Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television

Definition of Recurring Character in a TV Series

It would be beneficial to have a more precise definition of "recurring character" as some Wikipedia editors are adding arbitrary criteria. For example, I know one editor who is convinced that a character must appear in a minimum of four episodes to be recurring. Why four? It is a completely arbitrary number. It also does not make sense, since a character appearing in four out of 24 episodes in a season is very different from a character appearing four of six episodes. I recommend the following change to the current paragraph on recurring characters:

"A cast member or character appearing in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes, does not necessarily mean that character has a 'recurring' role. An actor or character may simply have a guest role across several episodes, rather than a recurring story arc throughout the show. There is no minimum number of episodes that determines whether an actor or character is recurring. It may be necessary to wait until all episodes in a season have been made available before determining definitively whether an actor or character is recurring. The most reliable references are the TV series episodes, which can be cited. Other sources may be unreliable as their definitions for 'recurring status' may differ from source to source." MovieRick (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Recurring character seems to address this? DonIago (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Four episodes or more is indeed a TV community consensus that was established to make things simple and stop edit warring. The same with using the credits to establish the order in which characters are listed. I appreciate your idea, but it's too complicated. We're talking about placement in a list, we don't want endless back and forth about how many episodes is enough, or how "important" the character is compared to others, etc. That's what was happening before, and it was a mess.— TAnthony^Talk 06:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

WP is an encyclopedia of sourced content; it’s not up to us as editors to import descriptions into articles based on our own analysis or argumentation. If characters are described as recurring by reliable sources, then that’s the terminology used in the article. If that terminology doesn’t appear in reliable sources, then it has no place in WP, and the article should just list out the cast as credited in the show or series. A community isn’t able to establish a local consensus that cuts across this fundamental site-wide principle. MapReader (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the background, TAnthony. Why four episodes? If a precise criterion is needed to avoid the mess you describe, then wouldn’t a percentage of episodes be better? If a character appears in three of 8 episodes, the arbitrary “rule of four” means they wouldn’t be listed. And yet, they’re in 38% of the episodes. MovieRick (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The four episode convention was decided at a time when most series had longer episode counts. It is not meant to be universally applied to all series, regardless of their length. Note that MOS:TVCAST doesn't actually say that an actor needs to be in four or more episodes to be considered recurring, because each series is different. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

As I said above, everything on WP needs to be supported by sourcing and citation; there is no place for editors inventing their own rules here, if these involve inserting descriptors into articles that aren’t supported by reliable external sources. MapReader (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The problem with industry sources is that they are not consistent in this regard; for example, Deadline has deemed roles "recurring" for anywhere between two and 10 appearances. There is no industry standard, and honestly the TV Project has created this whole concept to make sense of our articles. This is a relatively new development, like within the last 10 years; if you can find an article that hasn't been touched in that long, you won't see a lot of the style "rules" we have currently. The fact that we're having this discussion tells us that even though the classification of a character on a list is technically unimportant, editors care about it. We have to have some kind of simple guideline for our own purposes that nips conflict in the bud. Make no mistake, I'm as much of a TV article nerd as the rest of you, and can be borderline OCD about character lists. But referencing MovieRick's example, it really doesn't matter if a character who was in 3 of 8 episodes is listed as Recurring or Guest, does it? What matters is that we don't fight about it every time.— TAnthony^Talk 15:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Mapreader, this isn't really establishing a local consensus about content, it's about establishing a consistent manual of style. It's easy to say, "list out the cast as credited", but you've got main title credits, opening credits, end credits, and series with 10 seasons. We have to make some stylistic choices or we end up with an unbroken list of 100 characters in an article, and editors arguing about the order.— TAnthony^Talk 15:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Bottom line is that editors have no place going around describing a character as something if this has no basis in reliable sourcing. Otherwise it’s clearly WP:OR. We also need to be careful not to go taking terminology derived principally from US television production and trying to impose it uniformly on series from all over the world. MapReader (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The number of episodes "needed" to be recurring should just be relative to the amount of episodes in a season. Back before streaming and limited series were popular and it was just network shows with 22-24 episodes, 4 felt like a good number, as some one appearing 2-3 times in that season likely was just a glorified guest spot. But now in the limited series age of say 6-8 episode seasons, 3 episodes probably would be better to define recurring. It should never be as low as 2 (unless you're dealing with something like Sherlock), but it should also be respectful as to how characters are actually being used and credited in the series. Is it an 8 episode season and you have 7 characters appearing 3 times and 3 are appearing 4+? Maybe then for that series recurring is 4. Or you have a 24 episode season and a reliable source for a guest actor calls them "recurring", but they only appear in a small storyline told across 2 or 3 episodes. They probably won't be recurring in that instance. Additionally, for long running series, recurring can also mean characters that make 1-2 appearance a season, but have appeared in many seasons of the show. All that to say, four is a good rule of thumb, but see what the series itself and any sources are telling you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Favre1fan93 and adamstom97 that the "four" minimum is outdated with so many shorter series available now. I also agree that an actor who appears as the same character in one or two episodes is probably better defined as a "guest star." So maybe 3 episodes is a reasonable rule of thumb--but there are other factors as several of you have pointed out. So, "recurring" probably needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Hopefully, we can avoid the "editing wars" that some of you mentioned. That is counterproductive to the goals of Wikipedia.

