not disagree with including any of these reviews, as long as it is made clear that interpretive statements represent a reviewer's personal opinion (like i did with the white male archetype by saying "critics have noted"), similarly to the "reception" section. -- Radiphus  23:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally, I feel the Weinstein reference is one of the more pertinent points explored in the section, and I'm sure I've seen it elsewhere, but maybe not. However, I haven't watched all the episodes yet as I'm trying to avoid a lot of reviews generally, so if this needs to be left out for the time being I will wait. I do agree with Bilorv on the other points though. I'm not sure how why you can't see the sexism angle, but there you go, at least you have made an active contribution to this discussion. I hope Franz biberkopf makes use of the edit summary in future (especially when making large removals), so other users can understand why he is making them; it makes things a lot easier for everyone from all sides of the debate. Somethingwickedly (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just found this article, which is almost solely about Weinstein comparisons. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 02:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I do have concerns that while the comparisons to Weinstein, etc are all well-sourced and fully belong in the article, there's a bit of coat-racking to stick it in the lede. Abuse of authority, no problem, and even "male abuse of authority" could be argued as lede material, since there's also discussion of the misogynistic nature of the original Star Trek, etc. I think though the introduction of the Weinstein in the lede is a problem particular since given the timing (Weinstein in Oct 2017), there was no way that Brooker could have used that as influence for this episode. --M asem (t) 14:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, both critics in question freely say this ("The script was co-written by Brooker and William Bridges long before the Weinstein scandal broke", "seem to freakishly mirror") and I thought the article made that fairly clear that it's just a comparison (under production, we have the details that it was written in November 2016 and filmed in January 2017). I thought it was fair to give it 1/3 of a sentence (really just 3 words) in the lead as this comparison has been corroborated between two reviewers, and the latter spends essentially their entire article on the comparison. I don't think this is out of place – take how Nosedive mentions in the lead two real life comparisons that have been drawn to things that did not exist when the episode was written, and the fact this material is contentious should be no different. If it was unclear that these were comparisons and not inspirations, feel free to reword or add something like "though the episode was written in November 2016, before the Weinstein scandal broke" (though I fear that would be a bit lengthy and undue.) — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you've reworded it already. I think the lead is fine like that – the provenance is now very overt. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think my changes address concerns without eliminating it. I did a few more tweaks in the lede for it (noting "recent" controversies with these) --M asem (t) 17:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused – what are the "recent controversies" involving internet bullies. Gamergate? That seems like OR as I haven't seen it mentioned in any reviews (bar the throwaway Easter egg link "that community has had some problems" from ). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 18:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe "controversies" isn't the right word. I changed it to "events". --M asem (t) 18:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The reviwers are all culture warriors who are pushing an agenda rather than reviewing the episode neutrally. Go look at their histories. There's no substance to any of their critiques. 67.248.239.224 (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this, and every episode of Black Mirror should definitely have some politics about the color of skin shoe-horned in. There definitely can't be any meaning besides color of skin that I like I like is good, color of skin I don't like is bad. Hooray. I'm glad that what I read online is of lower quality and insight than the Sneetches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a601:1154:500:55b6:38c8:3f06:2d7f (talk • contribs)
 * I do have my own opinions of how the media does seem to be focused on the anti-"white male" stories of late, but unfortunately, regardless of that, to ignore the number of RSes saying that now in regards to this episode is not appropriate per WP:UNDUE. It's not a "fringe' view for this episode. I think they're trying to project too much but as long as we apply attribution to who said it, then we're not saying it ourselves in WP's voice. --M asem (t) 03:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

