Talk:Person of Interest (TV series)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The dog as a main character

The dog, Bear, is currently listed as a main character in this article. What are the thoughts on this? Drmargi (Personal attack removed) has already argued that the dog "plays a prominent role, appears weekly" and thus the inclusion is warranted. Does this dog have a speaking role? No. Is it listed in the opening credits? No. Is it listed in the standalone article for the show's characters? Again, no. I see no reason to have a dog listed as a main character. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 21:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I would agree that an animal on a show is not a character. This one is an exception. There is no criterion that requires a character be human or have a speaking role, appear a set number of minutes or anything similar. Bear appears in every episode, interacts with the main human characters, plays a role in the various missions they undertake at times, and plays a significant enough role in advancing the narrative that he should be listed as a character. He's also included in show publicity. That he's not mentioned in the character article could be viewed as an oversight. It's unorthodox, I'll grant you, but warranted. --Drmargi (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from re-editing my comments. You have been exhibiting behaviour consistent with Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and pointing that out is not a personal attack. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 22:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Your comment what phrased as a personal attack, and per WP:NPA was removed. Please discuss content, not the editor. I would also remind you that a pillar of Wikipedia is WP:CIVIL. --Drmargi (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Pointing out that your behavior is in violation of Wikipedia:AGF and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles is not a personal attack. (Personal attack removed), stop editing my words, and let's stay on topic. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 22:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears you aren't ready to discuss anything but me. Please drop a note on my talk page when you're prepared to discuss the issue at hand rather than telling me what to do. --Drmargi (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Listing a dog as a main character for a series is original research, given we don't determine who main characters are, the series does (or the producers). A main character is determined by the actors' billing, and the dog receives no on-screen acting credit, or is otherwise acknowledged by the series as a "main character". For example, the dog is not listed on the official website or in episodic press releases which also lists the cast. This seems like original research on the part of the editor. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was leaning toward Drmargi on this, but I think you're right. For 7th Heaven, the dog is listed as a main character because the "portrayer" is shown and credited in the opening credits -- but that is very unusual for a dog. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the lack of an on-screen credit would indicate to me that the dog is not a main or recurring character any more than the computers are. I believe another example is that Lassie was also credited in the various Lassie movies and TV shows. I did a compromise in the spirit of WP:BRD, keeping him with the main cast as a note about him being uncredited since there is a reference.AbramTerger (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Two things: a. Our policy is that the producers ultimately determine main cast, and the producers do consider Boker to be main cast. One or the other (I forget which one) said so at the Nerdist Writer's Panel on Sunday. It's available as a podcast, so I'll source it once I can wade through and find the timing, and; b. this is a perfect WP:IAR situation. What's better for the article? The dog has been in the article since the beginning of the second season, plays an active role, appears in nearly every episode, figures in dialogue (see Root's totting up of the team's size versus Samaritan's in 401), and gets a lot of screen time. What's the harm in explaining to our readers who he is? Isn't this the most logical place for people to go to find out, and isn't that the function of an encyclopedia? The article is better for including him. --Drmargi (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I see the consensus to delete the dog credit completely: Drmargi wanting it to be there and ChakaKong, Drovethrughosts,Musdan77, and me believing it should be deleted. I added a compromise where it is comment after the bulleted list (like is done in film casts) but was reverted. Can we live the compromise, or is the consensus still to delete it? ADDED:@ProspectofArts:, @Eurofan2005:, @Zerevanberg:, @Ashlynw:,@Depthfield:,@Devmackie:,@WhoIsWillo:, and @SoWhy: you have shown interest in this article: any thoughts on the dog as regular cast? AbramTerger (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Since the consensus from ChakaKong, Drovethrughosts,Musdan77, and me was to delete the dog as character I will plan on deleting the dog, unless there are any changes from that viewpoint expressed in the next few days or there are any comments @ProspectofArts:, @Eurofan2005:, @Zerevanberg:, @Ashlynw:,@Depthfield:,@Devmackie:,@WhoIsWillo:, or @SoWhy: on deleting, keeping it as is, or keeping as compromise comment to change the consensus. Drmargi is the only one who has expressed an interest in keeping it, and also indicated (by reverting) that the compromise was unacceptable.AbramTerger (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning the dog (and the portrayer) is perfectly fine, but listing him like he's a member of the main cast is a bit absurd. Completely deleting it might be a bit much, maybe incorporate the dog in Finch's bio somehow? Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all, Adam, a few comments is not consensus. Consensus is agreement, and clearly we're not there. Second I'd remind you that I have a source that the producers consider Boker to be main cast. I just have to dig it up. Given that, any action would be inappropriate bordering on edit warring at this point. --Drmargi (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Drmargi: the comments of 4 of 5 people seems a consensus to me: ChakaKong: I see no reason to have a dog listed as a main character." Drovethrughosts "Listing a dog as a main character for a series is original research" and Musdan77Well, I was leaning toward Drmargi on this, but I think you're Drovethrughosts right." Those comments and mine indicate "delete". Drovethrughosts current comment: "Mentioning the dog (and the portrayer) is perfectly fine, but listing him like he's a member of the main cast is a bit absurd." suggests that we should try the compromise I suggested earlier which is what is done with film with uncredited actors. @Drovethrughosts: I had added the line after the main cast list as a compromise comment, but it got reverted by Drmargi and I was waiting for some additional comments about whether to delete or use the compromise Can you live with it that way?. If so I can make the change or I support you making the change.AbramTerger (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I moved the items about the dog as a comment in Finch's paragraph, per WP:TVCAST: "The cast should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. Please keep in mind that 'main' cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time." When the producers add the dog's credit to the main cast, the dog may be added to the main cast list.AbramTerger (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The phrase cited refers to the infobox, not the main body of text. Organization of cast in the body is left to the involved editors to organize in a meaningful way. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. --Drmargi (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to have even read the guidelines if you make that claim. I would recommend that you read/review the "Cast and characters information" at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Cast_and_characters_information. It is right after the guidelines for "Lead paragraphs and "Plot sections" and right before the "Background/production" guidelines. If you would review it, you would see that is not referring to the infobox since it talks about adding additional information, not just listing the names as is done in the infobox. It states as I quoted before: ""The cast should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. Please keep in mind that 'main' cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time." The Template:Infobox television states something similar for "Starrring": "Cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show." The guidelines have a consensus to them since they are policy. As you note that "This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site" which is why there are policies in existence to keep consistency between articles.AbramTerger (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:TVCAST doesn't mention the infobox. It occurs 4 subsections after the infobox in the "Parent, season, and episode article structure" section of the MOS and is referring to the section of the article that discusses the section of an article that deals with cast and characters. We try for consistency by presenting the cast section in the same order as the infobox, but there is some leeway in how the section is presented, provided that the requirements of WP:V and WP:NOR are met. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on what you think that "leeway" entails? Are you suggesting that the order of the cast listing is allowed to the discretion of the article editors? The guidelines do not suggest this to me: "The cast should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. Please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time. Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series." Before you pointed out that section, we had been debating [see Talk:Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)#Regular_cast_order) different orders like order introduced, number of appearances, screen-time, etc which go against this and could move original cast members down the list as the overall appearances were reduced. Also you posted your note in the section about the (uncredited) dog being a main cast, does this "leeway" allowing elevating uncredited (or in a more general note: even extensive recurring roles) to a "main character" despite what the credits indicate? [In film articles we add notes about credited and uncredited cameos and bits parts from notable actors, but these are comments after the cast list, not added to the main cast, those small roles are not elevated.]AbramTerger (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the dog to the recurring chars as a note. It is not a main cast as the dog is not credited as such. At most it is recurring and since uncredited, it does not seem to me to belong in the list of credited actors. Can we live with this.AbramTerger (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Drmargi:Could you please cite the episode where you believe the dog is credited in the main cast? I can not find any indication where the dog is even credited, but I can live with a comment/note at the end of the recurring character section or if you want a note with the main characters, a comment in the section of Finch or even Reese would be acceptable. But based on WP:TVCAST the dog is not a main cast member, it is not about the total appearances but about the credit.AbramTerger (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed material about an uncredited main character until the issue is resolved. Lets discuss the need and placement of this disputed material.AbramTerger (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