TAnthony, there is a difference between "recurring character" and "guest star." The recurring character entry should describe who played the role and also provide a brief description of the character. The "guest star" list would just include the actor's name.

MapReader, I understand your point, but TAnthony is correct about industry sources not defining "recurring" in a consistent manner. Additionally, there may be no references for old TV series that even use the term "recurring." For example, Dick Gautier played the robot Hymie in six episodes of the "Get Smart" TV series. Yet, I would be hard pressed to find a reference that labels Hymie as a recurring character. In this case, the reliable references are the TV episodes that Hymie appeared in. Wikipedia accepts TV episodes as references and provides a format for citing them. MovieRick (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Then, in such an article, that term ‘recurring’ has no place within it. It isn’t the job of editors to analyse into articles a categorisation that has no real world basis. MapReader (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

"Recurring", by its definition in the television space, means a guest character who appears frequently in a series. Editors can determine such status of a character without reliable sources using such terms simply by looking at how many episode a character appears in. That's allowed per WP:CALC, as that's a simple calculation we can make to apply the term to characters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Have you read CALC? That’s a massive stretch from what it actually allows. CALC enables us to say that someone has been in three episodes, without having to find a source explicitly saying that, because we can count up the number of episodes in which they were credited. There is nothing in CALC that supports building unsourced terminology on top of such a calculation. MapReader (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Any actor credited as a guest star in a series appearing in more then one episode thus becomes a "recurring guest star". Per the guidance here in the MOS, we are trying to provide guidance to editors on how to interpret such appearances. So yes, we can make a determination simply from counting episode appearances if they are "recurring" or just a "guest star". That isn't unsourced terminology. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@MovieRick: the "four" minimum is outdated I didn't say that at all. It's still a valid rule of thumb editors can look too, but there are other factors as to why that number is used. So it's all depending on what makes sense for each series in question. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Something else to note, there is no requirement to have a "recurring" list for a series. That is just a suggestion for a common way to determine noteworthy guest stars if the list is too long to include them all. In a series where no guest star appears in more than 2 or 3 episodes it may make sense to use different criteria. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it's best to dispense with "recurring characters" as a term. "Guest stars" could suffice. I would also list the character name and a brief description, too, as that is notable information about the TV series. However, whether that information is needed or not could be determined on a case-by-case basis. Thus, under "Guest Stars" for "Get Smart", there could be: Dick Gautier as Hymie, a CONTROL robot." How does that sound? MovieRick (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you are going to have support for getting rid of the "Recurring" category. It is still a widely used TV industry term, even in the age of streaming and shorter episode orders, and it is still generally the best way to separate out a list of the most significant guest stars. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I am trying to come up with a solution since there is no standard definition of "recurring." That is clear from this discussion and all the good points you and others have made. I am open to other solutions if anyone has one. MovieRick (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

You are looking for a solution where there is no problem. "Recurring" is a standard term that can be helpful to use for a lot of series, but for some series it will not make sense to use it or the criteria will need to be different from what is standard. That is all addressed in the current wording for MOS:TVCAST. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that "recurring" is not a standard term. Some editors are using 4 episodes as a minimum for recurring status. That is an arbitrary number not supported by any reliable reference. MovieRick (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

How about if you come across an article where you disagree with the way the list is divided, start a discussion and alert us here. I think if we have some real articles with issues we can make more progress on possibly tweaking our guidelines, or just getting the word out to be a bit more flexible as needed.— TAnthony^Talk 04:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Plot summary for multi-episode articles

How long can the plot summary be if an article is written about four episodes? I have seen some multi episode articles where it is within 500 words (like this) and some where it is closer to 200 words per episode (like this), totaling 800 words for the plot section of the article. Ladtrack (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

"Acclaim"

Notification: A user insists that the word "acclaim" mentioned in MOS:TVRECEPTION is not loaded language or an exceptional claim, therefore shouldn't be attributed to multiple high-quality sources. Apparently, they think that saying "critical acclaim" is different from just saying "acclaim" when talking about the critical reception of a series. And "acclaimed" is MOS:PEACOCK, but not "acclaim". ภץאคгöร 08:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

For anyone who wants to join the discussion, instead of duplicating it, see Talk:The Last of Us season 2 § Alex 21: "'Acclaim' is not loaded language" (very specific title, I know). -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Ignore what Alex wrote. The discussion there is not a duplicate of this one. The issue here is that he does not see (critical) acclaim as a loaded language/claims that it is not, the issue there is about the season of the show. So far only he has made such a statement, so the TVRECEPTION section will have to be changed here if there is a consensus... ภץאคгöร 10:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Ignore what Alex wrote. Aren't you a gem? Unfortunately, you don't own this talk page. I look forward to seeing the consensus that you have been building towards here. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I am a gem. I didn't say I own this page, I just corrected your misinterpretation. And the outcome is already clear. No one has endorsed what you have been pushing. It was obvious that this would be the case, but since there's always a possibility, I mentioned it above in case of a consensus. ภץאคгöร 17:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Not at all. You've misunderstood the word "acclaim", which is on you. A local consensus certainly works for the singular article. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure. Because I'm the only one saying "acclaim" is NOT a loaded language and opposing MOS:TVRECEPTION, not you 😒... ภץאคгöร 09:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)