Wiki 24:The Situation Room/May 2006 Archives

This is the Archives of The Situation Room discussions from May 2006. See also the Archives Directory. Unlike the main Situation Room page and its main archive, this page sorts threads chronologically, as opposed to reverse chronologically.

Upcoming episodes
I vote that the preview summaries for upcoming episodes be removed. First off, they contain spoilers, even if vague ones. Secondly, the text is taken from other sites and not written by our editors. I have no problem creating place-holder articles for upcoming episodes, but including summaries violates our no-spoiler policy, as well as possible copyright rules. --Proudhug 17:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. Someone seems to put up new episodes almost immdeitally after the newest one airs anyway. What is the point of posting possible spoiler information on our site if there is nothing to put there except an image we don't want to use in the end, and things taken from other websites? - Xtreme680 17:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I say clear 'em out. Didn't we have this discussion once before?  I was on the other side of the fence initially, but now I think that we should just avoid posting summaries (especially those lifted directly from Yahoo! or other sites) completely.  Willo or someone else usually has an episode guide up from the latest episode within a few hours, and I don't think we need to go beyond that. -Kapoli 21:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy on Dates
Guys, we need to make a decision about dates. There are now a fair number of pages that include dates that have been extrapolated from some imaginary starting year for Day 1. I've argued on the other side about assuming geography and history, but I think that unless a date was seen or heard on the show/book/etc., it should not be included on any page except the Timeline page (which can discuss the different possible timelines, as there are several). What do you all think? -StBacchus 11:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I 100% agree with you, StBacchus. We can't have it both ways.  We can either make assumptions based on what is true in the real world, or not, but it has to be consistent across the board.  I hear alot of arguments for 2000 or 2004 being the starting year because those are years of actual Presidential elections, but just because that's the way it's done in real life doesn't mean that's the way they do it in 24.  Until someone on the show (or some information from a screen capture) can lead us to a definite starting date, we shouldn't include the information anywhere except the Timeline page. -Kapoli 14:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the major project I've been working on for quite a while now. Placing the first year in 2002 makes nearly every date reference from the show and its ancilliary material fit nicely into a consistent timeline.  Once I'm completely finished with the timeline, I'll be posting it for everyone to analyze.  Barring any major criticisms, I'd planned to begin incorporating those dates into Wiki 24 afterwards.  This is the reason I've ignored most of the timeline information that's already here, since I'd planned to change most of it once I'm ready. --Proudhug 15:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been looking forward to seeing your timeline, actually. But I have a really big problem with including conjectural dates into the Wiki at large. Your timeline is different and separate from the dates that have actually been given in the show, and people reading shouldn't have to wonder - as I have been - which ones were given and which were made up. -StBacchus 21:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I have no idea where we're getting birthyears, nor do I know how this timeline project works. If there is some source that gives out birthdates, why don't we cite that on the character pages? - Xtreme680 00:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Logo
The hell happened to our logo? --Proudhug 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I sorted that out yesterday. Quite funny in retrospect. I banned the guy though. --24 Administration 20:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorted what out? I don't know what happened. Why is our logo back to the old squished version? --Proudhug 20:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There was some kind of vandalism yesterday, but it's still not right. Count me in for sorting it back to the way it was a week ago. --StBacchus 21:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone changed it to a communism sign with "Wikipedia is commie" written on it or something to that effect. I wasn't sure about how to change it back so I put that one up. --24 Administration 16:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How about uploading as a new version the one uploaded by Angela on 11-04-2005? That would probably do it. -StBacchus 17:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how I managed to do it, but I fixed it. Actually, I know HOW I DID it, but I just don't know why it wouldn't let me do it before. But it's fixed now and that's all that matters. :-) --Proudhug 17:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Awesome, it looks good again! Thanks! -StBacchus 18:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary Articles?
Looking on the wanted pages list, I saw links to articles I don't think we realy need to be or should be writing. For example, "Pentagon", or "Secretary of Agriculture". These are real live entities with wikipedia articles. I don't see why the 24 wiki should also have articles about them. Now something like "President" I can understand, since the article goes through the succession of Presidents through the history of the show. But if "Secretary of Agriculture" or "Secretary of Treasury" are positions held by people we see once, do we really need to write articles about them? The same thing goes for terms like "terrorism". --Wydok 05:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Our goal is to include an article for every person, place and thing shown or mentioned on the show. In the case of real life things like those you've mentioned above, it needs to be explained how these things were portrayed on the show.  If little or no information is available then an external link to something like Wikipedia is recommended.  --Proudhug 08:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)