Forum:Re-opening the character appearances template consensus discussion

I think there is a need to revisit the current standards for the appearances template with regard to actors who were credited for making an appearance. Currently we don't accept Appearance template tags for characters who appeared in, and whose actors are credited for, a particular hour if the appearance was recorded beforehand (and includes possible flashbacks). Instead, the standard is to note the appearance in the background & notes section. I'm arguing here in favor of moving the notice down to the Appearances table with an asterisk ''' in only those limited and rare instances where the actor was actually credited for that appearance. '''

Please do not think that I'm doing something new by drawing a line in the sand with regard to what can be linked in the appearances template. I'm simply re-drawing the current line. Currently the line is drawn to permit only those characters who appeared in the real-time episode. I propose to simply redraw the line to now include also those characters who appeared and were credited for it, regardless of whether it was a real-time appearance or not. This is not a major overhaul of policy; my post is quite long only because this is a contentious subject and because I am arguing for a shift in consensus. Consensus is arrived at by the more carefully reasoned decisions, and I think my reasoning here is thorough and persuasive enough to change it. (Since I'm opening a consensus discussion, I will not consider simple votes of support or opposition. Consensus is not a poll, so everyone who wishes to sound off here must proffer legitimate discussion, not ballots.)

My first point is that the current standard of relegating notes to a notes area doesn't suffice for the flexible nature of the show. If 20 straight minutes of a flashback, or 25 straight minutes of recorded footage is ever played, according to our current standard NONE of the characters in those scenes can be listed as having made appearances... in their appearances list. Sure, we didn't see them during the in-universe episode hour, and sure, some or all of them might even be dead characters... but they still made a significant, credited appearance on the show. So all I am proposing is that we list accurately credited (and therefore significant) appearances in the Appearances template with a note to that effect.

In essence, all this proposal calls for is a shift of the note that is above the template to underneath it, and a tagged notice in the box. The appearances box explicitly contains the note function for exactly this purpose.

The second point: remember that the Appearances template is an OOU device. If it was an in-universe listing (which it is not) then everybody who existed throughout the whole day would get a credit for each hour, regardless of whether they appeared on the show. This isn't the case for obvious reasons. Therefore, what we place in the template is arbitrary no matter how you look at it. I'm defending the position that my proposal produces a more sound re-drawing of the line.

What character articles will this definitely affect? Holy crap, what about the slippery slope? Won't we have to credit every single David Palmer posthumous footage?
 * 1) Reed Pollock
 * 2) Jamey Farrell
 * 3) Howard Bern (and so far as I can tell, that's the grand total)
 * 1) There is no danger of a slippery slope. We will never have to link any of the existing posthumous footage and pictures of David Palmer after his death because he was not credited for them.
 * 2) We will still not credit photographs of Teri or anything we've seen thus far following her death
 * 3) We will still not credit any photographed or recorded character if they were not credited

My third point starts with a related topic: sometimes an actor is credited for appearing in an episode where they simply didn't appear (or for non-canonical deleted scenes). This is noted in the appropriate episode guide Dramatis Personae list with a (credit only) notice next to the name. Appropriately, we do not place an appearances link in the template on the character's page for those episodes (that is, to indicate that he was credited even though he didn't appear). That is because, we all agree, the Appearances heading is not a list of credits. It is a list of appearances! Currently we define "appearances" to exclude certain things. I propose we alter our arbitrary definition to another, but more reasonable, definition. Myself, the other active admins, and the wiki's most diligent contributors have been enforcing the old consensus, so this might be hardest for us to consider. Especially if you are in this group, please take the time to read through my proposal.

So in summary, the proposal is that we list all characters who appeared and were credited for their appearance. Please see the second paragraph if you'd like to make a response that can be taken into account. Otherwise, silence is consensus! Here is your forum, folks! – Blue Rook 20:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)talk contribs


 * I disagree. Unless I'm mistaken, Mandy, Audrey, Tony, and Sherry all made surprise uncredited reappearances to the show, but these still count.  Even so, it seems to me like even if David Palmer's appearances as a photograph subject don't count, nevertheless, Marshall Goren's appearance as a "severed head", Ryan Chappelle's and Alan Optican's voice-only "appearances", and several other similar examples should be included, as they were part of the ongoing storyline.  OneWeirdDude 23:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The two points you bring up simply don't make sense to me. First, concerning your point about Mandy, Tony, and the other uncredited appearances: these still count because they appeared live on the show, not as recorded/photographic material. The debate on this page is concerning recorded material that is credited, not live uncredited appearances. Your second point about the voice-appearances and Goren's head, you say they "should be" included, but they already are included, and have been since the beginning. – Blue Rook 02:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)talk contribs


