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 ( ~ ).

Vandalism
Whoops! I guess someone took that comment about the lack of vandalism as an invitation after all.... thanks very much to Proudhug and Xtreme680 for correcting everything immediately. I wish I could have been here to help. -Kapoli 22:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Day vs. Season
I've been meaning to post this for a long time, but held off because I've been busy preparing to move and I wanted to actually get involved in this project. However, as I'm unsure how long it'll be before I can dive back into Wiki 24 head first, I might as well bring it up now and let others get the ball rolling if they like.

Currently, the articles for Days (Day 1, Day 2, etc.) redirect to the articles for Seasons (Season 1, Season 2, etc.). These are two completely different things and there needs to be a distinction. Specifically, there need to be two different articles for each of these. "Season 1" is OOU, while "Day 1" is IU.

Obviously, "Day 1" would never be used IU, but it's the IU term we've coined to refer to "the events of Super Tuesday". Likewise "Day 2" refers to "the day a nuclear bomb went off in the Mojave Desert (... plus the first eight hours of the next morning)". It's kind of how "GFFA" (Galaxy Far, Far Away) is the unofficial IU name for Star Wars galaxy, despite not really being used IU.

Conversely, "Season 1" refers to the first year of production on the TV show 24. Presently, IU articles are littered with links to Day 1, etc., and not only would it be a pain in the ass to change them all to Day 1, but there's no need. Rather, we need to create Day pages for each season, written from the IU perspective. Much of what's already in the Season pages can also be moved over. Like I said, I'd planned to do much of this project myself, but I figure I might as well throw it out there in case anyone wants to get a head start. --Proudhug 18:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This sounds good. Most of the pages just use the redirect, I know that I always do, and I think this is a good idea. That page can described the events of the day, and provide a few especially kickass pictures from it, as well as divide up the major plots (for example, Day 3 could be Salazar sting operation, buying the virus, and stopping the virus or something.) - Xtreme680 21:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with what you're saying, Proudhug. And, for the most part, I understand what you're saying needs to be done, but I'm a little unsure about the details of what you're looking for in a "Day 1" page.  Do you want it to be like an episode guide, with pictures, background notes and info, etc.?  I'm going to be working on the Research Files from time to time, filling in the tables and connecting the items to the show, but I'm definitely down to help out with the Season vs. Day project, too. -Kapoli 23:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to reiterate that I am 100% against using IU/OOU at all, in any way, for anything, especially organization. There is no reason ever for people supposedly writing an encyclopedia to roleplay that we live in 24. Maybe there's some merit to dividing up the season pages this way (I think it will make them less functional and the site harder to navigate), but could we please drop the amateurish, lazy shorthand and just say what we mean? --StBacchus 23:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Category alphabetization
I just thought I'd bump this up as a refresher:

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)

New Admins
Xtreme680, 24 Administration and I all seem to think that a couple additional administrators would be a good idea. I understand that Proudhug feels like adding admins isn't necessary at the time because he still has time to check all of the edits, etc. but I don't think that's a solid reason to hold off on adding another administrator or two. While it might not be "necessary" right now, it certainly isn't going to hurt anything or anyone.... it can only help the Wiki. We're all active on the Wiki during different times, and everyone here has something unique to offer and different priorities/projects that we're focusing on. I'd like to see something official started for nominating/voting/appointing new admins. -Kapoli 06:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a good point that we're all on at different times. I think a little extra coverage wouldn't hurt. Besides banning vandals, what are the extra admin duties/privileges, anyway? --StBacchus 09:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's easier to curb vandalism, and of course page deletion as well as image deletion. Duties include helping to resolve disputes, deal with copyright issues, the ability to protect pages and edit protected pages. Wikipedia also states that "The community does look to administrators to perform essential housekeeping chores that require the extra access administrators are entrusted with. Among them are watching the Articles for deletion debates and carrying out the consensus of the community on keeping or deleting these articles, keeping an eye on new and changed articles to swiftly delete obvious vandalism, and meeting user requests for help that require administrative access. Since administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information. In general, administrators acting in this role are neutral. They do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with." - Xtreme680 21:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's more of a problem to have too few administrators than too many. Over at WikiFur we find vandalism is rarely a problem, because there's always one or two administrators around. --GreenReaper 22:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's a great idea. The question at the moment is, who? I know there are a number of really committed editors and I think they would all deserve the privilige and the Wiki would benefit from it. --24 Administration 18:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I was going to propose that we could do something like have one admin for every 500 articles or something. So say, once we hit 1500 articles, we'll ceremoniously "crown" a new admin, based on the largest number of edits or something. --Proudhug 18:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say Kapoli. She(?) has done alot of work for the site and always seems to be around.  I'm sure there are others, but I don't feel like thinking right now.  And because this wiki is wikia of the month, we should be expecting more visitors (and vandals). -CWY2190 18:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I see a problem with Proudhug's suggestion of "every 500 articles".... there's a difference in creating articles and making edits. I could create 500 new articles right now to get the number up there and have a ton of edits, but what if each article was just a blank page with the title on it? Then what would happen to the editors who spent time writing/creating excellent articles and detailed episode guides and spent time renovating certain areas of the Wiki? They wouldn't have as many edits, but I'd consider their contributions greater to the Wiki. I don't think going by the number of pages is the best way to do it, and I also don't think that we should necessarily limit it to adding just one admin at a time. I don't see any issue or reason for hesitation about adding a couple more administrators right now.

And thank you for mentioning my name, CWY2190. I'm very flattered and would be honored to be an admin of this Wiki, but there are a couple of other editors whom I think would do an amazing job as well. As soon as we can all agree on what to do about adding new admins, I'll nominate someone, too. -Kapoli 22:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously a new admin has to be a recognized contributing member of the community. Someone who creates 500 new blank articles isn't going to have that recognition.  This was just a "general rule" suggestion, as I thought we could have some fun with this. --Proudhug 22:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Currently the top ten contributors are:


 * Xtreme680
 * Kapoli
 * StBacchus
 * Willo
 * Spymaster
 * CWY2190
 * Gangsta1642
 * WarthogDemon
 * Kairo
 * Wydok


 * I don't think it's too much of a stretch to look at this as an order for Admin consideration. We could always make it every 400 articles.  Or every 300.  But if people want to do it randomly, that's fine.  Or we could just make everyone an Admin since we're all good editors anyway.  It's not like it matters since vandalism is pretty rare here, anyway.  Haha, I actually kinda miss vandalism.  I honestly can't even remember when the last time we had a vandal was.  I hope that doesn't sound like an invitation. O_o --Proudhug 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Neat, where did you get that list?


