Talk:Saturday Night Live season 45/Archive 1

Archive 1

Shane Gillis

Please remove Shane Gillis from the cast list. He is an offensive, racist, sexist, homophobe and this site should not be promoting him.

98.190.223.50 (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not responsible for whom SNL hires and fires. So as long as he was a hired cast member for SNL, he needed to be listed. But as you can see from the article now, due to the resurfacing of his prior tweets, SNL execs made the determination to fire him. So while he was hired, he was rightly listed, and now that he is no longer to be a part of the show, he has been removed from this list here. Hope this information helps. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Heidi Gardner and Chris Redd

Hello, everyone! There seems to be a misunderstanding on the part of some editors regarding the status of cast members Heidi Gardner and Chris Redd. While in some recent cases, cast members who had previously been featured players for at least two seasons were subsequently upgraded to repertory status, those changes could only be added to the page for the relevant season once a reliable source verified the information. By this time last year, for example, this article had verified that being the case for Mikey Day, Alex Moffat, and Melissa Villasenor. So it is possible that the same thing could and likely will occur for Heidi Gardner and Chris Redd, but there has been no reliable source provided to note that that will officially be the case.

In recent edits to this page, some editors have previously used the cast list to try and prove that has happened. But under the pictures of Gardner and Redd are the words "Featured Player". So until NBC changes that on that page, or until an officially reliable source confirms this change, there should be no further attempts made to put Gardner and Redd in the section for repertory players. Thank you.--Jgstokes (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

It appears this problem has become an issue again. So just to reiterate, because the official cast list still lists Gardner and Redd as featured players, we need to wait until their promotions are confirmed, whether through a reliable source found elsewhere, or through whatever the cast credits of the show reflect this Saturday when the season premieres.

This is because of this policy, which, among other things, has the following instructions: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future." It further states: "It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses." The idea conveyed in that last sentence is further confirmed by this policy,

The relevant sentence from the "No original research" policy states the following: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.)"

To reiterate, unless and until a reliable source categorically verifies the promotions of Gardner and Redd (whether that verification is given on-air or prior to the season's premieire this weekend), the relevant source in this case (the official NBC cast list) shows Gardner and Redd as featured players still, so unless another source changes that, they need to remain listed as such on this page. Hope these additional clarifications are helpful to all who read them. Please discuss any additional issues relating to this matter here before reintroducing such changes. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Cast timeline

A couple of editors have removed a timeline chart of the cast with minimal explanation of "not needed". Of course, "not needed" is not a policy based argument, so I am opening up this discussion to see if there is a good reason not to include the timeline, and what is the consensus on this issue.
To me, it seems useful to list how long each cast member has been with the show. Although it can easily be done by adding parenthesis with the date when they joined the cast to the list entries of the cast members, I think a graphical presentation is better at conveying this information. Banana Republic (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

A chart like this is more suitable for List of Saturday Night Live cast members (where it already exists) not cluttering up every single season article.Gagaluv1 (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The timeline in the List of Saturday Night Live cast members article is for all the cast members who have ever performed on Saturday Night Live. The season articles only show the cast members who perform in the season in question, and that's a small subset of all the cast members who ever performed.

Just because a timeline appears in the List of Saturday Night Live cast members article, does not preclude season articles from having their own timelines for the actors. Banana Republic (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

It's just not information that most people need to know about for every season. The season articles are specifically about the episodes in that season, if they want to know about the cast members' history on the show they can view that article. No need to clutter up this article.Gagaluv1 (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

cue card is briefly visible on camera during the Dog Court sketch

Not sure about this edit. I watched the clip on YouTube, and I don't see a cue card in the scene. So unless there is a reference saying that it was removed from the YouTube clip, it probably does not belong in the article. Banana Republic (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits to ths page.

