Wiki 24:The Situation Room

This is the Situation Room where you can talk about Wiki 24, ask questions, suggest ways to improve the site, or provide general comments. Wiki 24 is always open to new ideas to improve our style, policies and format, so feel free to question things and/or suggest changes and additions. Try to keep the most recent discussions at the top of the page for the ease of browsing. Be sure to read the Help page before posting. If you have found any bugs or technical problems, please report them on the Wiki 24:Problems page and an administrator will try and sort the problem out.

Also, please keep in mind that this is not a site for discussion of the show 24 unless it specifically pertains to the creation of this encyclopedia. There are many other locations on the internet to talk with fans about the show. And of course, off topic discussion doesn't have a place here.

Topics in the Situation Room will remain active for about a month after their final reply, then they will be moved to the Archives. Please timestamp your posts by including four tildes at the end ( ~ ).

Multiple writers
I've fixed all of the episode pages with multiple writers. I didn't bother updating the last few templates because I got lazy, however. Keep in mind that the ampersand (&) is actually important in the credits, as it denotes that the writers collaborated, as opposed to (and) which denotes independant rewrites. --Proudhug 17:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Similar Episode Guides
Earlier today I headed through and deleted the exact copies. However after further inspection there are numerous episode guide that aren't copies but have VERY similar wording and sometimes if a a scene is short enough, it's copied word by word from the guide. How similar should these guides get until they're too similar? -WarthogDemon 07:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you link to an example? I don't really like the idea of any portion of the episode guides being copied and pasted.  I suppose if it's one sentence that the author can't figure out better wording for, then it's not a huge problem, but I don't like the idea of us getting the exact content of our articles from other places. -Kapoli 07:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have something to add... looking around, I do see a few episode guides that have some similarities or word-for-word copying from episode guides from Fox. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure that for the first couple of guides I did a few months ago, I used the Fox guide as a skeleton and added/removed information as necessary, added times, and expanded the guide.  I was new to Wiki24 and didn't realize that using the Fox guides was a no-no.  We didn't have the "Lockdown" template frowning upon the Fox guides that we have now.  I think that if there is a guide with an occasional identical portion, then we should just edit the sentence/paragraph.  If we delete the entire guide because 5% of it is lifted right from the Fox page, then we're going to have to go to alot more work to re-write an entire guide rather than a few sentences. --Kapoli 07:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that's best. I just wasn't sure on how separate we wanted them to be from Fox's guide.  I know it'd be hard to make them completely different as they're obviously talking about the same things.

The closest ones I could find were Day 1 1:00am-2:00am and Day 2 10:00pm-11:00pm. Though as per your suggestion maybe Day 2 10:00pm-11:00pm should be restored as I deleted it yesterday for being too similar. It had the biggest similarities so that'd be the best example. Restoring it would be the best idea though.


 * In my opinion, episode guides should be written from scratch. Obviously it's a tough judgement call, but anything too similar should just be deleted and written from scratch. Proudhug 15:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The episode in day 2 was way too similar though the other instances don't seem too bad. I suppose at least a second person should check up on Day 2 10:00pm-11:00pm to see if my call was warranted. -WarthogDemon 15:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC) (That was me last time too.)