 * I thought Proudhug meant every 500 total articles, not per person. But we could also add admins for every X number of active users/contributors, or something. For right now, we could just do a simple vote, where anyone who wants to be an admin can "run" (or if they don't want to throw their name in, they can be nominated). Democracy, huzzah! --StBacchus 23:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Haha, actually I did mean total articles, but whatever. --Proudhug 23:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I knew you meant total articles, which means we'd add an admin once we get 1500 articles. We're at 1060-something right now.... I was saying that if I created 400 new articles, but my articles were shitty compared to the 100 awesome ones that StBacchus created, would I still be the new admin if I had the "largest number of edits"?  I also think it's gonna take several months to reach 1500, and I'm interested in getting another admin or two now.  --Kapoli 00:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just confused. All I know is, we should probably get some new admins now. As far as my number of edits, a lot of them are generally cleanup and gnome type work. Some of them are new actor pages, but most of them are things like adding categories, templates, changing redirects, changing links for disambiguation, things like that. I'm more of a refiner than a dude who adds a lot of content. Keep that in mind. Also, administrators should have a good idea of policy and style, most importantly that which is disputed. - Xtreme680 02:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hee, sorry, I didn't mean to overexplain! Just wanted to make sure we aren't talking at cross purposes. So, who actually has the power to grant admin status? It's ultimately up to them. --StBacchus 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Only bureaucrats do. The only people that can make users bureaucrats are the bigwigs at wikia. If you create a wikia, then you automatically are given bureaucrat status, which is like an administrator that can make others administrators. The only people here with brueacrat status are also the administrators, proudhug and 24 administration. - Xtreme680 18:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article
It's June 2. I figured I'd go ahead and swap out the Featured Article... it looks like Government beat Nina Myers by a vote of 4-3. I hope that I did everything right, but if not, then I'm sure an admin will come along and fix it up. --Kapoli 08:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikia of the Month
Guys, we have crushed. Although the wikia administrators are slow, we completely dominated the voting for Featured Wikia for June. That is AWESOME. Well done guys! The wikia site still has redwall up, but I expect it to change soon. GREAT JOB EVERYONE! - Xtreme680 22:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Xtreme680 asked me to have a look at Wikia - it's featured now. I picked a few spots that seemed good. Congratulations! --GreenReaper 09:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Awesome! This is a great wiki with wonderful collaborations, and it deserves the honor. So, congratulations to everybody who's contributed! --StBacchus 09:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The point of the site
This is at the end of the bit on Assuming Information, but I see no point in arguing further until this matter is clarified.

Proudhug wrote: ''I realize that you and many other people may visit Wiki 24 and want to know more about the First Lady or some other real-life thing seen on the show, but I'm afraid that the simple fact of the matter is that it's not what this site was created for. It's not part of the aim of the founders to cater to the needs of every 24 fan. We do want to be as complete as possible in our misson, but there's still a lot we're not interested in documenting. This includes real-life information, fanfiction and many other aspects of 24 that don't fit into our goals. I apologize if this isn't why you are here.''

So your goal is what, the narrowest possible 24 encyclopedia? You're right, that isn't what I signed up for. I had this crazy idea we were trying to make the best resource for 24 information online.

What I want to know is, why? You've been pretty hostile toward "rogue" uses of the information here, as if your project will be tainted by people who want to find quotes or learn what happened to a character. But why? Why not cater to the needs every 24 fan? I see no downside to including as much information as possible. There is, however, a substantial downside to including not enough.

The bottom line is, why should I or anyone else put any effort into making this wiki good if you're going to declare by fiat that our thoughts, opinions, and uses for the information don't matter? --StBacchus 14:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I often get worried I might come across as hostile at times, as I'm sure many people who have to take a position of authority do from time to time, however that's certainly not my intention. There are so many wonderful editors here, yourself included, who are doing such amazing work and I respect the opinions of each and every one, as I hope you do mine.  Because of this, I hate the rare instances where I'm required to put my foot down so to speak, as a wiki is a community effort not a monarchy.


 * However, in order for the site to not spiral into a free-for-all glob of random information and text, we need a clear set of guidelines for what the site is and what the site isn't, and moderators to help people follow those guidelines.


 * There are many things Wiki 24 is not:
 * a news site
 * a discussion site
 * a fanfiction site
 * a spoiler site
 * an advertisment for other 24 websites, stores, merchandise, etc.
 * a site to download episodes, clips, or transcripts
 * a store for merchandise
 * a source of expanded information on real-world things


 * Wiki 24 is a community-driven project aiming to document every piece of encyclopedic information from and about the TV show 24. While everyone has their say on how the site is designed and what content gets put here, we have to always keep in mind what the site is and what the site isn't.


 * I think Wiki 24 is still pretty darn far from narrow, even with the exclusion of real-world information. It's true we are narrowing our focus somewhat to exclude the aformentioned list of 24-related stuff.  Those are all wonderful things worthy of their place on the internet, but currently, Wiki 24 simply isn't that place.  It's not that we don't want to include as much information as we can, or that we're trying to presume why someone may or may not visit the site, or that we don't want to appeal to every 24 fan.  Rather, the site has it's own goals and we hope everyone enjoys the site and finds it to be useful and accomplishing what it's supposed to.


 * If we were truly the "best resource for 24 information online" we'd include spoilers, we'd post fanfiction, we'd provide entire transcripts and/or episode downloads, we'd post cast and crew sightings, we'd have a messageboard, and so forth. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and most of us have agreed that real-world information should be kept to a minimum.  It's really a small matter and I hope it doesn't result in us losing one of our best editors over it. --Proudhug 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't include spoilers because we choose not to. It's just not a preference for some people. We don't have transcripts because it violates copyright, same with episode downloads. Cast and crew sightings just aren't in our aim, and since we're an encyclopedia, we obviously don't have a messageboard. We do provide some 24 news, but due to our spoilers policy, most of the time we don't. We do have pages for a future book, and I think we will put more information up for a Season 5 dvd page before it goes up. I'm not sure what any of these things have to do with some of the problems StBacchus has brought up. I certainly think no one wants to turn it into a fan site. There are plenty of those, but not enough with the nature of wiki 24.


 * I don't necessarily agree to the scope of what StBacchus agrees as essential real world information, but if it's relevant and we have indication of it being true on 24, it seems like we should put it in. But I think more than anything, this needs to be a place for fan resource and information.