Hello again, everyone! While I appreciate the good-faith edits of Banana Republic in recent changes to this page, I fundamentally disagree with the assertions offered by that user in this edit summary and also this one. Regarding the first, the idea that a consensus decision that no one can find should have any bearing on the determinations of this page is, IMHO, at best misguided, and at worst, disingenuous. Unless that alleged consensus decision can be found (assuming it even exists), then we need to focus instead on having this page conform to the WikipIedia TV policies that can be more easily found.That means that the important notes on each episode should be listed in chronological order. For the premiere episode, that means that the note about new cast members should be at the top of that summary, and that notes about the content of each episode should be listed in the relevant order he to the order in which sketches and segments aired.

And regarding the second edit summary, it is not up to Wikipedia editors to interpret whether or not a cast member is in character, unless it is clear that is the case. In the pilot, the "Inside the Beltway" sketch clearly showed the stagehand coming in early to help Aidy Bryant with a costume change, and it is clear in the next scene that her laughter and that of other cast members in the sketch was not a scripted element.

On the other hand, in the second episode of the season, after Weekend Update co-anchor Colin Jost made a joke about Pete Davidson's absence, cast member Mikey Day came on stage in-character as a super-centenarian. At the end of Day's bit, as Jost and Che were signing off, Day's voice is overheard asking "Where is Pete?" Since there is no indication in that case that Day had broken character to broach the question, it would, in my opinion, be improper for anyone to assert that Day was not in-character when he said that. Wikipedia discourages personal interpretation of the source material, and Wikipedia discourages crystal ball assumptions about content. So unless a reliable source is found categorically proving that Day was not actually in-character, it logically follows that a cast member doing a bit for Weekend Update remained in-character, unless and until it is otherwise specified.

With these explanations in mind, I am going to go ahead and revert the good-faith edits by Banana Republic. If the consensus decides otherwise, that is not a problem for me, but I would prefer a consensus in this respect before anything that seems less than logically sound is allowed to remain the status quo. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Order of bullets in episode summary

There are now 45 season episode articles. It does not seem to make sense to have the first 44 articles present the musical guest performance as the first bullet and then for some unexplained reason have this article do things differently. Banana Republic (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

An additional comment from me here: In your comment a ccouple of subjects ago, you offered the opinion that order of the presented content in this and all other articles about SNL seasons that have aired must have been based on a consensus decision on that subject. However, I have taken time since I made my first comment on this subject a couple of days ago to scan as much of the content of talk pages (including, where applicable, the archives thereof) for many prior seasons of SNL. And I can tell you based on that that I have failed to find any mention of the alleged consensus decision, which makes me wonder if such a decision even exists, or if the result of the order of content on pages for this and prior seasons of SNL was merely a product of one or more independent editors acting unilaterally and without seeking for or establishing such a consensus.

If the latter happens to be the case, then I stand by my opinion it is disingenuous for anyone to insist upon the current order of content remaining the status quo on this page or any of the pages of prior seasons that appear to have been unilaterally done that way by a single editorlor a group of editors who acted without gaining approval for that by consensus. Again, just my opinion. But since I have looked and failed to find any such consensus, perhaps you should look. And if you can't find it anywhere either, then I don't know why the current episode description should remain the status quo. Your move. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps there was no conscious decision to list the musical performance first. But de facto, that's what has been done for the past 44 seasons. Why change? What difference does it make in what order the bullets are listed? Why can't you live with ordering the bullets any way you'd like after reserving the first bullet for the musical guest performance? Banana Republic (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