Policy on Dates, part 2
I've noticed people adding birthyears and ages to characters and I was wondering if there should be some kind of policy about citing where the ages are coming from. If we didn't learn from the show that Ira Gaines was 34, then should we cite where we did learn that? StBacchus and I found a screencap of Kyle Singer's ID that lends a lot of perspective to the timeline of the show... and she had some other IDs and dossiers that helped as well. I know that Proudhug is working extensively on a timeline, but as of right now, the timeline at the bottom of the main page is completely off and that's where it seems many of these dates are coming from. -Kapoli 01:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we agreed that we don't want to clutter up the site with citations and that a simple list at the bottom would suffice. If someone needs to know where specific information came from and there are too many Sources to go through, they can ask on the Talk page and someone will probably be able to provide the information they seek.  Proudhug 15:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Verb Tense
What's the plan for verb tense with character pages? Actor pages? All pages? I know that episode guides should be written in present progressive tense. I think that actor pages can be written in past or present... depending on whether or not the actor is still active on the show. Some character pages are in present tense, some are in past... according to a couple different websites, we should be doing them all in present tense. What's the policy going to be? -Kapoli 19:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I did a complete overhaul of the Manual of Style which includes a section on tense. --Proudhug 22:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
24 Administration or Proudhug, I think there has been some vandalism on Chloe's page, Palmer's page, the Main page, Jack's page, etc. Looks like it's mostly 152.163.100.14 and 152.163.100.133. I changed some of the pages back, but I can't do them all right now. --Kapoli 04:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also check the Chloe O'Brian history page for one from 152.163.100.71 I'll see if I can't track down the rest of the vandalism in the meantime. - Xtreme680 04:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Vandalism update. User:Blitz moved the David Palmer and Jack Bauer pages to David Palmer on wheels and The man who never seems to die respectively, as well as the talk pages. I have reverted most of the other vandalism and these as well, and I recommend that he be given some sort of punishment and that these pages (which I have redirected back to the previous pages) be deleted - Xtreme680 21:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Today, both Jack's page and Palmer's page were redirected to "The man who never seems to die" and "David Palmer on wheels", respectively. I don't want to be a bitch about it, but the user "Blitz" needs to be banned. Permanently, in my opinion. This kinda shit is not funny and it's just creating unneccessary work for everyone. A dozen articles had their content erased or changed to something perverted yesterday... the main page keeps getting screwed with... pages are getting redirected... it's really pissing me off. Is there a solution to this as far as requiring users to log in or something else? I'm tired of it and - since I'm not familiar with moving pages and reverting edits - I'm sure Xtreme is tired of it too seeing as he's been correcting everything. -Kapoli 21:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, is this not pissing anyone else off? We shouldn't have to do this every day. I want bans, and ferocious ones. I'm sick of talking about policy too, someone just write a vandalism policy, protect the main page from moving, and we'll continue on our merry way. - Xtreme680 19:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll second that. Every single word of it. -Kapoli 19:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The above IPs are banned for infinite time. I think that taking a zero tolarance policy on vandalism is now in order. Anyone found vandalising will be banned for an infinite time period. Look at Wiki 24:Vandalism for more information. --24 Administration 19:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks 24 Administration! Seeing "with an expiry time of infinite" has made my day. I appreciate you taking care of it, and I completely SUPPORT having a zero tolerance policy. -Kapoli 19:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Happy to help. If anyone sees any vandals, please report them to Wiki 24:Vandal Alert. --24 Administration 19:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, thank you very much. I like the vandal alert level too. "Vandals, if you try and commit suicide, Jack Bauer doesn't care. He'll just shoot you in your hand for justice." - Xtreme680 21:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