After reviewing the citation used for the uncredited dog, it is not a WP:RS, it is a pearsonal web page. I am removing the content until a valid citation is found indicating information about the dog and that the dog is a main character.AbramTerger (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Revisiting (2016)

I'm going to go ahead and resurrect this discussion, given recent edits. It is really notable that a fictional dog is played by some dog named "Lola" and "Gotcha"? Seriously? It's not like we're talking about Lassie here, which has some historical significance. For one, one of the sources is a random commentator on a fansite, a far cry from being a reliable source. I stick by my original opinion of removing Bear from the main cast per WP:TVCAST. Does the dog receive on-screen credit? No. Does the dog appear in the cast list on the CBS website? No. Does the dog appear/receive credit in episode press releases? No. Bear should merely be mentioned in Finch's bio. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it definitely should not be listed as a main character (or even recurring, given that there's no credit). I don't even know how this could even stay in the article so long. Funny how Drmargi says Wikipedia is not a fan site, but acts exactly like it is one. It could be mentioned in the description of another character (I'm going to assume Finch is the right one, as I don't watch the show), but assuming they have no significance to the show, the out-of-universe dog names definitely should not be mentioned, unless they are covered in multiple reliable sources, but even then I'd be reluctant to include them. This is precisely the WP:FANCRUFT that belongs on fan sites. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I've went ahead and removed Bear as a "main character" per MOS:TVCAST, and simply incorporated Bear into Finch's bio. This discussion here has five editors (including myself) who agree with the removal as well as an additional editor who agreed from a discussion on Wikiproject TV. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that Bear be added back to the main cast list. I respect the Wikipedia standards quoted by various editors who have far, far, more experience than I do, but none of those points really refute the original argument made for Bear's inclusion (second post in this thread). I don't see why including Bear constitutes "original research." Bear has been mentioned, with his AKC-registered name (Graubaer's Boker) and his "Person of Interest" role in numerous published sources that would normally be perfectly acceptable to Wikipedia. See, for example, this short USA Today piece: http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2014/09/17/see-what-the-person-of-interest-dog-did-this-summer/77357736/. It no more constitutes "original research" to cite such an article than it does to cite the show's official cast list from IMdb or some equivalent source. Others in the discussion have pointed out the importance of being a little flexible on some of the standards in order to serve the larger purpose of having articles that inform readers on genuinely relevant points. Here's a question for those who don't want to include Bear: In 1977, and again in 1980, the first two episodes of the "Star Wars" franchise were released without crediting James Earl Jones as the voice of Darth Vader. (I know, because I watched both films in their theatrical release, multiple times, all the way to the very end of the credits.) Jones was first credited in 1983, at the end of Episode VI. If Wikipedia had existed in 1981, would it have been incorrect to include Jones's name in the cast list? I don't think so; in fact, I think withholding such a crucial fact would have made the article dishonest.Apruzan (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)