Wiki 24:The Situation Room/November 2006 Archives

This is the Archives of The Situation Room discussions from November 2006. See also the Archives Directory. The last thread started in November is listed here at the top, with the others reverse chronologically following.

Voting on Featured Articles
Just a reminder to everyone interested to vote on December's featured article. Today, Thursday November 30, is the last day of voting. Right now, the vote tally is:


 * 24: The Game - 2 for, 0 against, total of 2
 * Day 5 6:00am-7:00am - 2 for, 1 against, total of 1
 * Mole - 1 for, 0 against, total of 1

--StBacchus 06:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the voting has been...erm, extended. 24 Administration voted for the season 5 finale, and I changed my votes to Mole. It probably doesn't matter very much, since whichever article is not featured in December will likely be featured in January. I myself like both.


 * Mole - 2 for, 0 against, total of 2
 * 24: The Game - 1 for, 0 against, total of 1
 * Day 5 6:00am-7:00am - 3 for, 2 against, total of 1

--StBacchus 03:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Analysis Articles
I was recently updating some analysis articles such as Attacks on CTU Los Angeles and CTU Los Angeles building and thought about more that I could create. I personally love writing articles like this and think it brings more to the wiki but I know some people hate them. So, I'm just asking if anyone objects to me writing some more. I can think of an interesting one I could write about the development of the Jack-Kim relationship. So just tell me what you think. --24 Administration 23:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you know I'm all for it. I've also got some ideas for different-type articles, like ones on food, money, deleted scenes, and fanfic (a brief examination of what 24 fic is like, not stories or critiques). The kind of articles you're talking about are fun and interesting and I agree they could draw people in.


 * About literary analysis in general, I think of it as a spectrum with Plot Summary on one end and Rank Opinion on the other. Lit majors aim for the middle, with interpretation supported by facts from the text. It's very doable. It must be, or we wouldn't have English teachers. ;) --StBacchus 10:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm all for it and I love analyzing things, so let me know on what you want to happen and I'll get it done. --BauerJ24 04:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

On this day...
I was wondering if anyone would be interested in including an "On this day..." section on the main page, or somewhere on the site. Check out the one I did for the Dark Shadows wiki for an example. --Proudhug 04:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If there's enough information for one to be effective then go for it. It'd take quite a lot of work to update it every single day and it'd have to be done everyday or it would look sloppy. --24 Administration 23:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The question of whether or not there's enough information is still debatable, I think. Certain months are a lot more event-heavy, of course, while the summer months are pretty sparse. However, with actor/crew birthdays added in, it'd be pretty well filled in.

As for updating, it would update itself. The code is simple and works like this:


 *  On August 27 in... 



It produces the text "On August 27 in..." followed by the text from the template "Template:August 27". All the work that needs to be done is on each individual template page. --Proudhug 01:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, ok that's good then. This could replace the Trivia section because I'm finding it increasingly hard to find good enough trivia to use. My sources are beginning to dry up and unless anyone else can find some, this would seem like a good replacment. --24 Administration 16:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It updates itself? Oh, I see how it works. Cool beans!! I agree with 24 Administration, it would be great as long as there's enough stuff to fill it with. The Dark Shadows one is really impressive. --StBacchus 10:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright
Team Bacchus is working on categorizing all the images. This will require writing to the image description page of every image. While we're at it, I thought it would be a good idea to add a copyright notice, since we're supposed to have one.

Doom Wiki has a variety of copyright tags that can be selected from a dropdown menu when the image is uploaded. We only use screenshots, book covers, and publicity shots, but I still think it could be a useful tool. Meanwhile, I adapted Wikipedia's screenshot template for our use: Template:Fairuse. Thoughts? --StBacchus 11:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Unnamed characters
The question of how to deal with unnamed characters has arisen. This is something I've meant to address and work on at some point. Feel free to throw out other suggestions, of course, but I really like the way Memory Alpha handles unnamed characters. They're grouped into pages based on affiliation. So for instance, we'd create pages such as "Unnamed CTU agents", "Unnamed terrorists", "Unnamed politicians", "Unnamed civilians", etc. Those pages would then be broken down further with headings. The headings would probably be "Day 1", "Day 2", etc., or they could be more specific, such as "Ira Gaines", "Syed Ali", "Habib Marwan", etc., and "David Palmer administration", "John Keeler Administration", "Charles Logan administration", etc. I'm not sure how to handle characters who aren't as easily categorized, but perhaps there can be a separate blanket page just for them. --Proudhug 16:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me. I would add "Unnamed peace officers," "Unnamed media," and "Unnamed medical staff" as well. There are a lot of reporters, doctors, and cops (possibly also enough airline staff). I like the idea of doing politicians by administration and terrorists by leader, and that's a natural season division anyway. The CTU agents could be sorted first into field vs. desk (maybe administration also?), and day after that. I think "civilians" will work as a catch-all for anybody who doesn't fit into the categories above. --StBacchus 12:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that our next project could be creating a page that lists all the characters that dont have names where an article can be written about them. I was thinking doing it by season.