24 on iTunes
Today is offically the greatest day of my life. Well, almost. Season 5 is on iTunes as of Tuesday 5/9/06... well, the US version... and they've got the first 21 episodes of the season. I think that we should mention that on the Season 5 page somewhere, right? It's just like the season going to DVD. I think it's important information to include, but I'll leave it up for discussion about how we include it. Does it get a separate page, like the DVDs or do we include it on the Season 5 page? What does everyone think? -Kapoli 07:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmmmm. I say put it on the page, and we can have a section and paragraph on it if there is enough information to include. The only other shows that I know to be on itunes as well are Desperate Housewives and Lost, and I haven't even seen a mention of their availability on a wikia or wikipedia, much less an entire page. There's really not enough information to warrant a page. Seacrest out. - Xtreme680 12:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really know what iTunes is. Is it actually anything new, or is it just episodes of the show.  If it's just the episodes, I don't see how it would need a separate page.  But if it's got extra stuff like the DVDs, then for sure.  --Proudhug 13:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * For those of you who don't know, iTunes is Apple's online download shop for music and TV episodes etc. They have put Season 5 of 24 up to download now. I have put it on the news section of the main page like we would with DVD's. This should be put on the Season 5 page much like the DVDs are on that page. --24 Administration 18:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So iTunes is just a store? Why would we need information about a store that sells episodes?  Wouldn't that be like creating an article for Wal-Mart or Amazon.com? --Proudhug 20:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * iTunes is an online store only that is supposed to help cut down on illegal downloading. People use it to buy songs or television shows that they load onto their iPods (personal mp3/video players).  I uploaded a screenshot of iTunes so you can look at it (ITunes.jpg), but you're welcome to erase it.  Basically, each episode of the show is available for $1.99 each or you can buy the season as a whole.  Once you buy them, the episodes download onto your computer and you can load them onto your video iPod.  The reason that Season 5 going on sale is a big deal is because every show on ABC - Lost, Grey's Anatomy, Alias, etc. has been on iTunes all season.  After a new episode airs, iTunes begins selling it.  People have been waiting for Fox to make a deal with Apple to get their shows on iTunes, but nothing ever happened until recently.  As of right now, just Season 5 is available, but I'm sure that Seasons 1-4 and the prequels will go on sale, too.  Apple's website (www.apple.com) probably has a better explanation that I could give. --Kapoli 21:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Production Crew
On the character pages, we list all of the episode appearances for that character. I was wondering if we should do something similar for the writers and directors on their pages. I've been going through and making sure that each episode page has the new sidebar with photo, and I've seen Evan Katz, Howard Gordon, Robert Cochran, Joel Surnow, Michael Loceff, Jon Cassar, etc. listed several times.

Now, I know that some of these guys are also Executive Producers for the entire series, so I'm not suggesting adding an "Executive Producer" section on their pages, just sections listing the episodes that they wrote or directed. Yes? No? Maybe so? What do you all think? --Kapoli 22:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * First, only a few the writers and producers have articles. So, maybe we should work on making articles for people who have wrote/directed an episode.-CWY2190 22:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, definitely. I mean, at some point, we need to have a page for everyone, right?  But as I go through and start to make pages for Bryan Spicer, Bryan Grazer, Tim Iacofano, etc., should I list the episodes they wrote or directed?  --Kapoli 22:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to add the writers/directors categories. If the page doesn't exist, I will put "To be written".


 * I think it's a great idea to have a section like appearances for the crew. But the headings on these pages should be consistent. Is it "24-Related Apperances" or "24 Related Appearances" or "Other 24 Work" or what? Also, is it necessary to list writers and directors in both the Writer and Crew categories? I like the Writer and Director categories, so I vote to keep them and reserve the generic Crew category for others. --StBacchus 01:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was thinking a little blip at the top with bio information, including what they do on 24, what they've done on other shows, etc. Then we could put a sub-heading for the "Episodes Directed" or "Episodes Written", and then another sub-heading for "Other 24-Related Work", which would include commentary on the DVDs, appearances on 24Inside, podcasts, Pure 24, etc. I'd like to hear what others think, though, especially CWY2190, since he went through and created a page for everyone.  And about the categories... we've got "Characters" and a sub-category of "Deceased characters", so maybe "Writers" and "Directors" can just be a sub-category of "Crew"? --Kapoli 01:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That all sounds good to me. Anyone else? --StBacchus 09:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Character Status
I think I've had this conversation with someone before, but I can't find where we discussed it... what should we be using for a character's status? Mostly I've seen "alive", "deceased" and "unknown" and I think that those three should be the only ones we use. I'm asking because I've seen a couple characters with "Retired", "Inactive", "Active on a provisional basis", "Presumed dead", "Missing", etc. Do we want to be that specific? There are a million different things that we could put from week to week - "Driving", "Unconscious", "Detained", blah blah blah. I'm looking for some feedback on what everyone thinks.... --Kapoli 04:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think "Incapacitated" or "presumed dead" are also valid statuses (stati?) There are characters who we may think are dead, but have no proof as such.  Or, in the case of President Keeler. as far as we know he isn't dead, he's just not capable of servicing in office.  --Wydok 05:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Keeler is a great example. We don't know what's up with him right now, so I think that we should identify him as "Unknown". We don't know if he's incapacitated, dead, comatose, paralyzed, unconscious, etc. For most people, he is presumed dead. I actually think he's alive, but unable to return to office, but I don't know if that's because of a coma or if he's in a permanent vegetative state or what. We have a sub-category for "Deceased characters" and one for "Characters of Unknown status"... are we going to include every possibility and create a category for it? --Kapoli 06:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Driving," heh! I agree with Kapoli that Unknown pretty much covers it. Hopefully the article text goes into more detail, so there's no need to explain why it's unknown in the sidebar. IMO, the sidebar layout should be as simple and consistent as possible, so it's easy just to glance at it and see what you want to know. --StBacchus 10:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you brought this up because it's really been bugging me. I can see why people might find this category useful to quickly check if a season 5 character, or a recurring character from past seasons is still alive or not, but 99% of the time it's a useless heading.  Or at least an unnecessarily presumptuous one.  Technically, any character that we didn't see at the very end of the last episode has the status of "Unknown."  Erin Driscoll is really "Unknown", and so is Diane Huxley.  The longer we don't see a character, the greater the chances are that they've died.  Especially if they're a "bad guy".  Do you think Rocco is still alive?  Given his lifestyle, there's a good chance he's not.  Same with Jonathan.  The more time that passes, the more probable it is they've died.  Even characters like Milo Pressman and Alberta Green could very well have died.  Technically, they're "Unknown."  Deciding whether or not someone's status is "Alive" or "Unknown" is often a subjective decision, which isn't a good thing for an encyclopedia.  Eventually, when the show has ended, the Status marker will be pretty much obsolete, since all it's really useful for is tracking the status of current main cast members. --Proudhug 15:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