 * More than anything, I think the terms founder and administrator are given more wieght than perhaps they should be. Not any disrespect towards Proudhug or 24 administration, because as Colonel Stryker so eloquently put it in X2 (paraphrased) "Have been editing this wikia when Xtreme680 was still sucking on his momma's tit." But I think, to summarize my (and I think a few others' viewpoint) I will have to quote Michael Clarke Duncan in the epic Armageddeon "We all helped raise her, so we all sort of feel like Daddies here."


 * This wikia is a community. Therefore it should be controlled by the community. Seeing as how I can see several members which would make excellent administrators, I want to start a formal process for administratorship. I like the way MemoryAlpha does it, and to quote their administrator page, "Memory Alpha's general policy is to grant administrator status to anyone who has actively participated in the development of the encyclopedia for a while and is a recognized member of the community. For a wiki, the more administrators that participate in the system, the better." There are enough differences in opinion among editors that I think a few more administrators would be good for the wika. Also, seeing as how we are getting more traffic and have recently won wikia of the month, we should probably have a few more anyhow. Anyone opposed? - Xtreme680 22:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Xtreme680 that adding a couple additional administrators is a good idea. I don't know how the nomination process for a new administrator would go, but I think that whatever happens, it's important that everyone remembers that this IS a community effort. We all have to make compromises and sacrifices and make sure we're on the same page, or a page that we can all be happy with.

I have a lot of respect for the admins here, but I don't feel like their vote or opinion should count for more than anyone else's. I haven't seen that as a problem here yet, but I have seen it on other Wikis, and the thing is.... Proudhug and 24 Administration may have founded this Wiki, but if they hadn't, I know that one of us regular editors would have. We can't afford to alienate each other with our opinions on certain issues. I'm excited that we're the Featured Wikia for June, but there's no way we would have gotten here without the help and contributions of everyone. The admins do alot, but really, the administrators are nothing more than editors with a few extra perks.

As for "assuming real world information", I've sat down and tried to come up with a well-articulated response several times, but I can't seem to get all of my ideas sorted and worded the way I want them. Do we need real-world information on this Wiki? Absolutely. Do we need to include huge amounts of real-world information? No, but it's hard to draw a line right now as to how much is too much. I think we have to take it at a case-by-case basis.

As far as the debate about the "First Lady" information... I don't think we need a huge detailed synopsis about the First Lady, but I'd like to include a brief history of the First Lady and the role she plays in the White House. Below that, I'd like to describe the First Ladies of 24... whether we list the 4 Presidents and discuss each of their First Ladies (or lack thereof) or just talk about Martha and Sherry (even though Sherry Palmer wasn't actually First Lady, she did mention wanting to be F.L. SEVERAL times in Seasons 1-3, and David Palmer pretended that he was interested in re-marrying her during Season 3, so I think that's worth noting), that's something to decide.

Those are my thoughts... I'll be happy to discuss any of these issues further on any Talk pages or back here. I want everyone here to be happy with the Wiki, happy with their contributions and the contributions of others, and content with the policies/style choices. What I don't want is for anyone to feel they're wasting their time, especially people who have made several significant contributions to the Wiki. -Kapoli 23:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you guys for your opinions. It's good to see we're all pretty much on the same page here.  There are many niches that Wiki 24 fills, but we have to go on the majority for what to include and what to exclude.


 * My comments about the founding of the site were only to illustrate the point that Wiki 24 was created with a set of goals in mind, not to put more weight on one editor over another. Many of those goals have been altered or abolished, and many more have been added, and while things will stabilize somewhat, they will never be fully set in stone.  That's the beauty of wiki communities.


 * Fortunately, I've never really been in a situation where I'm completely against the wishes of the masses, and I think this has been reflected in the strength of our editor-base. I'm looking forward to seeing our community grow now that we're the featured Wikia.  If things get too large, we certainly will need more admins to regulate the site, however I don't currently see that it's necessary.  As I've said before, I'm still currently able monitor nearly every single edit that's made to the site and it's quite easy for people to contact me or 24 Administration with any problems that may have gotten missed. --Proudhug 00:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My comment about the foundation of this Wiki was meant to address the statement that Wiki24 "was created with a set of goals in mind". The point I was trying to make was that if someone else, say StBacchus, had created this Wiki, she may have had another set of goals in mind... like maybe including a lot of real-world information and a messageboard and not including any timeline information.  I think we all have an idea and a set of goals for Wiki24.  Obviously our goals are going to overlap at times and clash at other times.  We have to work together and each make sacrifices about what we want.


 * And as far as new admins go, I like the point that Xtreme680 brought up about Memory Alpha... "Memory Alpha's general policy is to grant administrator status to anyone who has actively participated in the development of the encyclopedia for a while and is a recognized member of the community. For a wiki, the more administrators that participate in the system, the better." I don't think the size of the Wiki has anything to do with it.  If there's concern about new administrators having opposite ideas about certain topics and turf getting encroached on, then I don't think that would be an issue.  I think that there are editors of this Wiki who would make great admins, and I don't think waiting until we get "bigger" is necessarily the right thing to do. -Kapoli 01:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Proudhug, there is no community consensus on real-life information, so please stop acting like there is. You have consistently argued against not only me, but also Xtreme and 24 Administration on the issue of what to assume. On the issue of how much to include, it looks like we've got you and Xtreme on one end of the spectrum and me and Kapoli on the other. George Bush might call that a mandate, but I don't. That's why I was hoping other people would chime in, because neither of us should be acting on behalf of the community without hearing what the community has to say.

Here's what I would like to see, and it's not that radical: if somebody has a question about 24, any question at all, Wiki24 answers it. If they want to know why Martha Logan is so mouthy, we have the answer. If they're writing Tony/Michelle fanfic and they want to know when the wedding was, we have the answer. If they want to know whether Jack killed Paul Raines personally, we have the answer. If they want to know what year each season takes place in, we have the answer. If there is no offical answer, we have the best thinking on the subject (the timeline would fall under that category). Hopefully, we have the answers arranged in such a way that it's easy for people to find them.

I have yet to see a reason why any reader ought to be left in the cold, except that "the site has its own goals." What goals? Why is including a few possibly extraneous but possibly useful sentences such a dire risk to the mission that certain pages become battlegrounds? What does it hurt to make sure everybody gets the answer they're looking for? I appreciate the concern about getting off topic, but this site is in no danger of becoming a free-for-all, and honestly, I doubt it would even if there were no admins or regular editors. At the moment, I'm more concerned about scaring off potential editors by too much reverting or deleting when we could be rewriting or advising.