 * Our disagreement hinges on one very key factor. The whole reason that our current policy for template inclusion exists is because the Appearance template is an IU record of what we the viewers have seen each hour, not an OOU record of character appearances per episode.  If you consider the template to be an OOU item, then of course your method is preferred.  As a matter of fact, that would make the template merely a list of credits for each character (at least the credits that we'd include on our episode pages, not the on-screen ones).  I suppose you can really look at it as sort of a hybrid IU/OOU item, much like terms such as "Day 1" and "during the events of Storm Force" are included in IU text, despite not really existing in-universe.  The template is a list of IU appearances seen by an OOU being.  Obviously Tony Almeida existed from 3pm-4pm on Day 1, but as we don't know what he was doing during that time, we don't write it in his summary.  And by extension, we don't include it in his Appearances template.  The same goes for Reed Pollock; We don't know what he was doing from 12am-1am on Day 6, so we don't write it in his summary or put it in his Appearances template.


 * I hope this clears up the IU vs. OOU nature of the Appearances template and the simplicity of its usage rules. Rather than convolute things by adding too many "unlesses" and "excepts" to the rules, we're simply recording which hours the audience saw (or heard) the character.  No ifs, ands or buts to it.  No arbitrariness.  I agree that if it was an OOU item, your method would probably be better, but that fortunately just isn't so, or else we'd have more of a mess on our hands.  Especially because of how unreliable the credits on the show are.  I'm vehemently opposed to making ANY policy that relies upon credits.  As previously proven, an actor credit means next to nothing.  Some appear but are uncredited, some are credited but don't appear.  As we've seen in the past, the credits on the show are quite meaningless for our purposes.  Let's say Roger Stanton appears for an entire season in pre-recorded videos, but remains uncredited.  We would go with the arbitrary decision to NOT include that in the template, when we WOULD include Jamey and Reed?  Seems pretty silly to do that just because Harris Yulin is stubborn. --Proudhug 01:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I am failing to grasp some critical part of what you said. How is the appearances template not an OOU record of character appearances that we the viewers have seen per episode? Also, why on earth would an "in-universe record" have anything to do with we the viewers? Anytime someone charts what viewers are seeing, they are performing an OOU task. The only "in-universe listing" I can think of would be a CTU roster that Tony reads, or a phone book that Kim picks up. Anything that we list on this wiki is OOU. The material in it is in-universe, of course, but any chart or list we make is anything but.

Certainly I agree that credits are often not useful for the purposes of a wiki with our goals. But sometimes they are, and when they are, we should use them. With regard to the proposed situation of Harris Yulin reappearing with significant but uncredited footage: this hasn't happened, and it is doubtful that it will (if it ever does, I'm going to shit myself and then check in to an asylum). Jamey Farrell, Howard Bern, and Reed Pollock, however, have happened which is why I'd like to address them. When you said "we're simply recording which hours the audience saw (or heard) the character", that would logically seem to include these three individuals.

Also, the appearances template has a notation function which would clearly indicate the circumstances of these types of appearances. We'd just be moving the notation below the appearances box, instead of above it. – Blue Rook 03:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)talk contribs


 * As I said, the Appearances Template is somewhat of a hybrid IU/OOU item. "Day 1" is an OOU term, but we use it IU.  Look at the template as a visual summation of the main body character summary.  It shows during which hours we know of the characters actions.  We don't know what Reed was doing from 12am-1am, because he didn't "appear" on the show during that hour.  It's IU because it shows during which hours the character appeared, not during which episodes.  There's a significant distinction.


 * As for Harris Yulin, what if his testimony at the end of the second season has been pre-recorded instead of live? That would exclude him from your rule, despite its inclusion of Reed and Jamey.  To say the credits are sometimes useful sounds pretty arbitrary to me.  How can we make a rule based on something that's only sometimes useful.  What we see on screen is always useful and doesn't require a hierarchy or rules and exceptions.  The way we have it set up right now, there's never any doubt whether or not an appearance is included.  For the proposed new way, it completely depends on whether or not the producers credit an actor.  That's a ridiculously subjective thing for us to create a policy around.  I don't understand how your proposal is simpler than the current policy.  It creates a ton of rule clauses which will likely confuse site visitors, and leaves our decisions up to the actors, agents, bureaucrats and guy who merely forgot to add someone's name to the credits.


