This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: Episode coverage / Marvel Cinematic Universe Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force. This article is supported by the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force (assessed as Low-importance). Comics: Marvel Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group. United States: Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force.

See his tweet here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good sign. Since he did the first season, talked about the second, and now this, I think we can confidently state him here. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the List of series article in the table, can we just expand the cell a row, or should we add a new source? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just expand the cell. The big thing with second seasons and onwards is if the showrunner(s) is not the same as previously. Then we definitely need a source. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So filming has apparently started on the season. Can we used the embedded Simone Missick tweet in the linked MCU Exchange site (which can't be used)? Also, Simone Missick is back. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That Missick tweet doesn't really tell us anything about Luke Cage filming, but the set pics are promising/surprising. We should just keep an eye out I think. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how reliable this is, but ScreenRant says it started filming today. - DinoSlider (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That comes from this which is a bit iffy really. We should be on the look out for something better to use. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do we think of this as a source for filming? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we can use the Screen Rant version, as Daily Mail (the url) may be on the blacklist? Anyway, that's good. I'll add it all in (including Dawson) and make the article move. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jones mentions the second season of the show here, but I'm not sure if it is enough to confirm he is returning. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The way he worded his answers, doesn't seem to clearly indicate if he's back and hopeful to have an arc, or hopeful to be back with an arc. Best to hold off until we get some more clarification. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coker confirmed that Gabrielle Dennis is in Season 2, she "is an important factor" http://comicbook.com/marvel/2018/02/09/interview-luke-cage-showrunner-cheo-hodari-coker/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.75.97.218 (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She's already in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i notice editor add but no source. i ask Favre1fan93 you think if spoiler tv is reliable source? https://www.spoilertv.com/2018/04/upcoming-episode-titles-various-shows_27.html IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, SpoilerTV is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, as the editoral team have no credentials to back up themselves or their articles. -- Alex^TW 00:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i thank you for note and going to remember. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexTheWhovian: Going by WP:TVCAST the official billing takes priority over actual appearances or occurences, that's fine. However the sourcing is not, as for sourcing the official billing we need to use the actual film/video, a publication by a producers or some news media containing the actual final billing explicitly. Most of the sources used currently are no good for that as they do no such thing. They are mostly sources published before the release of the series and often don't contain any specific billing information other then an actor being enlisted or appearing. This in particular the case for the sources used for Henwick and Jones.

Using such sources is (temporarily) ok if the article content is written while the series is still in production, although at the time the cast list probably shouldn't be categorized until explicit billing information becomes available. But after the release (and categorisation of the cast list) those sources which are not explicity sourcing the actual billing of a character should be updated/replaced/removed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.1: Case in point to the above, i.e. why that the proper sourcing issue matter for the billing. Rosario Dawsen is billed as a special guest star in the opening credits and hence should be listed under notable guests if we go by the official billing rather than by sources simply mentioning her participation or the fact that she occurs in several episodes.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.2: Jones is currently in the lead described as guest star (so exactly where I moved him based only on occurences though). I haven't seen the actual billing of the episode in which he appears yet, to asses which is actually correct, but in the current state the article is inconsistent.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand any of this, but I have updated the cast list per the credits of all the episodes, and will be looking for third party sources from now. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that partially fixes things for now, i.e. Dwason is listed as in the official billing now and the inconsistency with regard to Jones is removed.