First of all, to set the record straight, I hope that nothing I have said or the way I have said it has come across as an attack on you personally. In my 12 years of Wikipedia editing, I have accrued literally thousands of experiences working with a variety of editors to bring a variety of content into conformity with Wikipedia policy in accordance with consensus decisions. I have long lived by the idea that anyone can disagree without becoming disagreeable. So I hope that my intentions have been clear: my sole desire is to improve Wikipedia articles consistent with policy and consensus decisions. With that in mind, I also have to say that I'm having trouble understanding your expressed attitude. In your earlier comment in this section, you said that there must have been a consensus decision of some kind in the past to govern the layout of these episode descriptions, and asserted that, with that being the likely case, we should follow that determined consensus. I then informed you that I found no record of any such consensus, and that the lack thereof should not impact pages in the way you were suggesting, and your response is, "Why not?" So let me be clear here: after finding a lack of the consensus decision you insisted must exist somewhere, why should that nonexistent consensus result in the information on this page remaining the status quo? The Wikipedia policies governing TV show episode descriptions, as I understand them, is that the content of an episode summary should, except in cases where the consensus has agreed to do otherwise, be chronologically listed, in the order events occurred in-episode. I have worked on many TV show pages here (as you could see from examining my watchlist), and in just about every case, events are listed based on the chronological order in which they occurred. In my mind, the data is best organized in order of chronological relevance because that way, any readers can see the relevant information about these descriptions in order of relevance. And absent an existing consensus, I don't feel at all that the status quo of pages for prior seasons should have relevance in the order of content on this page. Of course, if other editors weigh in here and they agree with you, that's a different situation, because then a consensus would have determined that the current order needs to remain the status quo. But unless and until that happens, I think we'd be wise to at least consider reordering the episode descriptions in this season, and perhaps in others of prior years. In the meantime, I will do further checking on my end to try and determine if there is a general page for general issues with articles about current and past seasons of SNL where this issue could be raised in order to form some kind of consensus. Hopefully that clarifies where I am coming from here. Thanks.--Jgstokes (talk) 06:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry to have come across as inconsistent. I did not know whether there was a conscious decision to put the bullet for the musical guest first. All I knew was that this is how it was done for all previous seasons

If the episode summaries were a listing of all the skits, then I would agree with you that listing the skits in the same order that they are shown would make the most sense.

However, for whatever reason (I don't know whether a formal consensus on this was reached) the episode summaries are not a full listing of all the skits. Instead, the episode summaries seem to only include:

1. the performances of the musical guests
2. a listing of non-cast members who appear on the show
3. anything that is out of the ordinary (preferably covered by WP:RS)

So to sum it up, I would agree with you that if the episode summaries were a full listing of all the skits, then listing the skits in the order shown would make the most sense. Since that is not the case, the order is arbitrary. But for whatever reason, the order has evolved such that the first bullet is always the musical guest. I don't know how it evolved that way, but since it did, unless there is a good reason to deviate from this norm, why not just follow the norm? As I wrote, the order of the bullets is arbitrary. Therefore, sticking with the convention is probably the top reason (no pun intended) to keep the performance of the musical guest as the top bullet. Banana Republic (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Upon additional reflection, it actually makes sense to list the performance of the musical guest first. Since every episode has a musical guest, every episode would have that bullet. Not every episode has a non-cast member appearing on the show (although with Alec Baldwin portraying Donald Trump this has become more frequent in recent years) and not every episode has things that are out of the ordinary happen. Banana Republic (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Mikey Day in or out of character

As far as I can tell, writing that Mikey Day was in character when he said "where is Pete?" represents original research prohibited by Wikipedia. Looking at the video, 3:18 into this video, it seems that the skit was over, and Mikey Day was ad libing the "where is Pete?" phrase and it was not in the script. Therefore, unless there is a WP:RS that says that it was said in character, I think it needs to be removed. Banana Republic (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

You want a reliable source for that? Very well. This article, from a reputable website that has been frequently used in prior SNL articles in others that cover TV shows as well, indicates point-blank, in plain and clear language that Day was indeed in-character when he said, "Where is Pete?" I hope that settles that question for now. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Good enough. Banana Republic (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible celebrity in the audience

During Adam Driver's monologue on the 1/25/2020 episode, he goes out to the audience and sits down with them for a moment. The lady that he sits down beside looks a lot like Parveen Kaur, one of the stars of the NBC show Manifest, although I can't tell for sure. Anyone have thoughts on this? Celebrity sitings are often noticed and commented on within the show summary bullet points, and I thought it would be interesting to add this to the page, if that is in fact her.

Fgoron2000 (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This policy has bearing on your question. And speaking personally, unless a reliable source is found one way or the other, it remains a moot point. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Was it a special?

