Forum:What to do with uncredited cast lists

Boblipton has raised an incredibly interesting point on my talk page, so I bring it here for greater study:
 * I see there is a separate page for "The Myth Makers Uncredited Cast". It seems to me to be bad policy to have such a page and I suggest it be deleted and the ators listed here be folded into the main page. Boblipton talk to me 21:51, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

It is, of course, not just The Myth Makers, that has such a list but also The Time Meddler Uncredited Cast. And I know at one time there were a lot more of these. But I can't seem to find them, nor remember their exact names for searching through the deletion log. Perhaps they've been deleted over the years.

In any case, the question is what should we do about uncredited performers in general. I'm a little wary of just putting the information into the episode pages themselves, but we should come up with a consistent style and sourcing threshold.

I agree with Bob that the two existing pages should be struck down. But I don't think their information should just be cut 'n' pasted to the story page.

I propose that uncredited cast information be included in story pages when, and only when:
 * each individual has a specific citation, giving the source which confirmed their participation in the episode
 * all uncredited performers are in a subsection of the main cast list — not in the main section with a parenthetical of (uncredited)

Thoughts? 22:50: Wed 08 Feb 2012


 * I cannot agree with this more. Uncredited cast is one of the major things I have issues with, primary because of the points raised above. They must have a citation. Otherwise, User can just add anyone they want as uncredited cast or make something up - just to mess up the page.


 * I am also fully behind the subsection within the cast list. If we compare Father's Day, which the uncredited cast is places within a subsection to An Unearthly Child, which just has all the uncredited cast merged within the main cast list. It would look so much better as a subsection. MM/ Want to talk? 00:09, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I sent the message to Czechout because he was an administrator who had contributed to the page. I am hesitant to suggest a page that contains real information be deleted and sent it to him as a check. I did not think it would trigger a debate. I therefore apologize for inciting a foofaraw. Given how these debates go, I feel I need to justify my position, which is that the credits of a classic Doctor Who story omits a lot of individuals who would be included nowadays. There are historical reasons for this. In the early days of the movies, no one got a screen credit. From about 1925-1970, there were perhaps half a dozen credit cards covering perhaps a dozen actors and an equal number of credits for behind the screen talent.... and sometimes the person credited was actually the head of the department and had little or nothing to do with the production. This is how Douglas Shearer wound up doing the sound for every MGM production from about 1929 through the 1950s. It was the late 1970s when on-screen credits exploded, first noticeable in the effects-heavy Star Wars.

Basically, in order to maintain consistency, I feel we should credit people on the classic WHO when we know who they are, even when they are not credited. The only issue is the provenance of the credits. We do need to agree on what a valid source for uncredited personnel is.

As for how they are to be listed, I agree with Mini-Mitch.Boblipton talk to me 01:16, February 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with CzechOut and Mini-mitch.
 * A subsection as is used on Father's Day is much better than on An Unearthly Child, with Father's Day you can see clearly what was credited and what wasn't.
 * And of course it all has to have citation, preferably not the IMDB. --Tangerineduel / talk 12:35, February 9, 2012 (UTC)