 * Let's imagine that next season involves a villain who sends CTU several pre-recorded video tapes of himself, giving his demands. The character's first four appearances are only pre-recorded and we don't see him "live" until the fifth episode.  Due to a contract issue, the actor playing the villain has opted to remain uncredited for his role.  According to your rule, his first four major appearances would be excluded from his appearances chart, with the only explanation to our readers being that the actor wasn't credited for whatever reason.


 * The notation function in the chart is to provide additional information about the appearance, not exceptional information. For example, we'll note that someone's appearance was as a corpse or live video or audio only, but not that they "didn't actually appear during that hour, but here's why it says so anyway." --Proudhug 15:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I was directed to this discussion after listing deleted appearances on a canonical character's page, and after reading through the discussion I wanted to add something. I don't wanna make myself more unpopular by starting more pedantic arguments (:P) buuut, I think it's important everyone is on the same page about what something like the appearances template represents, and at the moment I very much disagree with proudhug in that it is even slightly an IU item.

Firstly, the comparison of it to the terms "day 1", etc. Now these terms are not perfect, but they do represent 24 in-universe hours, and though it is extremely unlikely, it is feasible that had america undergone 8 24-hour periods of intense national security crises, that someone could label them as "Day 1", "Day 2", etc. Whereas using the heading "appearances", instantly implies that an audience is watching these characters do their thing. Also, we use the "Day X" terms in the absence of any other relevant terminology (in Day 1 articles, I always try to use "on the day of the primary"). If the appearances template is an IU summary, why is it not called "summary"?

Secondly, that the template is merely a summary of the in-universe character's actions, based on whether the audience knows what they were doing that hour. If that is the case, if someone's actions are mentioned, then the audience knows what they were doing and we should put an entry for that hour. I know that during Day 1: 2:00am-3:00am, Ted Cofell was authorising a money transfer, and have written a section about it in his character description. But I wouldn't put it on the appearances template, because he didn't appear!

Also, for someone like Ian (Day 3), we have a note saying he was a "corpse only" during one of his appearances. But he wasn't a corpse for that full hour in-universe - he was alive at the start of it, so should we remove the note? No, because the audience only saw him as a corpse.

Perhaps a strong example of this is Paul Coulander and Georgia Coulander. We see their names on a seating plan of flight 221, and are told where they are sitting in relation to Martin Belkin. So upon watching the first episode, we can see what is Paul Coulander's arm and head from behind a seat, but the person sitting next to him (Georgia) is completely obscured. I'm fairly sure I've followed the site's precedent in listing Paul as having appeared in the pilot, and Georgia not - yet I defy anyone to tell me that in-universe there is some difference between these characters.--Acer4666 12:30, May 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess I was being pretty broad when I said it's a IU/OOU hybrid. I mean, technically the On-screen kills by Jack Bauer article is also an IU/OOU article by that same definition.  My overall point was that the template isn't for episode appearances, which would be entirely based on OOU information. --proudhug 21:51, May 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * I was kind of arguing that's what it is, and it is entirely based on OOU stuff. I mean, we have rules for it (not counting the previouslies, non-live footage or photos), for practicality, but it is listing who appeared in what episode. I disagree with what was sort of agreed upon at Talk:Howard Bern (in that, he appeared in the last episode because the footage was filmed during that hour) because imagine if a new character is introduced in the film, and CTU dig up some archive footage of him attending the Palmer breakfast in day 1, then we would give him a day 1 appearances and list him as having appeared in Day 1: 7:00am-8:00am.
 * I think down at the bottom of IU articles we have BGIN, external links, and appearances, the OOU parts down at the bottom together. In this way, I don't see why we can't list deleted appearances on the template, or include the template on some OOU stuntmen articles who play forbidden characters to show what episodes they appeared in throughout the show? I dno what anyone thinks bout that--Acer4666 22:53, May 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, it seems we're 100% agreement on your first point, but just look at it in a different way.


