User talk:Blue Rook/Archive 10

Welcome to my Talk page, 24 fans!
 * While you're here, feel free to rummage through the archives of previous discussions:
 * 9 (newest), 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 (oldest)
 * To pose a question or discussion topic:
 *  click "Leave message" to drop a new thread at the bottom. 

Question
Should the images on the pages from Charters (Day 7) and Turner not being in the infobox?--Station7 09:57, February 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * In this case, it isn't appropriate because Larry Moss completely dominates the image. If the guys were more visible, it would make sense like with Adam (Forbes bodyguard) and Jason (Day 4), but here it is very different because it would be misleading. 10:34, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Very easy to understand of course :) --Station7 21:57, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Miscellany
Hey, I thought I'd make a topic to post minor questions under. First one - when I move misspelled articles do I have to make a note in the articles for deletion page, or will you pick up the redirects if I just leave an afd tag on them? Is the afd page just for potentially controversial deletions?--Acer4666 18:16, February 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * If you'd like the old misspelling to be deleted, you can choose to surpass the AFD article page, and type something like "delete old RD" somewhere in the move summary as a signal for me to toss it. The AFD discussions are intended for content pages, like you mentioned, so redirects are generally non-controversial. 04:19, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you know that category change we did a while back, splitting mentioned characters into ones for the different days - I presume that came out of a desire to see just the mentioned characters for a specific day in a big list? Cos sometimes I fancy seeing like just day 1 locations or that sort of thing, but then again it's also good to be able to see all 24 locations in a big list - so I think splitting down the locations category into days is a bad idea. Maybe it's the fault of wikia rather than our organisation system, maybe there should be a way to view everything with 'locations' AND 'day 1' categories together, without messing on with categories. Can u do this? The other alternative is having 'day 1', 'locations', 'day 1 locations', etc on every article which would be a big mess of the category section! Hm I'm not really sure why I'm posting this, it's not really a question or anything, just thoughts from my head. Also I think maybe I don't like the location category having 'africa' next to '12199 Kipling Avenue' next to 'University of Belgrade' if you know what I mean? Anyways, don't know if you have any thoughts on this, thought I'd share my ponderings!--Acer4666 00:05, February 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hm... continents and street addresses all in one place does actually seem... inadequately planned. Now you have me thinking. I've always hated that "Locations" included places that were only mentioned, but, there really is no way around it. Also, it's a really bad idea to try to make "Mentioned locations" or "Day 1 mentioned locations" etc. The only alternative to the current system that comes to mind is this: we use "Locations" strictly as a parent category for other categories. Then, we restrict our place articles to only one of the following (some of which already exist): "Continents", "Countries", "Cities", "Neighborhoods", "Street addresses", "Schools", and "Building names". In the end, those 5 categs would be placed inside Locations, which would have no articles itself (exactly like "Mentioned characters" was updated to only have sub-categories). Does this make sense/sound good to you? 13:54, February 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah man, what the hell? I left a big message in reply to this and now it's gone! What I said was that your idea sounded good, if we have a think about the categories - for one thing, if we have a 'schools' subcategory, then why not prisons & hospitals etc., and that gets into organisation/location confusion that I still don't have clear in my own head yet!
 * The other thing was whether it was frowned upon to have, like we do for weapons and category:weapons, an article called locations where we can organise them how we choose, with a note at the top saying 'this is a list by season, for the automatic alphabetical list go here' sort of thing?
 * Also I thought that mentioned locations weren't so bad some of the time, and they got interesting if they were mentioned more than once cos it's good to see how the mentions of real life places link together. Dunno if you're seen some of the articles for roads I've made, but I've only made them for roads that pop up more than once. But I guess we've started to cover mentioned location notability over at Macys' plaza talk page.
 * Hopefully this message will stay this time!!--Acer4666 00:03, February 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't support an article like that for the locations, because categories in these cases would really do the work automatically for us.
 * Also, if you prefer not to save your posts to a text file before clicking Publish, you could alternatively just Copy them to your clipboard before Publishing. This way, if the save fails, you at least have it on your clipboard to simply reload and paste. This method doesn't protect you against browser/computer crashes, however, whereas saving to a word processor actually does. 09:17, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I was just checking whether I was moving pages right - it's just if you search for something like 'Palmer Campaign Hotel' in the search box, the autofill only recognises 'Palmer's Hotel', the old title which is only a redirect. Is this a glitch in wikia or have I moved it wrongly?--Acer4666 00:01, February 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * You didn't do anything wrong. It's most likely just the wiki being slow to update the Autofill feature, or something. Not precisely on this topic, but related, is the fact that this amazing article isn't linked much. I'll help when I see opportunities, but let's get the links out there! 05:53, February 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah brilliant. Yeah I was about to sit down last night and link it all but I thought I'd check the redirects were all ok before doing it - didn't want to go round changing a load of links from 'campaign hotel' to 'palmer's hotel' or anything!--Acer4666 10:53, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Hey man, just to let you know I'm away all of next week if you think I've disappeared. Let me know if any major stuff happens! Also, you never told me about this page when I was categorising those images - it looks like I've got my work cut out for when I return haha! Hope you have a good week on the wiki --Acer4666 23:51, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and have a good week generally for that matter haha - realised it sounded like I didn't wna include that --Acer4666 23:53, February 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't think of mentioning those to you, but yes, those do eventually need exactly your kind of expertise at some point... and there are several more handfuls that need to be verified too, but we just don't know which ones yet, because they are categorized with Character Images categs etc. and therefore don't appear inside the Uncategorized Files special. As we find more of those, we should categorize them or at least label them with that pna for image verification.
 * Hope you enjoy the vacation Acer! I'll try to get the highlights for you when you come back, about what goes on over here. 06:22, February 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Another quick q: do all these want episode image categories too?--Acer4666 22:46, March 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * OH hell no, don't give that another thought it would serve no purpose. Those are just for the 1x-per-annum cameo on the Main Page. 03:44, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Day 1 is full of awesome dialogue man ;) --Acer4666 07:33, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Referring to the Quotes templates? Generally those are good choices, I'm just happy they are categorized now. Thank for taking the time finishing that with me. 19:13, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * No probs, it was good reading through them all! I just need to go through jan, feb, april and december to satisfy myself that there are no more duplicates - atm I'm on a super slow computer so will do it later. It's satisfying clearing out those special pages!--Acer4666 19:33, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Haha I don't think I'm ever gonna work out when are the times you're most active on this wiki. Is it not 4 in the morning over where you are? You're a regular Jack Bauer!--Acer4666 09:17, March 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * As I type it's 5:40am here, heh. Yes it's definitely true I don't have a schedule, so it generally boils down to whatever leftover time I get between work, the girlfriend, the occasional shindig, and family. For example this weekend I was in Philly with a good friend from college... but even that couldn't keep me away from here as you saw. If there's a computer and a handful of minutes I'll check in! 09:47, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Re: Welcome
Hi, thank you for the quasi-welcome. Do you or anyone else mind if I fix up some typos using AutoWikiBrowser? --Cook Me Plox