For characters like Drisscol and Rocco, could we put something like "Last seen alive" or something? -CWY2190 16:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the status should reflect how the character was when they were last seen. So Driscoll, for example, would be alive but Tony would be dead. Unknown would be suitable for President Keeler. --24 Administration 16:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But Keeler was last seen alive. So were Evelyn and Amy Martin.  My point is that determining "Unknown" or "Alive" for these people is subjective. --Proudhug 16:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, that we should have three choices: Alive, Deceased, and Unknown.  Yes, Driscoll could have been hit by a car and killed after season 4, but we don't know.  We would put she is alive.-CWY2190 19:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we're splitting hairs really. Yes, Keeler was last seen alive but he was also mentioned later on as being in a critical condition. It didn't say he was dead OR alive, so I think in that instance it would be unknown.

It should be obvious for most anyway. If not, it can be discussed on the talk page for that character. --24 Administration 19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's silly for us to think that characters like Rocco and Erin Driscoll aren't alive. Unless they're mentioned as dying, we should assume they're alive if they left the show alive. If a character was put in extraordinary peril in their last appearance, we can put it as unknown. But if they left reasonably, I think we can put them as alive. I think once the show ends the category will still be useful to see who died during the show, who survived the show, and who was never explained fully. - Xtreme680 22:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Xtreme680. Certainly it's useless to list every character who isn't definitely dead as "Unknown", but I don't think we should do that. Having "Unknown" as an alternative to "Dead" and "Alive" communicates clearly that the character was in peril when they were last seen. But just to be 100% clear, maybe we could change the template to read Last Known Status instead? Even though "Last Known Status: Unknown" might sound silly, it's still important.


 * Also, please please please don't do away with the Deceased Charcters category! That's the whole reason I came here in the first place. It's very useful to know whether characters were left alive or dead, honest. --StBacchus 01:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

