Talk:Roles with multiple performers

Age changes needed
Instances where actors are changed due to differences in age (or other, similar reasons) still need to be added, but I believe this is a good start for now. --Jayunderscorezero 22:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Spock should be added, given, unless that doesn't count due to the age? 31dot 23:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think differences due to age, etc. probably should be counted here, actually, despite my initial concerns. Otherwise there are too many grey-area characters such as Zefram Cochrane (changed because of behind the scenes reasons/age difference?). Anyway, I'll see how it goes and see if any major problems show up. --Jayunderscorezero 07:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of definition
Okay, just another note on the definition of the term "Roles performed by multiple performers". I've now expanded the definition to include changes which have an in-universe explanation, such as changes to a holographic character, shape-shifting characters or changes due to age, as long as these types of actor-changes are made clear (in parentheses, for example) on the page. However, I have decided to disinclude these notations when a characters age changes due to a shift in the setting of an entire series (e.g. T'Pau in TOS/ENT). These are just my own rules of course, so feel free to ignore/change at will; for such is the nature of a wiki. --Jayunderscorezero 09:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek XI
As with other things on MA, don't add roles from the new film until its release. Policy and all. :) -- Sulfur 18:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The policy says:
 * "However, information about upcoming movies (not yet released in theaters) and unaired episodes may not be included in a Memory Alpha page, aside from official cast and production information released by Paramount and/or CBS."
 * So it seems my additions didn't violate policy. Or is there another policy you're talking about here? (Might be helpful to cite or link to policy when you revert someone's work and mention "policy".)
 * The policy makes sense for in-world articles where we don't know what's happened yet, but correctly excepts production info for real life articles and background info sections. Otherwise it would be rather myopic and unencyclopedic. Right now someone can come across the Spock article and not see Zachary Quinto mentioned even in background info. Not exactly comprehensive coverage. 9er 17:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The cast and production information can be used on the articles about the performer and the movie, but it has been consistently removed from the articles on the characters, etc. Part of that reasoning is that some people don't even want to be spoiled on the fact that STXI is a prequel movie. Go figure, I know, but that's been the practice, right back through the days when Enterprise was actually on the air. -- Sulfur 17:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, 9er, you included more than just "officially cast and production information". Your edit would have told people plot information, like which TOS characters will be in the movie. That is a violation. -- G O  R E D S O X  18:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphan
Just like to point out that the article is only linked to from the forum and a talk page. The question is though, what pages should link to this one from the main name space?– Cleanse 00:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Never mind, OC started linking to the page. – Cleanse 01:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Name change
I was planning to work on a page like this, but I see someone took the initiative before me. Anyway, having two variations of the word "perform" in the name just doesn't sound good. Maybe change the name to Roles played by multiple performers? --From Andoria with Love 04:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed 100%.Hossrex 04:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I definitely see your point, although to me "performed"/"played" seems like a bit of an arbitrary alteration. About 50% agreement from me. --Jayunderscorezero 15:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's just to remove the repetitive "perform" from the title. Alternatively, we could go with "Roles performed by multiple players." :-P --From Andoria with Love 03:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your first suggestion sounds better than "Roles performed by multiple players", although the article name with two variants of "perform" is no problem for me, but perhaps "Roles performed by multiple actors"? – Tom 12:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How about renaming it simply "Roles with multiple performers"? That would not only remove the repetitive "perform" of the current title but also make for some nice symmetry with the style already established by this page's counterpart Performers with multiple roles. --TommyRaiko 02:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. :) --From Andoria with Love 11:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ordering of performers under each character name
Under each character name, in what order are we supposed to list the performers who have played the role? For example: in chronological order of on-screen appearance, or in alphabetical order according to the performer's surname, or in an order that puts the "main" performer to play the role at the top of the list? (I ask because earlier today I added Thomas Hobson to the list of performers to play Jake Sisko, and a subsequent edit was then made to re-order the Jake Sisko performers so that Cirroc Lofton would be at the top because he was "the main actor". If the order was chronological according to on-screen appearance, Hobson should come top because he appeared (as young Jake in the Wolf 359 sequences) before Lofton did in ). We should decide a policy and then note it on the page to guide future contributors. -- Taduolus 16:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For now I've undone that edit (of mine). You were indeed following the precedent as it stood at the time, so I apologise for changing that in the first place. Still not sure about what would be the best 'official policy' to have on this, though. --Jayunderscorezero 00:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that if the character is a main/major recurring character (ie Picard), then the main actor goes first. For occasional guests (ie Tora Zyal), the characters would be listed in order of appearance.  Thoughts? -- Sulfur 00:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's exactly the system that I'd been working under. The Jake Sisko example threw me though, as I'd not yet encountered an example where an actor playing a role only once appeared before the main/major recurring character playing that same role. Still, would it be best to go back to the above system? --Jayunderscorezero 10:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest I favour listing the performers under each character in chronological order according to first on-screen appearance. In most cases this would put the "main" performer at the top anyway, but it would also ensure that the ordering under each character name is consistent (without special cases where a certain performer is bumped to the top). A comment in parentheses after the "main" performer would help to distinguish them if you feel this is necessary - e.g. "Cirroc Lofton (main performer, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)". This article is merely a list of multiple performers who played the same character (and as such should be sorted in a logical way), it's not an indication of which performers were more important in the role - that kind of detailed information can be found by clicking through to the character article page. Sorry if I'm being a killjoy, it's just my feeling on the matter! -- Taduolus 12:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Taduolus, I do see your point, but now, after some consideration, find that I disagree. I do believe that in cases where more than one actor played a role the actor who played that role first should be listed first (e.g. Kirstie Alley as Saavik, then Robin Curtis), however, Jake Sisko is a special case. As you yourself noted in your edit to include Thomas Hobson, Hobson played the role of "young Jake Sisko", a subtly different role from "Jake Sisko", just as "young Tuvok" or "young Annika Hansen" are in fact different roles than "Tuvok" or "Seven of Nine". I believe that roles such as these, which can be seen as "derivative" roles (I don't mean that in a pejorative way, I just mean to say that they literally derive from a more prominent role), the actors who play the derivative role should be listed after the main actor.