I'm not against having more admins, though. It would probably be useful to have enough people to watch for vandalism at all hours. --StBacchus 16:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a great deal of practicality in keeping extraneous real-world information to a minimum. One of the main uses I have for Wiki 24 and for other sites such as Memory Alpha is to find out what real-world information has been used on the show.  For example, let's say I'm watching Season 3 and I decide to look up Mexico.  The reason for me doing this isn't to learn more facts about Mexico, it's to find every reference to Mexico on the show, every time it's been used or mentioned, and what information the show has given us about Mexico.  This is very useful for people writing fanfiction.  If the page is littered with information about the Mayans, Aztecs, the population of Mexico City, the country's major imports and exports, etc., this feature is useless.  A reader will either assume all this information was given on the show, or have to find another way of getting what they want.  There are already hundreds of easy-to-access sources of information if I want to know more about Mexico, but Wiki 24 is the only place I can find out specifically what was on the show.  Keeping real-world information to a minimum allows both sets of people to accomplish their goals (those who want to know more, and those who want to know specifics), but adding too much alienates the latter set.  You said yourself we want to cater to as many people as possible.  I mean, saying a Ford Taurus is a car isn't going to hurt anything, but quoting the gas mileage will confuse people, or at least reduce the site's usefullness.  Memory Alpha's Mexico page contains a picture taken from the actual show, as well as historical information that only derives from the show.  Wiki 24's Mexico page should do the same. --Proudhug 16:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, that took a while to read. I think I'm just going to start by putting on the table what I believe the Wiki should be doing. On the whole extra information front I can see both sides of the argument but I believe that some extra information to fill readers in on articles wouldn't hurt. With the above Memory Alpha example, Memory Alpha is in the unique position that it's show is set 200+ years in the future and therefore they have a greater chance off error if they speculate on details. Our show is set now (give or take 5 years) and therefore we should assume that most of the real world information is the same unless it is contradicted on screen (i.e. the President is Charles Logan).


 * Now, the whole status bar issue. I personally think that it is one of the most important things on the entire information bar seeing as it gives readers a clear, easy answer as to whether a character is dead or alive. If someone wants to quickly check, they can look at that section and instantly see. As for this "it's impossible to know" bit, it's common sense really. I think we should use the general rule that if the writers wanted to bring the character back onto the show without them having come back from the dead or suprising everyone that they're alive then the status should be ALIVE.


 * Administrator priviliges, to be honest, are generally exactly the same as a regular user's except you have a few more buttons. I would have no problem with allowing the propperly dedicated users on this wiki getting those priviliges.


 * I think that's everything covered. As StBacchus said above, I'm more concerned about scaring off new users than whether a sentence about Mexico is added to an article which wasn't mentioned in the show. At the moment, Wiki 24 is the definetive source for 24 information, even if it isn't anywhere near complete (which a Wiki can never, be to tell the truth) and I'm very happy with how it's going. --24 Administration 19:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, 24 Administration, you made some excellent points. I don't want to scare anyone off either.  The bottom line is, we're going to have to take the real-world thing on a case-by-case basis.  I don't have a problem with including basic establishing information to introduce a topic, but too much can be damaging, as useful as it may seem.  As for the status bar thing, I see it as more of a hassle for editors then a useful tool for readers, but since I couldn't see ever having use for it, I really don't have an opinion either way. --Proudhug 19:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Proudhug, just because it isn't useful to you doesn't mean it isn't useful to anyone. Having status in the sidebar is very useful, take our word for it. Personally, I don't see the point of the Characters by groups page, yet that was one of the handful of pages GreenReaper chose for the Featured Wikia abstract. Out of curiosity, why would you want to know exactly what 24 had to say about Mexico? You don't have to answer, but I ask only because I would like to understand your point of view. I am a fanfiction author myself, and that's the point of view from which I've been writing articles. Anyway, if that's your objection to the inclusion of real-life information, then I believe we can find a solution that makes everyone happy. How about a more robust system of citing sources? I've been trying to make it clear in the writing ("In real life...." versus "On 24...") what information comes from the show and what does not, but maybe we could do more.


 * To go back to another point, I'd also like to add a section to the policies about reverting and deleting. I'd like to see less of that - I'm including from myself, too. It's more constructive and less scary to n00bs to rewrite and comment, everyone knows that. But it's easy to forget, especially on certain pages that get changed a lot.


 * As long as everybody's here, I'd also be interested to hear what you all think about the In-universe/Out-of-universe distinction that currently exists in the Manual of Style. I don't want to just change it without getting some input, but I think the style guidelines can be written more effectively without including it. All we need to say is what we mean. Episode guides: present tense. Character pages: past tense. Real-life information: keep it relevant, keep it to a minimum, mark it clearly, don't contradict the show. Something like that.


 * My apologies for being long-winded, everybody. Thanks for reading and commenting! --StBacchus 09:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Fancy tables
I've been fiddling around with the fancy table style we have for the episode listings, Bauer kill count and the upcoming Research Files revamp, and I've noticed that there are some odd differences when viewed in Firefox as opposed to Explorer. The horizontal division lines are thicker in Firefox, and for some bizarre reason, the far left border line is often non-existent for the first few frames or so. Anyone else noticing these problems and/or know of a solution? This is bugging me almost as much as the missing external link icon. I may just have to avoid visiting the site in Firefox entirely. :( --Proudhug 17:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't even have internet explorer, and everything looks fine to me. Perhaps I don't even know what I am missing. - Xtreme680 19:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well color me confused. I only use Firefox, and I've never had a problem with the appearance of any of the tables.  How bizarre. -Kapoli 19:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So are you saying you don't have the problems I've noted above, or that you just haven't noticed them before? --Proudhug 00:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have never experienced the problems, I literally don't even know what the problem is, because the pages look exactly like how I have always seen them. - Xtreme680 00:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I just noticed that the left border problem I was having (and still am) usually fixes itself with a refresh. However, the horizontal division thing is a constant.  Take a look at the episode chart for a page like Season 1.  In IE, the horizontal lines that separate each episode is one pixel high.  In FF, it's about seven.  I usually use FF at home, but I was working on the Research Files chart at work today in IE and couldn't figure out how to make those lines thinker.  Then I got home and saw that it "fixed" itself. --Proudhug 00:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that'll learn me for not testing in IE! I don't know what's going on with the left border, Proudhug. I had that problem just a second ago on the On-screen kills by Jack Bauer page, but it went away as soon as I reloaded. Meanwhile, I have a fix for the spacer bars.