(See also: Talk:Aaron Pierce) --Proudhug 04:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Category alphabetization
I suspect some people don't understand how this works, so I'll chime in with a bit of explanation. When you include a category listing at the bottom of an article, the software automatically puts the article onto that category page, obviously. It lists them in alphabetical order by the name of the article. However, sometimes it's preferred that a different form of alphabetization occur, such as sorting characters by their last names. In these cases we type how we want it sorted after a pipe (eg. lists the article under "B" instead of "J"). With names like "O'Brian" and "O'Neal" the apostrophes are excluded so that "O'Neal" doesn't come before "Olsen". There are other ways that we have to "trick" the software to get what we want. We did this with the episode categorization. By "naming" episodes with numbers, we have them appear in proper chronological order in category pages, rather than the confusing true alphabetical. However, I've noticed people including things unnecessarily, such as. This does nothing at all. "Mojave Desert" is already going to appear under "M" so there's no need to direct it there. I hope I've helped clear up some misunderstandings. --Proudhug 08:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I thought that all categorys had to have the part in them.  So they don't? -CWY2190 14:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's just a way of manipulating the order they appear on the list. Omitting the pipe just leaves it as it is. It's like making a link Jack Bauer. It's just redundant. --Proudhug 14:53, 7 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)

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)

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)

Credit for creation of pages
Do we have a policy on including the author/creator of a page? Since we have so many people who contribute and edit, is it necessary to put who wrote a particular page? It's not really a competition, and the page's history shows who started the page anyway. Most of us list the pages we create on our user pages. Do we need the info on the page itself? --Kapoli 00:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The author of pages should definitely not be included on the page itself. I wasn't aware there were pages like this, but the editor's name should be removed.  As you said, the editor's name is there on the history page, should anyone need to know. --Proudhug 01:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yea, it's incredibly irrelevant and vain. If they want to post the pages they have created on their userpage, that's cool, but I think it's completely against policy for it to be on an article. - Xtreme680 02:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Time stamps
As you can see above, I'm requesting people begin timestamping their posts here so as to make it easier to clean up the Room. I realize most of you do, but some don't. Thanks guys. --Proudhug 23:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the tip about inserting a timestamp by putting ~ . I've been trying to figure out the UTC each time I post, and I think that's been throwing a lot of other people off, too.  I certainly didn't know it was that easy, but now I'm sure everyone will timestamp their posts.  --Kapoli 05:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Main images
Am I the only person who thinks it's totally pointless to have the main image of an episode be "The following occurs between" text? I mean, honestly, I believe the main photo should be used to give a memorable scene from an episode, or an image that at least gives you an idea of which episode it was. I think that Day 3 12:00am-1:00am Day 5 8:00pm-9:00pm are good examples.


 * I can see it both ways. 24 is known for the "The following occurs between" screen, but it also would be nice to see a big scene.  Which everone is decided, make sure every episode is the same way. -CWY2190 21:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Xtreme680 and I were talking about that on another section of this page. We were discussing the idea of using the picture from the episode lists (tables on the Day pages) instead of "The following occurs..." We think that those pictures would be more appropriate because they coordinate with what's listed on each of the individual Day pages, and they're usually an image from an important scene of the show. -Kapoli 21:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, I agree with you guys. The yellow text is iconic and all, but it's not interesting to look at on a page. I don't give it a second look anymore. How about just using it for the premiere episode, day 1? --StBacchus 24 April 2006


 * That was the idea Xtreme680 had too! I agree with you guys... that's the only place where I would really think it's important/useful to have it. --Kapoli 22:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't even like it being on the first page, let alone the others. The exact text is repeated in the plot summary, so it's pointless.  But, if everyone agrees that it looks fine on the first page, I'm okay with that.  All of the others, however don't look good at all.  --Proudhug 23:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Placeholder Images
Well, I made a new placeholder that's 200px wide, for use with actors and characters. And now I'm not sure if I like it. My question for all of you is, do we even want to use placeholder images when we don't have a real picture readily available? If so, do you like it, or should I try again? Check it out. --StBacchus 24 April 2006