 * I'm sure you're accustomed to the "standard boilerplate" welcomes :) But it is sincere nevertheless. And, of course, your spell checking work is invaluable. Many mistakes persist on our articles, so thanks very much for fixing those! But if you plan on going on another typo killing spree, would you consider registering another account so it can be flagged as a Bot, and then doing the corrections with that account? It isn't necessary, technically, but it would help our Recent Changes patrollers who choose to not show Bot edits. It might just take a few hours or a day to get the flag approved. Either way, I appreciate the work, and I hope you come back to do more. 09:17, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly, please flag CookBot. Thanks.  --Cook Me Plox 09:20, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding Wayne Palmer, is the newspaper story not considered canon, or is there some confusion about if "the death of his predecessor" refers to Wayne or someone else (Keeler?) --Cook Me Plox 09:25, February 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * I just sent the request to Wikia for the flag (bureaucrats here don't have that ability [yet?], for some reason).
 * The Wayne Palmer demise article you mention is still actually an open discussion. It's one of the most interesting things we haven't had a full discussion about. The "predecessor" does refer to Wayne. But the open debate is whether we are going to include it as canon because those words themselves weren't visible on-screen. I believe we should include it, because it was specifically created for the show, and the paper is visible on the screen even though you can't read everything. What are your thoughts. 09:35, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I said something on the talk page. --Cook Me Plox 10:44, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