The problem is that the browser fills in the height of empty cells, and FireFox sets it at 10 while IE sets it at 1. The solution is to set the height so the browser doesn't have to rely on its default. I went ahead and changed all the tables on the Season pages, CTU Los Angeles, On-screen kills, and Research Files. If there are any others that need fixing, just change this: to this: It doesn't matter what's between the. It can be deleted entirely. It's just a comment that lets editors know what the cell's doing there. --StBacchus 12:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 *  |colspan="5" style="background: #999999;"| 
 *  |colspan="5" style="background: #999999; height: 10px;"| 


 * Cool, thanks for the explanation and for changing those! --Proudhug 14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sub-headings on Character Pages
I know that some character pages, like Jack Bauer, have a sub-heading for Day 1, Day 2, After Day 2, Day 3, etc. Those sub-headings are necessary and helpful to sort the information we have on Jack and other characters in multiple seasons. But for a character like Jessie Hampton, is it necessary to have a Day 1 sub-heading? Her only appearance was in Day 1, and the only information we have on her is from Day 1. Do we need the sub-heading "Day 1"? I think it's kinda silly to have those kind of sub-headings for characters that only appeared in one season. The same thing goes for location pages. Thoughts? -Kapoli 05:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I originally found it odd that people were putting the "Day" subheadings for characters that only appeared in one season, but I've since grown to really like them. I think they're a good idea for three reasons.


 * It adds a nice sense of consistency with those pages for people/places/things that do appear in more than one season.
 * It's a nice, quick reminder of when the events for that character/location/thing take place.
 * Most pages aren't this complete yet, but I think the majority of articles for things that only appear in one season have at least a little background information that can be put into an earlier paragraph.


 * In the case of Jesse Hampton, information about her job, partner, ability to speak spanish, etc. should be put in her introductory paragraph(s), as it doesn't specifically pertain to Day 1, while the stuff under the "Day 1" heading is only what specifically happened to her during the day of the California presidential primary.


 * I hope this clears things up. :-) --Proudhug 06:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Assuming Information
The issue of what unknown or ambiguous information we can assume has been coming up a lot lately, mainly on the histories of pages that are suddenly contentious. The issue is critically important to how we all write articles, so I think it should be discussed here. Here are the current guidelines and my comments:


 * Certain articles should be written from an "in-universe" perspective and some from an "out-of-universe" perspective.
 * It is cleaner to write some articles in past tense and some in present. We can and should agree on some grammatical rules (I like the current ones). However, there's no good reason to create a fictional perspective to write from.


 * No assuming real-life information is true on the show, ever.
 * It's evident from the use of real people and places that the show is supposed to be set in the real world. The writers only reference a real person or place or event when they want the viewers to assume something about it (they have also avoided referencing real people and places when they do not want the viewers to assume things). That information is relevant to understanding the show, and the wiki will be a much stronger reference if it is included. There is no need to send people hunting through a huge article on Wikipedia when we can sift out the relevant information.


 * Assuming timeline information is okay, though.
 * Unlike people, places, events, and things, there have been very few time references in the show. Not only is it virtually impossible to say with certainty in what year a season took place, it's likely supposed to be that way. Only once in five years has it been possible to calculate the year (using Kyle Singer's driver's license), and that's a debatable case. Until and unless a date is given unambiguously on the show, all timelines are purely speculative.


 * No putting in negative information.
 * Being as the whole wiki is a work in progress and many articles are in various states of completion, I think we should be able to say what we know for certain is missing information. Right now, the Audrey Raines page stops at her capture by Henderson. Readers shouldn't have to guess whether that means she vanished after that or if someone just hasn't gotten around to adding the rest. It's more clear to give every character a concluding line, even if all we know is that we don't know what happened to them.

I'm hoping everyone will comment on these rules/guidelines and any others they feel strongly about. Otherwise, we're all going to waste a lot of time reverting each other's edits. --StBacchus 07:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I'll share my thoughts as well. Out-of-universe and in-universe? Yes, I agree with that and like the current tense. It's nice. I prefer having character trivia on actor pages, things like that.


 * I agree with the policy on real world information. It sometimes seems so out of place with what has been presented on the show.


 * I'm also really skeptical of the timeline. I haven't seen it yet, but I guess I'm just wondering what it looks like, what the references are, and why it's taking so long, considering I've only seen the date mentioned once. I think you'd have to assume a lot of things for the timeline to all work out. There's a lot of canonicity issues with the house subcommittee book even contradicting itself, and I guess I have never understood the whole project.


 * And I think it HAS to be the way most things have been. If I remember correctly, Karen told Bill that Hal Gardner would take over as president. There's no reason to believe that's not true. We haven't seen a lot of things on the show, but as long as there's no reason to lie, we have to make certain assumptions about it being true. Maybe Kim isn't really Jack's daughter. We never saw the conception, and so we can't assume it's true? That just seems, odd to me. Even watching events, there is always some sort of viewer interpretation. Some events logically happen. Henderson got shot, he stopped breathing, therefore, he is dead, even though none of us took his pulse and he was not examined by a coroner. Logan is arrested, he gets impeached, Gardner becomes president. Some of it really is unknown. But explaining assumptions and that things never happened doesn't sound like the spawn of satan to me. - Xtreme680 23:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm proposing changing the current rules to this: I believe that following these guidelines, rather than the current ones, will make Wiki24 a far better resource. --StBacchus 00:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The in-universe/out-of-universe distinction should be used only to illustrate the grammar rules
 * Real-life information can be included as long as it is relevant to understanding the show and does not contradict the show
 * Timeline information can be included only if it is stated unambiguously - basically, if it involves math, it probably shouldn't be in the main body of an article
 * Negative information should be included where appropriate


 * The timeline is a completely separate project. It does rely on much speculation and assumption in order for it to work, however in working on it, I've come to the conclusion that placing Season 1 in 2002 makes 80% of everything fit nicely together.  For this reason, I'm not prepared to start slotting dates into Wiki 24 that aren't etched in stone.  Rather, I only bring it up because it could work as a general guide for events.  That said, there are a lot of dates that are given specifically.  There's no doubt that these should be integrated into Wiki 24.


 * Take a look at the Star Wars timeline. It wasn't until the mid-90s that people started working out an official timeline.  There was already a lot of SW story material in existence and much of it was contradictory.  In order to come up with a coherent timeline, assumptions had to be made and errors had to be glossed over.  I think my 24 timeline could be a step towards solidifying an acceptable date for the fanbase to accept.  I'm not saying it's now, or will ever be, accepted as canon, as the SW timeline is, and therefore much of it won't be immediately fit for inclusion in Wiki 24, but if enough people agree that it's consistent enough, who knows.