 * I vote we don't use placeholder images, except on pages like the episode guides and lists of things like books, etc. I think it makes the boxes look kinda ugly.  Haha, the images themselves aren't ugly, StBacchus, they're actually quite well done.  I just don't like filling in things until you've actually got something to fill it up with. --Proudhug 23:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Capturing Images
I don't know if this is the right place to put this, but can you tell me, and other people that wan't to know, how to capture images? What software do you use? You know, that kind of stuff, thank you. -CWY2190 19:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The DVD program (InterVideo WinDVD) that came on my computer allows me to capture stills from the show. I don't know how other people do it.  -- Kapoli 21:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you play files on Windows Media Player, you can pause it when you want to take a picture, and then press control+i, and it will take a motion capture than you can save as a jpeg file. - Xtreme680 02:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I also use WinDVD for screencapping from DVD, although I didn't know the trick using WMP...awesome, now I can do season 5! Anyway, you will probably also want to do some color work on the image before you upload it, because the difference is usually impressive. I just use Photoshop's Auto Color or Auto Contrast and that brightens things right up. Check out Danny Dessler New, with color correction, versus Danny Dessler Old. Maybe they'll come out right for you the first time, but they always look muddy for me. --StBacchus 24 April 2006

Sidebar templates beef
Okay, I've been biting my tongue because they look so nice, but the sidebar templates are actually starting to annoy me. I really only think these are necessary for major articles, such as main characters/actors, episodes, government organizations, etc. For minor things like one-shot characters/actors, locations, weapons, etc. I don't think these are necessary. At the very least, many of them need to to be altered to fit the specific article. It's pretty silly to see:


 * First seen: Day 3 - 12:00pm-1:00pm
 * Last seen: Day 3 - 12:00pm-1:00pm


 * For the most part, these have only been utilized for characters and actors, and some episode pages. I haven't seen them used at all for locations, weapons, or anything else. I have no idea what you mean by etc., but I think they look pretty good on the comics, dvds, and novels pages. As for sidebars like the one you mentioned above, well, it's hard to determine if a character/actor is one-shot if you don't even have the information. I can understand maybe taking off the first seen and last seen columns for minor characters, but leave the actor pages the way that they are, there's no reason to change them. I am completely opposed to taking off the sidebars, mainly because the pages without them look stupid and unorganized. When we started using the new sidebars, we used the same information that the old ones had. If you want to add different information, we can discuss it. I know wikipedia has different information than we do. - Xtreme680

Yes, they look fine on pages for comics, DVDs, novels and such. It's mainly the minor characters and actors that bother me, as well as pages like Moira O'Neal, which just look silly. As for actors, if certain information like their birthdate is unknown, it looks nicer to leave those columns out of the table, and if the information is later "discovered" the column can be added back in. This will dictate itself which actors need the template, since there's no point in including a table with only one or two columns; that information can be included in the article proper. I disagree that the pages without the templates look stupid and unorganized. Not every page will have a template anyway, so are you saying all pages without a template are stupid and unorganized? --Proudhug 22:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've thought about it a little more, and how about this. We leave the incomplete sidebars up for actors, indicating that they still need to be worked on, because I think that we all want more information for some pages. Discussion on this page indicates that people like them and think we should have it across the board for categories, including actors, characters, and episodes. I have personally made sidebars for comics, novels, dvds, and soundtracks, and I think that they look good. As for one shot characters and mentioned characters, how about we change the first seen and last seen columns and change them to an "appeared in" column or something to that nature. That way it wouldn't look as silly, but still have a uniform look. - Xtreme680

Yes, the "appeared in" thing is exactly what I'm talking about. It makes a lot more sense than including "First seen" and "Last seen" for people who where only in one episode. Sidebar information seems like Big Deal information to me, so to be redundant there isn't a good idea. --Proudhug 22:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am definetely not saying that all pages without a template look stupid and organized. Just pages that are in categories where we regularly put sidebars, such as actors and characters. As for removing columns for some actors, I think this is a bad idea. Many actors just don't give that information out, such as Gregory Itzin and Penny Johnson Jerald. I definetely think that those actors need sidebars, considering they play major characters and we have a lot of information on them. If we don't have this "Big Deal" information, I think we need to make it clear that it actually is unknown, not that we were too lazy to look it up. Putting the no image yet jpeg is a way of saying, please put a picture up, I couldn't find one. Not putting a template up makes it look like we haven't tried working on a page, while stating that the information is unknown indicates we have, and need to keep trying to edit the page. - Xtreme680

Unfortunately, I completely disagree with you on this, so hopefully others will chime in with their thoughts on the matter. I don't think that people will see a missing birthdate or picture and think that we were too lazy to look it up. If someone notices a piece of information missing, they may be inclined to look it up and discover why it wasn't on our site.