However strictly speaking there still remains a sourcing issue, i.e. the currently used sources don't really show whether an actor is billed as main cast, recurring or guest. So it might be best to replace or remove them in the cast list. Imho with the season being out now, there is no need for sourcing the cast list anymore as it can obviously be verified by looking at the episodes themselves (or databases replicating the info). If however a source is still desired, we simply should cite the exact episode in which the billing as main, recurring or guest can be seen.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The episodes act as the WP:PRIMARY source for the main cast as they are credited. This is the WP:CONSENSUS of WP:TV, and is implemented across tens of thousands of television articles. If you disagree, you need to raise it there. -- Alex^TW 15:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read what I wrote? My point was that currently the article is exactly not doing what you've stated, that is the episodes have not been used as sources for the main cast. The issue is not a disagreement about current rules but that the current rules are not (fully) applied in this article and that needs to be discussed here rather than anywhere else. Or in doubt simply fixed rather than discussed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kmhkmh, it is already assumed that the episodes are being used as a primary source, so no direct cites necessary there. Still, it is preferable to have third-party sources rather than relying on the primary source (the show itself). Since we are in WP:NOHURRY you shouldn't be concerned with this. It will be sorted out as more editors finish watching the show and are able to find the wanted sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is no hurry. However I disagree on the sourcing. It is true that secondary/third party sources are to be preferred, but only if they actually really do source what they pretend to. Exactly that is not the case here. The current sources for the cast list were tempoarily ok when the season was still in production, but now after its release they have become pseudo sources as they pretend to the reader to source something (the exact casting), which they don't.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are in WP:NOHURRY you shouldn't be concerned with this. It will be sorted out as more editors finish watching the show and are able to find the wanted sources. Or, since you are in such a rush, how about finding some sources yourself? WP:BEBOLD. We aren't here to comply with every editor's request. -- Alex^TW 01:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall suggesting any hurry in fact quite the opposite and I posted a "request" to avoid an edit war, which seemed alreay on the horizon.

I'm not sure what kind of sources you want to find here for the cast information, since everybody seems to agree that the information should be taken from the episodes themselves, i.e. there isn't really anything to search in that respect.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we use the episodes as a primary reference, the actors playing Colleen Wing and Danny Rand would be "notable guests' as they only appear in one episode each and did not appear in the series' first season, and the actor playing Claire Temple would be "recurring" because she appears in three episodes and is returning from the previous season. But I'm reticent to do the legwork of sourcing all this only to have it reverted by some vigilant edit warrior. Morganfitzp (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, according to the onscreen credits Henwick and Jones were main cast members for the episodes they appeared in, not guests. And the current consensus is that three episodes is not enough for recurring, as more often than not this is someone doing a three episode guest block rather than actually recurring throughout the whole season (which is exactly the case here). - adamstom97 (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finn and Henwick were clearly not main cast members on the show.. only appearing in one episode each... despite what contractual thing they had that put them in the main credits for those episodes. Spanneraol (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can't pick and choose when to follow the credits. The majority of the time, the starring credits are going to line up with who is a main cast member. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They were only listed in the credits on those particular episodes though not on the entire season. Spanneraol (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And? Who are we to determine the validity of their main-cast credits based on how many episodes they were in? Could we list them as main cast if they were credited in the entire season bar one episode? That wouldn't be the entire season either. They were credited as main, hence they are listed as such. -- Alex^TW 02:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That's not that unusual. It seems to differ between actor's contracts across TV shows, where some are always credited and others are only credited when they appear but both are credited in the main cast when they are. They are still main cast members. Admittedly, they are not usually appearing in only a single episode, but the same principle applies. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Spanneraol: As I understand WP:TVCAST the categorisation of the cast should, if possible, be based on the billing on film and the film only exist as episodes. So if a person is main cast ("starring" in the opening credits) of an episode, (s)he is main cast for the whole season or series even if (s)he appears only in one episode. This is unfortunately somewhat counterintuitive, but it allows a simple and clear determination. Complete official cast information (on film) does usually not exist for a series or season as a whole, so you have to resort to the individual episodes.