 * A long time ago we used to put the Appearances template on actor pages too, but it was eventually agreed that they should only be used for IU articles. This would mean stuntmen articles are excluded.  And deleted appearances are forbidden because they're non-canon.  Personally, I've never understood why some people aren't satisfied that deleted appearances and pre-recorded appearances are worthy of BGIN notes. --proudhug 23:07, May 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I suppose the odd deleted appearance could go in BGIN. And for actor pages that have character pages linked to them, it's unnecessary to re-do the appearances template as it's just a click away. But for the multiple-role stuntmen and extras with no character articles or unnamed entries for the people they play, we end up having to work which episodes they appeared in into their character descriptions, and having Day X: Y:00am-Z:00am in the middle of a sentence is a bit of a pain! Also, appearances templates do currently appear on OOU articles, such as the deleted characters ones--Acer4666 23:14, May 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * The descriptive sentences are more useful for those actors anyway since using the appearances template instead would provide interested readers with no timeframe to verify the individual appearances. All actors' articles are better kept consistent with one another, without those templates. 04:34, May 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * I was suggesting having the descriptive sentences in addition to the appearances template, to save the bother of working links to the episodes into the sentences which can be a pain. But, I agree with the having consistency for actor's articles, so I dunno.
 * The other thing I think the appearances template would be useful for (as it doesn't actually say "appearances" anywhere on it) is for directors, like on the Brad Turner article. I personally think it looks better than a list, like on the Jon Cassar article, and we could make them all consistent--Acer4666 10:38, May 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, we used to have the Appearances template on crew pages like directors, but decided it was best used for IU pages only. I don't remember the rationale (I'm pretty sure I didn't participate in the discussion), but I kind of agree with it currently.  I'd be willing to vote for the removal of the template for deleted characters. --proudhug 18:11, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * I remember reading that convo once (it might have taken place before my time here), and what I recall from it was: the appearances templates are for characters, not for actors. I don't remember any aspect of IU/OOU about it. Now this is a guess, but I strongly believe that non-canon character articles did not exist at the time of that conversation.
 * There's no actual reason to remove appearances templates from non-canon character articles. The idea that since they are OOU they shouldn't get an appearances template isn't a rationale, because the heading says "deleted appearances" anyway (as of a moment ago, I corrected all the ones that were missing it). 03:40, May 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right that non-canon characters didn't exist at the time. I remember the decision was to only include the characters and not OOU people and not IU locations or other IU items, but somehow that morphed into just including any IU page.  Then when the non-canon character issue came up, people just added it there, too.  I can see putting forth the argument to include "only characters" or "only IU articles," but not "IU articles and non-canon characters."  You know I'm a stickler for hard-and-fast rules, and that just seems to be a pick-and-choose rule.  But to be honest, I really don't care too much, so long as there are good reasons for us doing what we're doing.  I likely wouldn't care if people wanted to put the template up on every page on the site. --proudhug 03:49, May 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well that's the thing; there aren't any policies about this... because there does not need to be. We have longstanding precedent (which is what is most often codified into policy) and it says: "characters, and recently, IU content like places/buildings/items". Sometimes we get caught up in rules and policies, but they aren't necessary in things like this because of the precedent. 04:09, May 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that rules aren't necessary for governing the use of the template, which in effect is just an aesthetic device. I know we have standards to keep articles looking consistent, but as for the use of the template in multiple performer articles - currently they have "gallery of roles" sections, which aren't consistent with other actor articles, can they not also have the appearances template?
 * And am I right in thinking you guys wanna remove the template from articles such as silent clock and Cubby?--Acer4666 14:40, May 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * No, just "not on actor/crew pages". The Cubby article doesn't matter so it might as well remain, and the silent clock article I would argue definitely benefits from that template's usage. I wouldn't object if it started getting used on object pages like Omar Hassan's pen and other IU stuff, but nor would I go through the trouble of inserting it on them. 21:28, May 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * Haha can Troy Gilbert (and others) be my nice little fun pages where I don't have to worry about anything ;)?
 * I personally think multi-role actor pages (especially Ineligible character performers) would benefit from them just as silent clock and cubby do, and as I say I don't think consistency with actor articles is an issue seeing as the majority of them look vastly different anyway. But, if no-one else agrees I shall cede the point, I guess the precedent for the look of these type of pages is still evolving as more get added, so I may find a satisfactory way of listing their appearances--Acer4666 21:51, May 23, 2011 (UTC)