 * As for the Gardner thing. This isn't even an issue of assuming, rather it's simply that it didn't happen yet.  If Jack says "In ten years I'm going to buy a Mustang" should we add that Jack bought a Mustang ten years after Season 5?  If Bill said, "I'm going to lunch with Fiona Apple next Friday", should we put it down as having happened?  We have no reason to assume it won't happen, but that doesn't change the fact that it hasn't happened.  There's nothing wrong with pointing out that it was said Gardner would be sworn in as President, but we can't assume it did happen. --Proudhug 00:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Re IU/OOU: I think there needs to be a distinction. There's nothing that makes me cringe more than reading an IU article that's written from that perspective and then suddenly someone mentions "episode 14" or that "this happened because the actor wanted to leave the show."  It's ugly, it's jarring, and it ruins the atmosphere of the article.  There's no reason why all OOU information can't be relegated to a "Background information" section.  90% of our articles already conform to this method anyway.


 * When should negative information be included? Isn't this the reason why have "incomplete information" and "stub" notices?  I don't see why we'd want to assume Wiki 24 is and always will be incomplete.  The goal is to become complete, not to add things ad infinitum, is it not?  Should we be looking ahead to the journey, or the ultimate destination?  Once the majority of the articles on Wiki 24 are "complete" fact-wise, having all of these negative information comments is going to leave the site looking very sloppy and amateurish. --Proudhug 00:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Many articles aren't marked with stubs or incomplete information notices. When once of us finds something incomplete, I think we usually change it rather than tag it. But let's say that Audrey just wasn't in the next season. Wouldn't it strike you as odd that we never found out what happened to her? We could say something like "Audrey did not notice Jack being pulled off by the Chinese. Despite their loving relationship earlier, she was never seen nor heard of again." I don't think that's sloppy or amateurish. Besides, we are amateurs. Professionals seek ratings, we're fans, making something for fans, it makes sense to try and tie up a page with a short conclusion. It points out plot holes and unanswered questions rather than ignoring them. I guess I don't see how it's sloppy. If we're able going to be "complete", then ignoring things like unwrapped storylines seem necessary for completion.

Plus, if Gardner is going to become president, sometimes between season 5 and 6, and there is going to be a season 6, won't we just add that later? I don't think that leads to a slippery slope. Tony and Michelle were going off to have a new life together at the end of season 4, and I believe that had been touched upon before season 5 began. Are we to assume they're liars? - Xtreme680 01:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Audrey did not notice Jack being pulled off by the Chinese. Despite their loving relationship earlier, she was never seen nor heard of again."


 * And that's a perfect example of an OOU note that would be included in a different section. It would depend if she was never seen nor heard of again IU or OOU.  If someone in S6 declares that "Audrey hasn't been seen since Jack disappeared" then it's perfectly fine to add that to her bio.  But if she was just never mentioned again on the show, that's OOU and would be included in "Background information and notes" or something. --Proudhug 01:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That seems like a good compromise. - Xtreme680 01:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Realistically, we are never going to get every editor to remember to put those tags in. Nor will every reader know that if a page is lacking a tag, that means it's done. It's better to be clear in the article's actual text. To be complete, we should include whatever happened to the character, even if we don't know what happened to the character. Behrooz disappeared. That's the end of his story. It's a very important piece of information. Proudhug, what do you mean by sloppy and amateurish? Why don't you rewrite the information instead of removing it?

There's a very good reason all OOU information shouldn't be relegated to Background Information: we don't live inside the show, and the whole project is innately OOU. OOU information is already all over every page. Or maybe I'm not looking at the right 90% of pages, because the ones I see have things like "Written by" and "Dramatis Personae" and "Day 1" integrated right into the articles. That's how it should be, too. It's easier to read and makes more sense that way. --StBacchus 02:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Things like "Dramatis Personae" and "Written by" are OOU because they're included in OOU articles. That's fine.  Episodes, actors, writers, novels are all OOU things so they're written from that perspective.  Characters and locations are IU so the majority of their text should reflect that.  The problem that I have with mixing the two is that it's jarring to read.  Every once in a while we're getting stuff like this:


 * Steve Ward worked as a gas station attendant during the third World War. He grew up in Rome, Italy before moving to the United States in 1983.  His family lived in poverty for years until Steve was forced to get a job selling drugs.  Steve had learned how to handle firearms from his uncle Bud and he soon began getting hired as an assassin for various domestic hate-groups.  During Season 8 of the show, Steve was killed off because the writers felt his character was a bad influence on children.


 * The last line completely pulls you out of the narrative. It's like in the Bugs Bunny cartoons when his legs would suddenly get erased by a giant hand with a pencil.  This is what I mean by sloppy and amateurish.  It belongs in a separate "Background" paragraph with any other relevant OOU information, not mixed in with IU text.


 * I just randomly generated three pages and came up with Cyprus recording, Evelyn Martin and Marianne Taylor, all of which are good examples of IU articles sticking to an IU perspective. As a matter of fact, I kept clicking Random Data and couldn't find any IU articles that had OOU sentences in them, though I know there are still some out there.  So it's probably more than 90%.


 * "Real-life information can be included as long as it is relevant to understanding the show and does not contradict the show"


 * I'm not sure how much you think we need though. Clearly we're meant to assume that the show takes place in the real-world yes, but Wiki 24 is an encyclopedia of 24, not a guide or source of explanation of the real-world stuff they mention on the show.  If someone wants to know about the Secretary of State, there are plenty of other sites to find that out, but if they're looking up the SoS on Wiki 24, they're going to find out how and when it was used on this show.  Obviously merely putting "The Secretary of State was some guy who voted in Day 2" is pretty silly, but adding that he's fourth in line for the Presidency is completely irrelevant.  Saying that Detroit is a "city in Michigan", rather than merely "the place where Reza Naiyeer's cousin was from" is fine, but that's all that's needed to establish the article.  This a guide to established 24 facts, not a guide for further expansion. --Proudhug 10:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There's still plenty of Out-of-Universe information on the pages you're calling In-Universe: Appearances, Sources, References, Day 1, Day 2, "Played by," "First appearance," "Last appearance." You and I aren't in disagreement about how articles ought to be written. I already said I agree with the grammar rules we have in place now. However, we don't need to say anything about the distiction between the show's world and the real world to lay out the rules clearly. In fact, it would be more clear if we just left that out of it.