Obviously the more people we have editing the better off we are, but you have to keep in mind that the purpose of Wiki 24 is to provide an encylopedia of information for people wanting to know about 24, not to gather editors to work on an encyclopedia. Ideally, we want people to come to the site and read it at their leisure and find out all the information we've provided for them, not navigate through cluttered announcements of what's missing and how they can help out. Wiki 24 has an unattainable goal of being "complete" some day and in the mean time, we should try to pass ourselves off as being close enough to that as to be a ligitimate source of information, rather than a fledgling project, because I feel we're past the point of infancy.

Also, I personally think the "No Image Yet" image looks tacky and awkward and only merits use as a placeholder on pages like the Episode Guides. Including an image of the actor in character when no others are available is certainly acceptable. Other wikis do it all the time. --Proudhug 23:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I know it's more than a community of editors. If information is unknown, then we need to tell people who look at the encyclopedia that. Otherwise, they might think the information is out there, but not included for one reason or another. It's definetely NOT a bunch of cluttered announcements about how people can help out. It's honestly saying that this information has not been released, and that's important. As far as using in character images of actors, I think it looks worse, and it's uninformative. No one wants to go to an actor page and see the same picture with a sentence about how this actor played the character they were just looking at. Which brings me back to the idea that if you don't have information on someone, why would you create that page? - Xtreme680

Whoa, there are a lot of points to address here. I guess I'll start at the top. First of all, I don't think it's silly to have the first seen/last seen info for single-episode characters. It's not redundant information just because first seen and last seen happen to be the same episode. Leaving in both rows maintains a consistent style across every single character page, and that makes them easier to read. For the same reason, I think any category that uses sidebars should have them tailored to the category (I like the idea of having a single "Appearances" row for the novel/comic/mentioned characters), but should use the sidebars consistently. It doesn't matter if we don't happen to have all the info every time, the uniform look is important.

Second, I agree with Xtreme680 about putting in Unknown where applicable. Anyone can edit, so it might be true that Joe Random was just too lazy to look it up. If the DOB/POB information isn't out there, it's important to let people know - regardless of whether they are potential editors - that someone has looked for the information already.

Third, the What You Can Do information is a resource that's available for those who are interested, not the front page of the site. Proudhug, if your reference to cluttered announcements means the Stub/Insufficient Info tags, it's also a courtesy to let people know that the information on a page is incomplete. I really don't see where any of this gets in the way of "passing off" the wiki as a legitimate source of information.

Finally, I've been uploading "in character" actor pics, but I see your point, Xtreme680. I designed the No Image Yet pic for use with the episode guides, which is why it looks wrong at 200px. I could certainly make another one for actors. I don't know that it's strictly necessary, but it should be done if we want to use placeholder images for the actors. --StBacchus 21 April 2006

Site improvement assistance
I notice at the Homestarrunner Wiki, they have a section dedicated to "What You Can Do". Would you be willing to put together such a thing, Proudhug? --StBacchus 17 April 2006


 * It probably is a good idea to have a page like this set up. I probably won't have the time to create one in the near near future, but I can get around to it eventually.  Or someone else can start it and we can all give input and work it out together. --Proudhug 19:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I know I can think of a lot of good projects that we can all work together on, I just don't know how we would design the page. If you can put up a skeleton page StBacchus, I can add some obvious content we can all get to working on. - Xtreme680

I've put up the page here, but we could definetely add a lot more information. Check out the link. Wiki 24:What You Can Do - Xtreme680


 * Awesome! Thanks, I'll fill it in as best I can. Everybody else should add when they get a chance, too. --StBacchus 18 April 2006