TrekMovie review
I'm concerned that the "TrekMovie" review entered by "Captcha47" may not be made in good faith. This is the only edit that "Captcha47" seems to have made to Wikipedia, and the review may have been included in order to direct traffic to the TrekMovie site, especially given its click-baity negative review. I know there's a policy against self-promotion, but how are pseudonymous accounts addressed in this respect? (In other words, do we know that Jared Whitley or an associate didn't add these multiple references to that review themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shepazu (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is pretty much the reason why i said in my edit summary that this might not be a reliable source to include in the article. -- Radiphus  20:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever the original motive of the person who added it (I'll add POV-pushing as a possibility), I looked at the review and reworded the content we have in the article sourced to it (I'm definitely not an SPA; never heard of the website before) – and really we should assume good faith of Captcha47 anyway. So the question should now be: is this a reliable source? The TrekMovie review was written by a staff member i.e. someone paid to write a review of this episode, and the website seems reasonable significant, albeit with a nice target audience (see TrekMovie); in my view this is enough for the reviewer to be a reliable source for their own opinion / quoted in the Wikipedia article. My bar for reliable sources on critics' reviews is probably quite low though – if there's consensus that this isn't a reliable source, we can remove it. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 23:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I looked again at the article, and while I can't dispute that the review is reliable by the standards you mention, it's notable that the reactions of that site's audience to the review seemed overwhelmingly negative, perhaps indicating that this review is not representative of a widely held viewpoint. With that in mind, I reduced the length and prominence of the review summary in the article, appending it to the other "mixed reviews". The review is still mentioned twice in the article, which I propose is sufficient to represent that viewpoint and to provide enough information for others to seek it out, without lending it undue significance. I don't think it's necessary to remove the review entirely. Thanks. Shepazu (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, some opinions are a higher caliber than others... duh. Like how you're doctor's opinion of that weird mole is more valuable than your friend's. I believe to be relevant to a wikipedia article, the critiques have to be from a formal source with formal standards. Therefore, blogs without edited or formally distributed content such as "trek movie" should not be included and treated akin to original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.221.133.251 (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Comparison to SOMA?
I want to know if SOMA is worth being mentioned here - it's also a science fiction media property that explores the teletransportation paradox as a driving force in its plot, making it and this Black Mirror episode the only popular pieces of recent fiction that address the "personalities being duplicated exactly while the original personality still exists" concept in this kind of detail. --Tutwater (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * First off, you linked to a disambiguation page. Please be more specific. But more importantly, you need to find a good source that talks about this. If you yourself came up with the connection, please don't edit the article. To know why, read up on WP:OR. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

"Deathlessly incinerating himself"
The "Plot" section currently states: "Walton repairs the thrusters manually, deathlessly incinerating himself, and the ship accelerates into the wormhole." How come it is "deathless" if Walton screams horrifically upon being burned, and he's never seen again for the remainder of the episode? Even when the crew passes the wormhole and is de-Spacefleetified, the only two people who return are Shania and Valdack, not Walton. Ericobnn (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Burn without dying" and "deathlessly incinerating himself" is the same. If we did't mention that, we would be implying that Walton actually died while fixing the engines, which constitutes original research. -- Radiphus  02:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Lem: Non Serviam
The Lem story Non Serviam could very well have served as source material. It is one of the chapters of "A Perfect Vaccum" discussed here. Perhaps somebody knows more about this? 137.205.100.8 (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the work, but Brooker has not mentioned this in interviews, and nor has any critic I can find compared the two works. Thus, it would be original research to mention it in this article. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This Is Not Notable
This is a single episode of a not-popular show that was played on an pay TV service most people cannot even watch.

Why is this here?

74.88.70.77 (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Our guideline for notability is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". The article has 79 sources, which is an order of magnitude more than necessary to demonstrate notability. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Italics in episode title
has changed the occurrences of the episode title "USS Callister" to "USS Callister", while keeping starship mentions to USS Callister. It's not obvious to me which is correct at first glance—Wikipedical, can you explain fully why you think the latter is right? I understand that sometimes there are title-eponym distinctions (e.g. a film about Jane called Jane italicises title mentions but not character mentions) but why should that be the case here? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 03:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I can help answer this. As a single episode, the work is "short form". Like a poem in a collection, or a chapter in a book, or an article in a journal, this means that it gets its title in quotations, rather than in italics like long form works (the collection, the book, the journal, the TV show). The name of the ship is, per standard US conventions, in italics. I undid the edits myself because I had checked the episode title when doing my GA review of the page, and it appeared in source like TV reviews, TV Tropes, the Black Mirror wiki, and on articles attached to Netflix and IMDb that the episode title is, in fact, "USS Callister". Or, the name of the ship is equal to the episode title. The title is not in italics, it is in quotations, but the title itself features italics as a stylistic choice.
 * This is my understanding, I'm sure Wikipedical will also respond. Kingsif (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW "Inside Black Mirror" uses full italics on all episode names with this one being all italics. --M asem  (t) 04:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is something I've noticed too. The book also makes it clear that the creators call the episodes "films" and consider them to be (short) films in style. But as we on Wikipedia consider them episodes—and this is something I think we need to continue doing (the individual component of any programme is an episode)—we need to use quotes rather than italics. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 07:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey all. Thanks for opening this discussion- this episode title turned out to be an interesting case.  Titles of television episodes (and other minor works) are enclosed in quotation marks on Wikipedia, per MOS:MINORWORK.  Even if an italicized work (or ship per WP:NC-SHIP) is in the title of the episode, the title uses quotation marks to indicate the article's subject.  Speaking of the USS Enterprise, an example that comes to mind is "Yesterday's Enterprise." The ships titled Enterprise are italicized throughout the article, but the title itself is unitalicized with quotation marks.  In our case, the quotation marks indicate to the reader that the subject of the article is the Black Mirror television episode, not the fictional ship the USS Callister.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, Yesterday's Enterprise is a very good article to pick as precedent. I'm convinced. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're interested in precedents, maybe it’s not so open and shut. What about "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"? Yeah it's a song title but don't they follow the same formatting? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