 * How much real-life information do we need? I think we need enough. I know that's dreadfully vague, but that's all there is to it. We need to include enough real-life information that anyone curious enough to click the link comes away with a better understanding of the people, places, and events on the show. That's not expanding on the show, only providing background information that the writers expect us to have already. As I've said before, there's no need to make people hike over to Wikipedia and read ten pages on the First Lady if we can tell them everything they need to know.


 * This a guide to established 24 facts, not a guide for further expansion.


 * A timeline with dates is an expansion on the show. A picky person might make the point that if you're assuming nothing, you can't assume that there are 12 months or 365 days in a year. Good thing I'm not arguing on that side. But okay, nevermind that the presidential line of succession has come up numerous times on the show, it may not be relevant to put it on the page of everyone who's in it. That can stay gone. Nonetheless, I do think we should err on the side of including more than enough information rather than not enough. It's better to be too helpful than not helpful enough, and it hurts nothing to include a little extra information. --StBacchus 14:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Those items bits of OOU information on IU pages are relegated to specific sections. of the article. This is what I'm saying. OOU stuff shouldn't appear in the main body of the article, rather the sidebar and other specific sections highlight any important OOU information. They need to be distinct.

I realize that you and many other people may visit Wiki 24 and want to know more about the First Lady or some other real-life thing seen on the show, but I'm afraid that the simple fact of the matter is that it's not what this site was created for. It's not part of the aim of the founders to cater to the needs of every 24 fan. We do want to be as complete as possible in our misson, but there's still a lot we're not interested in documenting. This includes real-life information, fanfiction and many other aspects of 24 that don't fit into our goals. I apologize if this isn't why you are here.

As I mentioned earlier, my timeline is a separate project. Parts of it will be posted on Wiki 24, such as dates that are specifically mentioned, but for the most part it's to be it's own thing. If it holds up as well as I'm thinking it will, inputting other unspecified dates may not come with as much assumption as I'd once thought. However, this won't be for me to decide. --Proudhug 20:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Linking
Since I think this is less important than the policy on speculation, I figured I'd put it down here. What makes the wiki format work is that pages are linked. I probably wouldn't have the idea to search for something like the 5th street bridge. However, it is a good article to have. But since we have it, the only way for people to find it is to link it from the necessary pages. I've noticed, by using what links here from the toolbox, that some of the pages that we have recently created have been poorly linked. Sometimes they're only linked from the userpage of the creator. I feel that these pages would be best served if people took the time to create links from episode pages and other pages. A general rule of thumb is, if it's worth linking to, it's worth linking back. (This obviously isn't true for huge pages like season pages, and major characters like David Palmer or Jack Bauer). Anyone have any problems with what I've proposed? Overlinking is definetely a problem, but we can't let pages be underlinked. - Xtreme680 23:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. If someone creates a new character page, then they need to make sure that the character name is linked in the episodes that the character appears in.  If the character has ties to a particular location, link it from there, too.  You're right, Xtreme680, If it's worth linking to, it's worth linking back.  Sometimes people don't realize that something like key card has an article, so they don't link it, so I can excuse that exemption, but ALL additional names, locations and days should be linked once per article.  If the "Mike" article mentions Bob, Tom, Dave and the Old Merry-Go-Round, then all of those pages need links from Mike's article.  I wish 24 had an old merry-go-round.  -Kapoli 19:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily agree that if it's worth linking to, it's worth linking back. Jack Bauer will always be the most linked to page, but that doesn't mean that every little thing that links to him needs to be added to his page.  I suppose it's a general rule, but I'm sure there will be a lot of exceptions. --Proudhug 00:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I pointed that out, but episodes the character appeared in is almost natural. Things like weapons and technology are also usually good linking pages. The fact is, we want all character pages to be easy to find. There are some character pages that are only linked in a loop, and you wouldn't be able to find them without knowing the name of that obscure character you want to find out about. - Xtreme680 00:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry, I missed that sentence somehow. I'm not exactly clear on what you're proposing, though.  I agree with what you're saying, but are you suggesting that we start doing it from now on and fix what's missing as we come by it, or that we make a specific effort right now to track down these missing links (heh heh, "missing links")?  This was something I'd always planned doing anyway, as soon as I get time.  (Man, I've got so much planned for this site, but I've been so damn busy these past few months!) --Proudhug 00:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, if it's linked on someone's user page, chances are that it's poorly linked elsewhere, as a general rule. Not to knock on warthogdemon whatsoever, but he had so many new character pages so quickly that the links weren't to be fleshed out. This is both a "from now on" general rule, and something to do as we come by. We edit an article, and then check to see what links here. We find something missing, we add it. It's not a "right now" project by any means, its more of something to consider and watch for. I'm sure I will keep trying to add and change links, as orphaned, dead end, and disambiguation links are among my pet peeves. - Xtreme680 01:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto... it's something to keep a lookout for, not something that I plan to go search for. WarthogDemon didn't realize when he created those articles that he needed to linky link everything.  He corrected those articles, but there are plenty of other pages that need links added or have a red link that should really be blue, it's just spelled wrong or something.  I'm not going to go searching for 'em, but I do think that this is something that people should keep in mind when browsing and editing pages. -Kapoli 02:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Memorable quotes
What do you guys think about keeping memorable quotes strictly on the episode pages and eliminating them from character pages? This'll reduce clutter and unnecessary redundancy. A character like Jack Bauer who's been on the show for years will have dozens of memorable quotes and it's a pain having to scroll through them all. --Proudhug 21:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the rest of you, but I remember quotes by who said them, not when. Not to mention that dialogue is a major source of characterization. Maybe we could compromise. Multi-speaker quotes can go on the episode pages and single-speaker quotes on the pages of whoever said them. Jack will still have dozens, though. Maybe he could have his own quotes page. --StBacchus 21:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you think some people come to Wiki 24 to find quotes? That seems a little odd to me, but it's possible I suppose. Quotes are basically excerpts from episodes (or novels, comics, etc.), so it makes more sense to me to have them on those pages. I agree that most people will sooner remember who said a quote rather than when it was said, but a list episodes in which the character appeared is available to search. --Proudhug 22:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I came to Wiki 24 to find quotes. It seems like an innocent enough thing to do. On The OC Wikia, for a mainly dialogue based show, I list a few quotes on the page and then provide a link to a page containing all the notable quotes. Maybe this would work? I really don't it's that much trouble, most characters have the menu bar, which helps jump to the section you want to read, and its not hard to click, hold, and drag to speed things up. - Xtreme680 23:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that we can be more selective about the quotes we put on character pages. We need to determine if a quote is better known for a character or an episode. For example, "I'm so sorry..." or "the only reason you're conscience..." would be on both, but "Right here, right now you are going to face justice" doesn't really define Jack Bauer, though it does define the episode. I think we should be pickier as to what goes on character pages. Not every episodic quote should be on the character pages. - Willo 68.51.105.170 02:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm torn on what to do. I definitely like the memorable quotes on the character pages and episode pages, so I kinda like what Willo proposed. Some of the quotes don't make sense or aren't as "memorable" out of the context of the episode, so those quotes should remain on the memorable quotes section of the episode pages. But I do remember quotes based on the person, rather than the episode, so I definitely want to leave them on the character pages, too. We already have so much redundancy on this site, I don't think keeping some of the quotes on the character pages will hurt. -Kapoli 03:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I like Willo's idea, too. It makes sense to me that a quote would be placed on the episode page when it's more important to the episode and the character page when it's more important to the character. I do think some redundancy is fine, though. We don't have a master list of quotes, nor is it very easy to search for them, so putting them where people can find them is key. I also like Xtreme680's idea. Not every character would need a separate quotes page, but I think his format would work very nicely for characters like Jack who have a lot. --StBacchus 07:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Season 6 and spoilers
Howard Gordon talked to the New York Post in an article today and had some things to say about what we can expect from Season 6. When is it okay to start putting up information, espically dealing with cast, crew, plot, etc? - Willo 68.51.105.170 19:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * January 2007. Wiki 24 has a no spoiler policy, so putting information about the cast or plot of Season 6 is inappropriate... crew, maybe not so much.  The main page has a News section for the future of the show, but it's only for spoiler-free information.  It may be possible to put some of Gordon's information there. --Proudhug 19:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there should be a discussion about this. While I don't disagree that there should be no episodic spoilers before they air, I don't necessarly think we should approach the seasons this way. I don't think we should have specific spoilers (ie. Palmer and Michelle's deaths in the premire this year), but we could have general information (ie. "Jack Bauer is forced out of hiding and must deal with a new threat and his faked death.") I think that information is something that will actually help (rather than hinder) a viewers experence entering a season, as well as having cast information. But maybe that's just me. - Willo 68.51.105.170 19:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "help viewers." What exactly is helpful about posting cast or plot information about next season?  And how would it even pertain to our site?  Wiki 24 is a spoiler-free encyclopedia of facts about 24.  It's not a news source, a spoiler source, a messageboard, or an effort to recruit new viewers.  We decided against posting cast/crew and vague synopses of episodes before they aired.  Whether or not it's for the next week's episode or next January's episode makes no difference.  Even your "general" information about Jack's return is a spoiler. --Proudhug 20:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with proudhug, there's no reason to have any of this stuff. Maybe an airdate is good, but everything else potentially spoils the season. I prefer to see it happen when it happens. - Xtreme680 23:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * All I'll say is this (and from a neutral, eneyclopedic perspective and opinion): always have an encyclopedic page for everything that's been announced, including future projects. Squall Deckiller 03:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