Voting for 24
I've noticed that on the vote for Featured Wikia, 24 has 5 votes, and Redwall has 14....does anyone else see a problem with this? Wiki 24 is easily one of the best wikis on here and deserves to be Featured Wikia. LOST Wiki won for April with no trouble at all, I think everyone should vote for 24 and make this happen. --ChristianShephard 09:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, I've been thinking about this for quite a while. I really look forward to the day that Wiki 24 is the Featured Wikia of the month, but don't want it to happen until I'm fully satisfied that Wiki 24 has really gotten off the ground, so I've been holding off on promoting it too much. While I feel that that moment is very close, I still don't think the site is entirely there yet. There are still a few areas that I'd like to see improved/created before I begin showing off the site to people. These include expanding many of the main episode pages, as well as 24 Inside, incorporating more information from the "Expanded Universe" items, and completing and uploading my timeline information that I've been working on. I do believe the site is already one of the best Wikia in existence, but I personally would rather it be just a little better before it gets the prestigious "Featured Wikia" status. --Proudhug 11:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The more that we promote the site, the more users that we can get to help us with that. Seriously, most of the awesome wikas have a lot more regular editors than we do. We still have a couple more weeks until the end of the month, so I'm sure we could improve the pages a little more until we would be an actual featured wika. - Xtreme680


 * Are we ready yet? I mean, honestly, we still have a lot of pages that need a lot of info... Don't get me wrong, I love our wiki, but... - Willo

Whatever. Our wiki is awesome, and we've all done too much work to be all "aww, shucks" about it. Besides, featured wika isn't just for the best wika, it's also a spotlight for more promotion where you can attract more users and improve it. - Xtreme680


 * I totally see both sides of the coin. However, I see the Featured Wiki as best wiki, moreso than a promotion for wikis that need help.  I think that at the rate we're currently going, I'll probably personally be ready for us to be featured as the one after the next one.  If we make the next one, so be it, but I'm not yet ready to play Show 'N' Tell.  Keep in mind that the point of Wiki 24 is to be a resource of information, not a collection of editors working on a site.  Ideally, I'd hope that the bulk of our visitors are merely reading the site with little to no editing needing be done.  This'll mean that we're approaching completeness, a state which will obviously never be achieved, merely strived for. --Proudhug 19:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Navigation bar
Hey, I was thinking it'd be fun to change up the names of some of the links in the navigation bar on the left. Like, instead of "Community portal" this could be "The situation room", or instead of "Current events" it could be "Latest intel" or something. We could also add or remove some of those links if we feel it should be done. Let me know what you guys think and what you'd want stuff to be called. Keep in mind that we want stuff to remain identifiable and easy to navigate. --Proudhug 16:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool, you went ahead and changed it to Situation Room. I like Latest Intel for Current Events, too. --StBacchus 18 April 2006


 * I love The Situation Room! Great Idea! --24 Administration 08:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the What You Can Do page to the navbar, naming it The Bullpen. Let me know what you think. I can't decide if "Latest Intel" should be the name of Current Events or Recent Changes. Any ideas for cool names for some of the other pages? Or any that should be added (or removed) from the navbar?


 * Latest Intel should be Recent Changes. Current Events? Hmmmm... Status Report? - Willo


 * Bullpen and Status Report are awesome. I'll go with Latest Intel being Recent Changes. Maybe Main Page could be Welcome to CTU or Executive Entrance or something like that. Meanwhile, the only link I don't use in the navbar is Random page, so please don't delete the others.... -StBacchus 20 April 2006


 * I like Latest Intel for Recent Changes. Perhaps you could change Current events to something like Division Update or something. Keep random page and perhaps change it to Random Data. I'm not sure what you could change Main Page to. --24 Administration 15:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll change Recent Changes to Latest Intel and Current Events to Status Report. And possibly Random Page to Random Data, I kinda like that. I'm not sure what I think of Division Update. My only problem with all of this is that it has to be relatively clear to visitors what they're clicking on. Obviously, the pages have explanations on them when you click them, but it's probably not a good idea if people are looking at the navbar and thinking, "What does Latest Intel mean again?" or "Dammit, which one of these brings up the Community Portal?" --Proudhug 21:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)