David Kilde
I have send David Kilde an e-mail and asked if he played either Adam or Jason. Well, I hope he reacts ;) --Station7 21:19, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't need to send emails to the performers unless it's a matter of contention among the community. Did you send because you don't think it is Kilde portraying that character? 22:20, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because I want to know who he played and maybe we can figure out because of that who the other actor was.--Station7 23:22, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha that is actually a great idea, I would never have thought of it. 00:32, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Brett DeLuca, who plays either Charters (Day 7) or Turner has another role in season 7, watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcAbezXgdoE.--Station7 21:39, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * That first one seems to be his appearance in 6a-7am. That probably was not "another" role in that episode: it's likely that it was his only role in that episode. I'm wrong if he reappears as an FBI agent within that hour but my notes say he was FBI in 6pm-7pm and 9-10pm only. If you can check the 6am episode before I do, we can be sure. 22:36, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like I was right ;) --Station7 15:47, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * The good part is: neither of us was wrong! 04:35, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Humor
Do you want to look at User:Station7/Fun page? It's a fun page, well I hope think it's funny ;) --Station7 20:16, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * :) 16:17, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Changes
I'm sure I didn't made that changes at Day 7: 7:00am-8:00am. i'm 100% sure of that. how could it be that the computer says that? Or did you change it? Otherwise I don't understand it.--Station7 15:43, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I understand what you are saying. What I do know for sure is that I reverted that change you made, but also made other changes, during the same edit. Maybe that is the source of the confusion. 16:17, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's all I did want to know :) --Station7 16:24, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

News Report
Haha I'm fairly sure that is what the news reporter says! You gotta listen closely, but it's clear she's just waffling on. It sounds like she says something like 'Next week, I'm going to prison to visit a pervert who has 5 sons' and the sound mixer has faded it in and out at choice words for a laugh! I'm defs gonna pay more attention to news reports in 24 in the future!--Acer4666 22:59, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Removed
Why did you remove what I found on IMDB? Do you not trust IMDB? --Station7 10:17, March 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * IMDB is the source for their presence on the Wanted characters page. But IMDB has nothing to do with the reason why those two actors are there. If you look at Dyniewicz it says "uncredited appearance??" and on LeClair it says "appearance must be cited". This means they have to be specifically discovered in their respective episode, confirmed with time-stamps or DVD play times—before anyone can go ahead and create an article with their name and before they can be added to the "Uncredited" heading. 14:31, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Hodges
Yes this is the real Joseph Hodges. I was trying to remove the picture of me with the beard, just my ego, wasn't having a good year that season. No problem if you need to keep it. Thanks Joseph