New policy on speculation and unknown information
I've updated the Manual of Style to include a section on unknown information and speculation. I've noticed people doing this a lot lately and it just makes for ugly writing. We need to avoid sentences like "Her fate is unknown" or "It is assumed he later became President." Doing so will make Wiki 24 look a lot cleaner and more professional. --Proudhug 01:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I was thinking about the unknown status and I thought that there is a simple way to work it out. If the producers could bring back that character without them having risen from the dead then they're alive. If not then they're deceased. For President Keeler, for example, he would be unknown. --24 Administration 15:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And Eveyln and Amy... They're the most obvious ones. - User:Willo 68.51.105.170 18:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

New Character Categories
So now we have categories for the individual seasons and for CTU characters (in addition to the "CTU Field Agents" and "CTU Intelligence Agents" categories)??? That's fine with me, I just want to make sure I'm understanding everything correctly... will we categorize Jack under Characters, Day 1 Characters, Day 2 Characters, Day 3 Characters, Day 4 Characters, Day 5 Characters, 24: The Game Characters, CTU Field Operations Agents, CTU Characters, Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, Day 4, Day 5, and 24: The Game??? That seems excessive to me. -Kapoli 20:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's an excessive amount of categories, it's just confusing, a lot of unnecessary work, and steps into a problem I think some pages have. Some major characters have WAY too many categories. - Xtreme680 23:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how the Category structure usually works on Wikis, but it seems to me we need to work something out. While I too hate the idea of characters having mega lists of categories at the bottom of the page, I don't see any way around it.  You've got categories and subcategories, but if you only put the article in the lowest of the subcategories, then the higher categories contain nothing other than other categories and that's totally useless.


 * The way I saw it, it was very hard to locate characters because the list was so long and I also thought it was cluttering up the categories for each day. So, I made categories for characters from each day and removed the characters from categories for each day. --24 Administration 15:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So yeah, I guess the real question is, do we really need so many categories? I think they can be very useful for people, but it can look quite ugly if an article has too many.  It's Catch-22. --Proudhug 01:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the new categories. We could make some decisions about which categories should be used in what cases. It's maybe not necessary to mark characters who are in multiple seasons/products as being Day 1, 2, The Game, etc. characters. They aren't especially tied to the events of a single day, after all. I also think it's not necessary to have a "Jack Bauer" category. Jack Bauer is the most linked-to page on the site, so it's already plenty easy to get there. --StBacchus 11:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Jack Bauer category isn't so bad, his page is getting especially large, and will only increase in size, so it may work. He also has some pages specifically dedicated to him, and it would be hard to categorize those pages otherwise. As far as the number of categories goes, well, we tend to go for usefulness over beauty in general. - Xtreme680 23:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

So every single character should be included in every single relevant catgory? I wouldn't mind doing that for any character pages I come across but I've noticed some characters appear in "Day #" or "Day # Characters" but not in both categories. Should I make sure each relevant character is in both from now on? Just want to make sure now so there aren't so many links to be gotten rid of should over-categorization be unnecessary. - WarthogDemon


 * No, just go for "Day # Characters". Since we have the character categories, we no longer have a need to put them also in Day # by itself. - Xtreme680 18:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've gone through and started to move the Day 1 Characters that are still characterized under Day 1. I did the names from A-E, and I'll continue to recategorize the rest. -Kapoli 03:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Xtreme680 and I went through and moved all the characters from "Day X" to "Day X Characters". Thanks for the help, Xtreme680!! -Kapoli 05:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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)