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on Netflix' own official Marvel's Luke Cage website it says "Starring: Mike Colter, Alfre Woodard, Rosario Dawson." There's also a link to "Learn more" on IMDb...and Wikipedia. I think a note in this article's credits can just attest to this, stating how some actors are listed in "starring" roles in one context, and as "guest stars" in others. Ultimately anyone actually watching the show will make up their own minds, and if they look at this article maybe even jump into this editing skirmish just like I did when they see Henwick and Jones in one episode each and Dawson in three. To prevent ourselves from doing the Sisyphean labor of schooling each and every one on the minutiae of WP:TVCAST and scorching them with reverted edits, I highly recommend that someone insert such a note into this article's cast section. Morganfitzp (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding including Jones, Henwick, and Rider in the main cast list: a potential alternative could be what has been done at The Crown (TV series), where we use a "Featured" heading for the three, since they really aren't "starring" in the same sense Colter, Missick, Rossi, Dennis, Shakir, and Woodard are, and are probably only appearing in the credits because of contracts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there was clear consensus for something like that, then I would also support it. We have to be careful in the precedents we are setting, but it is also clear that in this case there is something quite different happening. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also see note about Cockroach below. I'd qualify appearances in three episodes of a series as "recurring" as per the literary rule of three. Morganfitzp (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That rule has nothing to do with the "recurring" status of a guest actor on a television series, and ignores extensive discussion that has taken place on the matter. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before I made a mass edit, in this article, we should be referring to "Tilda Johnson" as "Tilda Dillard". That is her name for the entirety of the series until the final 15 minutes of the last episode when she chooses to take her adoptive family's last name (aka Tilda Johnson). I think this would be a similar instance to Daisy on AoS, where on the season 1 article we refer to her as "Skye", and then moving forward, the season articles call her "Daisy" after the reveal. If the series gets a third season and Davis returns, we can definitely use "Johnson" then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did it as is just because it was simpler, both for identifying who is who and so we don't have to mention the name change in the shorter episode summaries (while they may not necessarily line-up episode-to-episode, they still make sense in their own right since the relation to the Johnsons is mentioned). I also feel that if we have a note in the casting section mentioning what name she uses and when, people will be able to understand both how it works in the show and how we are retroactively referring to her in the summaries for simplicity. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still think we should refer mainly to her as "Tilda Dillard", though notes in casting would be helpful too. The only reasoning, is that is the name she goes by for the majority of the season. If a person was to watch only a couple episodes of the season, and then come look here, they might get confused by the naming. Sure, there aren't any other characters named "Tilda" so maybe I'm making a big stretch, but I hope you get my point. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I totally understand. This way just seemed easier, and I was hoping that would out-weigh the slight inaccuracy is all. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, Cockroach was only in three episodes (201, 203, and 205), so shouldn't qualify for recurring. Did I miss one? - adamstom97 (talk) 10:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was in 202 but didn't get credited for some reason. I'll double check because I'm pretty sure he's in there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup he is. That the "big" battle as it were between the two, with 'roach throwing Cage out of the illegal betting warehouse, and then Cage beating him up at his apartment. Also oddly, Otto Sanchez as Arturo "El Rey" Gomez III was also not credited. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange. Perhaps it has something to do with when they filmed the scenes / things being moved around in editing. If we got an explanation somewhere it could be cool to note it, otherwise I am happy to keep Cockroach in that case. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially, but it's quite a lot of content to be an editing. I think we've had a credit issue before on another Netflix season, so this is that surprising for me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This season saw quite a few cameos of prominent real-world figures such as Jemele Hill, Michael Smith, Todd Bowles, Jelani Cobb, and Stephen A. Smith that may be worth a mention either in the notes under the episode they respectively appear in (where the performers are listed) or in the actual cast list under a new Cameo section. Hill, Smith, and Bowles appear in the second episode of the season and Smith appears in the fourth. Cobb appears in the season finale. Dhalh (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We generally avoid listing cameos at the season article, preferring to leave them for List of Luke Cage characters. However, some of them have been added to this page in a few places where appropriate (there is a paragraph on the sport-related cameos, and information on the performers). - adamstom97 (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I was reading the synopsis of each episode, I was getting confused by the constant use of only the character's last names, which outside of a few characters, aren't frequently used in the actual episodes. More often than not, the characters are referred to by their first names. I went ahead and changed many of those characters to their first names, but I was reverted by Adamstom.97 with an edit summary of "please discuss this change, this style is consistent over many articles.". They have a point, but the majority of those articles are biographies. Besides... WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is no set rule, MOS, style, or even a recommendation that I know of to use only last names through movie and television plot summaries. What sense does that even make? Are you honestly suggesting that using last names across the summaries improves the article? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These characters are referred to how a real-life person would be: they have first and second names, with friends often calling them the former and people they are not so friendly with using the latter. Rather than us pretending that we are friends with the characters, it has always made more sense to me to follow the recommendations for real-life people (WP:SURNAME) and introduce them with their full name, and then use the more formal last name from then (unless there are multiple characters with the same last name, in which case we change to using first names for them to disambiguate). - adamstom97 (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key word in your statement above is that these are "characters", not real-life people. I believe your logic is flawed, because unlike a real life person who has an article on here, one of the most important purpose's of a character is to develop a relationship (good or bad) with the viewer. Also, a biographical article is focused on one individual, whereas these are not. In this instance, take the perspective of the reader. In my real world scenario, I was watching the show and I then went back to read some of the episode synopses and was genuinely confused on who was who, because most of the characters on the show are referred to by their first names. For instance, consistently referring to Tilda Johnson as simply "Johnson" throughout your interpretation of the each episode plot, when her character's last name was brought up perhaps two times in the entire season (and therefore, relatively unknown to the viewer/reader) is kind of ridiculous. Having said that, I'm going to guess that you're not going to be convinced otherwise and it's doubful anyone else will stumble across this and chime in to offer their opinion. I may bring this up in another forum for a wider audience, but I haven't decided, yet. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The flaw in your logic is assuming that this article has been written for your benefit. We cannot assume that anyone who is going to read this page has already seen the show and is familiar with the characters. They have to be introduced and referred to in a way that works for someone who is fresh to the material. Anyone reading the article free of bias will be introduced to Tilda Johnson, see her referred to as Johnson throughout the following summaries and so know they are following that character, and then see her listed in the cast section below that. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, way to make it personal by assuming I was suggesting a change for my own personal benefit. I just used myself as example as an actual reader. I made no assumptions. Going back a bit, in your revert of mine, you mentioned in the edit summary "this style is consistent over many articles", I did some of my own research. I encourage you to take a look at one of the Featured Lists, specifically the "Episodes" section. Click on some of those articles and browse their plot summaries. Then, when you're done, go over to the Featured Articles, and take look at some random plot summaries under the "Films" or the "Episodes of television" sections and do the same there. Oh, sure, you'll find some that use last names in the summaries, some because they agree with you, others because it makes sense to that particular character (e.g. Deep Throat (The X-Files episode)). Go ahead and see what you find. Hell, while you're at it, why don't you go peruse the individual comic book character bios that are actually used in this show. Outside of Luke Cage (which I concede that he can be easily be referred to as "Luke", "Cage", or "Luke Cage"), every article that I checked of a major character in this show has more instances of their first name (or nickname) being used in their respective articles (Cottonmouth (Cornell Stokes), Shades (comics), Diamondback (Willis Stryker), Claire Temple (Marvel Cinematic Universe), Black Mariah (comics), Nightshade (Marvel Comics)) than their last name. I know: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, right? I'm just trying to improve the article to what makes most sense and not leave it confusing to the reader. How is changing to first names making it worse? If aren't willing to see that, I'm not sure what else to say. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I mentioned consistency with other pages I was talking about the other Marvel Netflix shows. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the other ones you created? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's been over a month without any further response from you. I have yet to see any kind of logical argument from you on why using last names in these plot summaries is better, especially when compared to the way character names are used in the plot summaries in Feature Articles/Lists as I've shown above. I will be changing the character names to reflect how they are commonly used in the series soon. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also refer you to this discussion: Wikipedia talk:How to write a plot summary#Characters referred to by first or last name?. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since Dibol blindly reverted my last comment here with a comment of "No clear consensus was really given though, and I read that page very carefully", I question their reading skills, especially when there is a clear consensus in that discussion. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I just went ahead and started an RFC. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the latest undo by adamstom97, I’m leaning toward Jauerback’a arguements: deferring to last names doesn’t work in plot summaries whose fictional characters are not referred to by their last names. In the case of this Netflix series, I know who Mariah, Shades and Turk are when called by those names, but to refer to Mariah as “Dillard” is confusing because there are other Dillards in the story, to call Shades by his birth name is confusing because it’s barely used, and to call Turk anything else would be even more confusing because that’s the only name we ever hear for him. I commend Jauerback’for starting an RFC on this and encourage adamstom97 and other edit-warriors to replace efforts to police this article with more proactive discourse on that RFC. Morganfitzp (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and D.W. is never called "Griffith" in the show. Morganfitzp (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Marvel.com is showing this poster as the one for season 2. The others they show for each series/season are consistent with what we have, so I just wanted to bring this up in the event anyone felt the one here should be changed. I don't particularly mind either way. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not too worried, but the current poster is a bit more distinctive for me, and is also still being used for marketing such as on the Luke Cage twitter account. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have time to go through this at the moment, so thought I would stick it here in case someone else did: Colter interview on YouTube. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the hell of it, @Favre1fan93:. The policy you gave in your edit summary says "All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source." I did that. The VERY FIRST line of the source I provided says "Former Chiefs, Jets, and Bears running back Thomas Jones has an expanded role in the newest season of Marvel’s Netflix series ‘Luke Cage’." The article at no point refers to him by his stage name (Thomas Q. Jones). His Wikipedia article doesn't include his middle initial. Additionally, using his social media as justification for inclusion of the Q violates WP:USINGSPS because social media is considered a self published source. So I'm keeping within policy but yet you for some reason have an issue with it?--Rockchalk717 20:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The included source lists him as "Thomas Q. Jones" as do the credits. Looking at his IMDB page as a starting reference, it lists out of his 33 actor credits, four have him credited as "Thomas Jones", so as an actor, his most frequent name is Thomas Q. Jones. If this was just as a cameo appearance as himself portraying a footballer, sure, let's go with his common name from when he was playing. But he wasn't, so we should be following his credited name, again which is sourced by the Blackfilm.com source used in the article. Here are one, two, three, four, and five. additional sources that I found that list him as "Thomas Q. Jones" when searching "thomas q jones luke cage" on Google (as well as "thomas jones luke cage"), and even in those two searches, the only one I found that appeared reliable and used "Thomas Jones" was the Chief's Wire/USA Today source, which given the nature of that site being NFL-centric, would make sense it used his name while playing football. Cherry picking that one, when it's clear his COMMONNAME for acting/this series is "Thomas Q. Jones", doesn't thus make that correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Favre1fan93: IMDB is not considered a reliable source and with how experienced of an editor you appear to be, you should know this. I'm gonna go ahead and let this go because most newer sources include his middle initial. Please remember in future content discussions a person's own social media and IMDB aren't reliable sources.--Rockchalk717 17:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Favre never suggested that we use IMDB as a reliable source, they were just pointing out for the purposes of this discussion that we can use that as a "starting reference" to get a quick idea of how he has been credited. It is clear that "Thomas Q. Jones" is how he is credited in this show and a majority of his other acting appearances, and Favre provided non-IMDB sources to back that up. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adam. As you noted, and Rockchalk you incorrectly assumed, I never said IMDb should be used as a reference (the verb meaning to cite) or reliable source. I said it to reference (the noun meaning to allude to), of which I explained and then provided the reliable sources to back up the name of "Thomas Q. Jones". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]