 * Just to codify my position, I believe that the ordering should go as thus:


 * First actor to play the primary role should be listed first, followed by second actor to play the primary role, and so on.
 * This is then followed by a list of actors who played derivations of that same role (e.g. "young x", "x as y", etc.), listed in chronological order, with their particular role (e.g. "young x) noted in parentheses.
 * As a caveat to the above rule: characters are not to be counted as "old x", "young x" when the setting of the entire universe is shifted. What I mean by this is: T'Pau in Enterprise is still T'Pau and not "young T'Pau", as she is not "young" compared to the age that we expect her to be in the particular setting of that show.
 * Also, where there is a body/voice split (e.g. Balok, Suspiria, etc.), the physical actor should be listed first, followed by the vocal actor.


 * These are just my own personal rules, though. Still, any thoughts would be much appreciated. --Jayunderscorezero 13:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ooh, just one further caveat: in my opinion, we shouldn't need to state that someone provided only the voice of a character when they appeared in TAS, as that would be somewhat redundant. --Jayunderscorezero 13:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok cool, I'll agree with that. Now that we have a policy written down to guide future editors I'll stop kicking up a fuss! -- Taduolus 16:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Savage Curtain/indirect representations
Ok, I've just added various characters who were represented by Excalbian "images" in ). I can already anticipate someone debating their inclusion, so I thought I'd better justify it here. Whilst some characters (such as Kahless) were only ever represented indirectly ("image" in TOS, clone in TNG), I still think that they should be included as the same "character" as that whom they were meant to represent, largely due to the fact that this page's precedent already supports this reading (see the inclusion of some holographic representations of characters, such as Newton or T'Pau). It's a bit of a grey area, but I hope that my take on it is ok for now. --Jayunderscorezero 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)