We typically list "specials" as episodes with very little new content, and most of the content is previously broadcast skits of a similar theme. If this edit is correct, then prehaps the April 11 episode should be listed as a regular episode, rather than as a special. Banana Republic (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

SNL's Official website (https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/explore/season-45) officially lists it as episode 16. Other SNL specials from the past (such as the 40th Anniversary Special or the Live From Mardi Gras special from season 2) are NOT listed as episodes but uniquely or not at all. So it appears SNL considers this to be the 16th episode, hosted by Tom Hanks, and the unique nature of it just makes for an interesting footnote for history, but I think based on their official designation this should be considered an actual episode rather than a special. 74.96.73.138 (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

They obviously don't consider it a special. They apparently have more episodes planned this season. This is the new reality they and everyone else need to produce content under. Trackinfo (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to this, but they're inconsistent with how they treat special's on their website. Here for instance they list the three Weekend Update Summer Edition's they did in 2017 as the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th episodes of season 42, and I think it's not unreasonable to say those aren't normal SNL episodes by any means. Tholden28 (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Did Brad Pitt host episode 888?

If SNL's official website does not credit Brad Pitt as the host, but WP:RS call him the host, how do we treat it? While normally I would say that we can ignore the WP:RS as being wrong, the reference from NBC News calling Brad Pitt the host is a little difficult to ignore. Banana Republic (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm in the camp that would argue the SNL at Home's have been more like specials than regular episodes, but aside from that I'd say there was no host. The official SNL website doesn't list any, as opposed to the previous SNL at Home where Tom Hanks is credited, and I'd say their own website should take precedence over NBC News, even if it's the same network. Tholden28 (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Plus, also in contrast to the Hanks episode, there wasn't a host listed in the credits. Tholden28 (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd say their own website should take precedence over NBC News, even if it's the same network.

I would tend to agree with that statement. Banana Republic (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

However, WP:SECONDARY sources are generally preferable to WP:PRIMARY sources. Is anybody aware of what happens in the case when secondary references contradicting the primary reference? Banana Republic (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Idea

Since Pitt was not credited as host (no dispute about that), perhaps we can just say that he introduced the musical guest, and mention that it is a function normally reserved for the host. I think that would be the only thing that would resemble hosting. Pitt did not perform a monologue, and normally the host does not participate in the cold open. Also, instead of writing for the host "none", we could write "nobody credited as host". That way, it does not directly contradict all the WP:RS who say that he hosted, but do not actually say that he was credited as a host. Banana Republic (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with this, but would prefer "none credited" or "uncredited," since "as host" is redundant in the host column. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd just have the host listed as None, as has been done for the other rare episodes that have gone without a host. Tholden28 (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding the word "credited" to say "none credited" would make the table presentation better align to all the WP:RS who say that Brad Pitt hosted the show. With the additional word, the WP:RS can call Pitt the "host" for the show, without the table directly contradicting that statement. Banana Republic (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The "no host" title works, but it should be noted the official SNL page for the episode lists the host as being "The Cast of SNL" https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/season-45/episode/17-the-cast-of-snl-with-miley-cyrus-309638 while other hostless episodes explicitly state "no host," as seen here: https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/season-6/episode/13-jr-walker-and-the-all-stars-with-jr-walker-and-the-all-stars-65376 It seems The Cast of SNL as a collective hosted the show. That may be worth noting instead of no host. 74.96.73.138 (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Given this scenario, it sounds like the answer to question "who is the host"? is "it's complicated". Perhaps we should put this information (about the cast being the host) in a bullet, and the table entry for the host should just say "see below"? Banana Republic (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Either way, it clearly wasn't Brad Pitt. 74.96.73.138 (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Craig's movie

Seems to me that the fact that the release of the movie was delayed due to Coronavirus is absolutely unrelated to the show. While we could mention that he was promoting a movie, we don't normally list what the guests are promoting with their appearances. Banana Republic (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Ego Nwodim Promoted to Repertory Status for Season 46

Hello again, everyone! Aside from speculation about how, in what manner, and to what extent the plans for SNL's 46th season might be impacted due to COVID-19, sources which we have consistently used for pages covedring the show, we have our first bit of official news about season 46 in general and the cast in particular. Ego Nwodim has been promoted to repertory status, as confirmed in an article from Deadline. At what point should we look at creating an official article for season 46? Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)