 * Not a problem at all! I'm glad you've found this project, and you can see the image you uploaded has been made the main image of the article about your 24 work. There was some difficulty initially because it wasn't clear if that was a free-license image or not, but since you're the owner of the image I figured you were happy with it being in the public domain. 05:16, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Hide
How can you hide template likes Template:Appearances1 and Template:Appearances2 etc? I would like to know that. --Station7 13:59, March 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * They aren't hidden, just unused. They were completely replaced with the new template. 05:16, March 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Which template?--Station7 19:24, March 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey station7, they were replaced by template:Appearances. I showed you how to auto-hide that last night, here. Is that what you are trying to do, make it so it is hidden automatically when the page loads?--Acer4666 20:43, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Quick Favour
Hey, you said that you were good with faces and matching people up - I was wondering if you cast your eye over this before I went ahead with it haha! I got a pretty good shot of Alan Morgan's stunt double here. Now according to imdb, there were a few stunt performers for that episode, and unless it's Jeff Cadiente I would place this guy as Bob McGovern. Dunno what you think? Also do you know who has added all these stunt performers to different 24 episodes on imdb - if it is in the slightest bit accurate, what a gold mine!--Acer4666 23:12, March 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion it's 70% chance that man is McGovern, using only the pic you've uploaded. If it helps, I'm pretty sure it's definitely not Cadiente at all. Apologies if it wasn't the certitude you're looking for, but I may have to check the episode tomorrow for more frames of this fellow's face to get a better judgment. 23:33, March 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah no worries, was just seeing what ur thoughts were. The pic here looks more like the shot of Alan's double (lines around the mouth etc) - but the fact McGovern has a twin brother makes it infuriating! Which is which?--Acer4666 23:39, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Unnamed goons of Kalil Hasan
Hey, I just wanted your view on a judgement call - you know the two goons that beat up Andrew Paige in the 3rd episode of season 4? Watching the scene, I notice that as Kalil leaves one of them says "talk!" while the other speaks arabic to Kalil. I guess that technically that qualifies them for entries in the unnamed terrorists page - but I'm always reluctant to include qualifiers for the sake of it, as we don't want the article to be massive. But I guess those two were quite notable and key to the scene, and I managed to identify one of the actors so maybe entries wouldn't be so bad - then again, I don't know if their "spoken lines of dialogue" (1 word for one, different language for the other) warrants them for inclusion definitively.--Acer4666 16:56, April 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, it's tough. According to the Inclusion policy we finally codified, the lines need to be in English and arguably significant/prominent. If what you're reporting is accurate, only the guy (Thom Williams I think) who says "Talk!" is eligible, and after watching the scene I'd consider this to be a real "threshold" character because it's easy to miss. On one hand as an argument for making an entry for Thom Williams's terrorist: the crewcut separatist had 1 word too ("Bierko!")... but the camera was right on him and the line had major significance. On the other hand as an argument against an entry: the agent played by Michael Placencia says something like "Yes, sir" to Jack when he walks away, but I personally held back from making the unnamed CTU entry—even though I was so happy to have found the actor—because to say the line is utterly insignificant is a gross understatement.
 * If we make one for this Thom Williams terrorist, then the Michael Placencia CTU agent gets an entry too... but so can everyone else, which is a worrisome prospect. Perhaps to keep this on a tight leash, we consider lowering the "significance of the spoken line" threshold for creating unnamed character entries if the actor can be positively identified. What do you think? 17:18, April 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't mind just keeping these guys forbidden. The information on who plays them is always eligible for the actor pages and (as is probably usually the case for them) performers with multiple roles. I think having whether or not the actor can be identified might lead to some grey areas and stuff, although it is a good criteria, something about it doesn't quite work for me. I would be fine either way, and I hadn't properly read the inclusion policy (silly me) so it's cleared up for me!--Acer4666 17:31, April 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * They'll be left out then. It's the safer option too. If we drop the inclusion criteria too low, problems are likely... nobody wants those pages getting flooded with stuff like "Half-visible guy near taxi cab overheard on sidewalk talking unintelligibly into cellphone". :) 17:36, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

FYI
This could be interesting for you. :) Tom 13:15, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Possibly new unnamed terrorist
I noticed the convo you had earlier with Acer about the 2 thugs in S4, I think I may have found a similar case, though I wanted to hear what you had to say about it.

I didn't want to upload a pic yet, but in 3x11, around 11:35, one of Amador's men is transferring funds through a PC and Amador asks him if everything's set, and the guy gives off a gruff "Yeah". Is this enough, because like Gaines' thug and the crewcut terrorist, the camera focuses on him for a good amount of time. Do you think he's elligible? --ASHPD24 17:31, April 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll check it out very soon (I'd do it now but I'm itemizing my f*** taxes before Friday and it's a process). If it's a go, do you want you or me to upload image? 00:01, April 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, you always take better photos and he's real easy to get since he gets enough screen time. --ASHPD24 00:05, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Charters and Turner