poor analysis section
"Critic Alec Bojalad claims that Daly fits an archetype of white males who participate in prejudiced online echo chambers due to ostracisation in real life and a sense of entitlement.[43]" Legit racism, doesn't belong.

"Dana Schwartz links this to the "modern toxic masculinity" movements of Gamergate and the alt-right.[16] "

sexist rhetoric with poor handwaving conflating two different things.

Charles Bramesco of Vulture notes that despite the fact that Robert never actually rapes any of the female members of the crew, he exhibits psychological traits associated with rape culture.[47]"

Rape culture? Absolute scientific woo, what are these traits, why aren't they mentionable and sourced in an encyclopedia. Basically, there's too much fat in this section and trimming the bigotry would help a LOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.28.113 (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This is what critics have written about, we can't change their stance on it. --M asem (t) 02:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid we don't censor views that make us personally upset, but instead summarise what reliable sources say. As for what are these traits, Wikipedia is a summary of sources and the that you copy contains a link that answers your question i.e. the source that you asked for. — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Casting
Where is the cast list? They have been standard for a very long time. Surely millions of people come to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of quickly finding out who plays what part. Instead we have a "Casting" section, which is a poor substitute for a list. 174.6.135.25 (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We categorise Black Mirror as a television series, and cast lists are typically reserved for films. For television the standard is either to elide actor names or to introduce them in parentheticals in the plot summary (as is done here). — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I know I've seen cast lists for TV shows, although it may have been main cast and repeating characters only. Putting cast names in parentheses for episodes makes sense when multiple episodes are listed on a page, but when an episode merits a page of it's own a cast list would seem to be fitting. A change to the standard would be preferable, but an explanation makes things easier to understand and live with. Thanks. 2604:3D08:7283:A800:9985:5423:8C8:55B1 (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We do cast lists for TV shows for the main show page and typically for seasons, but not episodes. That said, that approach doesn't work well for anthology works where there is no consistent case across episodes (comparable to Twilight Zone or Amazing Stories). Perhaps that's a discussion for WT:TV to consider that scenario. M asem (t) 12:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it needs to be on a case-by-case basis for each show. In my view, a good cast list describes a character's important traits succinctly with reference to reliable sources. The infobox is where you find a list of each actor and the character they played without commentary.What would we say about each character in a Black Mirror episode? Well, in early episodes like "Fifteen Million Merits" we'd lack the sources to make commentary on all but the two or three most major characters, and such commentary might fit better alongside more contested interpretation (like "Bing is a representation of Brooker") that needs prose attribution in "Analysis". In short or plot-driven episodes like "Metalhead" there's little to say that doesn't repeat the plot. In some episodes a well-considered "Characters" section could add value, but isn't consistency across episodes a desirable feature? — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And to that for BM specifically, there is nearly always a Casting section or potential for one under the production/development details, which is a well suited way to handle both large and small casts. Just that this should suggest that for cast members not called out as part of casting sources, that they should be documented for sake of completion. But we also have the infobox list too. M asem (t) 17:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)