 * Hey, I just noticed the "Charters and Turner" situation that there is - I couldn't seem to find any discussion on it, and just wondered what the rationale was for having an unnamed entry for one of them, in addition to the two named articles? In other cases like this, if one of the character performs a certain action, it goes on both the pages, I know in this case one of them did much more than the other, but I don't see why the same rule can't apply (the only problem to me would be the "lastappeared" field on the sidebar, and I don't see why there couldn't be a this episodeor this episode).
 * Also, about the inclusion of people on the unnamed pages - I guess the inlcusion criteria is something of a retrospective thing, as ASHPD24 points out my "Gaines's thug" guy had a very insignificant off-screen line, but I included of him because he recurred so much. But it seems other entries might not fit the retroactive criteria?
 * Good luck with the tax returns!--Acer4666 10:53, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * In case you can't check, that hotel agent I linked just said "yes sir", and the camera then followed him as a way to link between Jack and Palmer in one shot - that's about his entire role--Acer4666 10:55, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

The intention with that inclusion criteria was not to go back and start eliminating characters we've already established, so if they're around now, there's no cause to remove them. Also that hotel agent, although he does sound very minor, was one of Proudhug's additions so I'm pretty sure he was noticeable enough to warrant being added.

Regarding Charters and Turner, what was the other example(s) that were different? If I'm understanding this correctly, it is set up this way because we had a credited actor situation but a pair of unclear names as well — so we can't rightfully link DeLuca to one of the names arbitrarily, nor can we ignore one other names. The character played by DeLuca definitely did those actions on the unnamed page, whereas it would be misleading to attribute those actions to both named characters at the same time. 13:34, April 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I won't remove any names from the list, but just cos Proudhug added him doesn't make him more notable than if it was added by an anonymous contributor.
 * I don't think the Charters and Turner situation is different to the Adam (Forbes bodyguard) and Jason (Day 4) situation - we're listing actions that David Kilde definitely did (shooting Marianne) to both their pages. Whether or not he was credited, I don't think alters the situation - on the credits list for the episode, we just say "Brett Deluca as Charters or Turner (as FBI agent)" as we have done for similar situations. I think it's strange to have 3 entries on the wiki for 2 characters, and also to list someone as "unnamed" when they definitely have one of two names.--Acer4666 13:48, April 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * Proudhug was the guy who started all the unnamed character pages. :)
 * Now looking at the Charters/Turner business your way is making a bit more sense. But what will we do about linking the DeLuca character in the episode guides? And by that I mean specifically those instances when the FBI agent played by DeLuca is definitely being described, and not the ambiguous scene where both men are named by Larry. 01:57, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * But there is a difference between these two and Adam/Jason. Those two clowns always appeared in the same episode, but DeLuca/Unknown seem to only appear together in 1 episode. Linking them in guides and stuff will be really difficult. 03:19, April 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I did realise that after I made the above post - the solution would be to link them by saying "an FBI agent (either Charters or Turner) then walked down the corridor...". I suppose it's a toss up between the clumsiness of that, or the clumsiness of spreading the info across 3 pages? I personally would go for putting the info on the two pages, dunno what anyone else thinks. If you look at Marianne Taylor's page, she is listed as being shot by Adam or Jason, which is kind of a similar thing - and in her Day 4 section she is "killed by one of Forbes thugs", with no link, but ideally we would have (Adam or Jason) in brackets after that.--Acer4666 09:28, April 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue was less prominent with Adam/Jason but at this point I agree they should get similar treatment. I can start the process soon, the hard part is trying to remember all the places where the unnamed guy is linked and replacing it with something like "an FBI agent (Charters or Turner)...". 15:32, April 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I've got all the links, and I've updated the Charters (Day 7) and Turner pages to contain the info from the unnamed non-CTU government agents page, all that's left is to remove the entry from the unnamed page, if you're happy with everything?--Acer4666 23:29, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

Argh the appearances templates. I knew there were things that had kept me from changing this earlier, unlike Adam/Jason. How should we do those? The only real options that appear to me are: leave the templates empty of the unknown episodes, or use notes; I prefer the latter. 03:27, April 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * I've done notes on them - whaddaya think? Feel free to re-jiggle the wording or what have you--Acer4666 09:40, April 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Awww--I've just realised what else this change entails: re-numbering the rest of the FBI agents on the unnamed page, and updating all of their links. urggghghghgh--Acer4666 10:28, April 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually that part should be pretty easy, you'll see what I mean when I get to it. Basically just re-labeling the other dude, who has only 1 appearance, so it's not a ton of work. 18:05, April 15, 2011 (UTC)