First of all, note that I suck at wiki markup language. So I hacked and mended the template from the list of articles on the season pages.

Here is an example in my sandbox of the first episode. I'm sure someone who knows what they are doing could create a template to go by that makes it look better.

These actors all got credits by speaking/and or acting in this show, but don't have articles because they wernt given a name. It's hard to make an article about someone credited as "Terrorist" since more than a handful of people have. What do you think?--CWY2190 03:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Check out these for ideas on what I was talking about earlier:


 * Klingons
 * DS9 personnel
 * Starfleet personnel

Shiny New Logos
I was feeling aesthetic, so I made some potential new logos and a tiling background.





As always, please let me know what you think! I wouldn't radically change the look of the site without permission. =) --StBacchus 16:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I really like the number background idea, but think it would look better with a bigger tile, so there'd be less repetition. As for the logos, I have to admit I'm very partial to our current logo.  I don't know if it could be touched up or not, but I really like it the way it is. --Proudhug 16:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi everyone! It's been a while, but November is here and my addiction to 24 is warming back up.  Anyway, I prefer the current logo.  It works with the style of the site. —This unsigned comment is by CWY2190 (talk • contribs) 12:54, November 11, 2006.

You guys don't think a CTU-style logo works with the style of the site? --StBacchus 20:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not that a CTU-style logo doesn't work, it's just that the current one does. The A-Team-style font doesn't appeal to me, especially colored.  24 is about much more than CTU and military operations.  The simplicity of the current font suits the show better, IMO.  And if it ain't broke.... --Proudhug 22:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously, whether it's broke is a matter of opinion. I've never liked the current logo. Oh well, I may be able to come up with something that's more to everybody's liking later. --StBacchus 03:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never heard anything but good things about our logo, so I had no idea there were those who didn't like it. What exactly don't you like about it?  It's the normal "24" logo with the word "Wiki" added in.  I admit it could probably stand to be tweaked a little, but I think the current style is really cool.


 * I don't even remember who created the logo. 24 Administration, maybe? —This unsigned comment is by Proudhug (talk • contribs) 00:08, November 12, 2006.


 * Yeah, I think 24 Administration made the current logo. To be clear, I'm thrilled that he did. Nothing says "nobody home" like that generic Wikia thing.


 * What I don't like about it is exactly that it is the normal logo with the word Wiki added in. It's plain. I love the CTU logo, though, which is why I used that as a base. --StBacchus 11:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What about just the CTU symbol, with wiki 24 underneath it? Sort of as though 'Wiki 24' was a domestic unit of CTU?--Conspiracy Unit 05:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Then, what do we do if the show ever drops the CTU storylines? It's unlikely, but the show follows Jack not CTU.    StBacchus, what's the status of the number background thing?  I think that looks really awesome. --Proudhug 05:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If that happens, then a reversion may be in order. IF. And that isn't gonna happen in Season 6. At least, I hope not. --Conspiracy Unit 05:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Proudhug, it's funny you should say that, because I always thought the show could lose Jack but not CTU. I mean, it won't lose Jack, but it would be a total disaster to get rid of CTU. About the tile, you're right that it needs to be bigger. I'll give it a shot. Thanks for the feedback and ideas, everyone! --StBacchus 23:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've always thought the show could lose Jack and CTU. The show's premise is about the ticking clock; non-stop suspense in a 24-hour period.  It doesn't need to be about Jack Bauer, CTU, or terrorism, as long as it's exciting, on-the-edge of your seat story-telling.  Actually, I think the show could really benefit from moving away from these things, so as to avoid getting in a rut. --Proudhug 00:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is way, way off of topic. We're here to discuss the new logos, not whether or not the show should dump Jack or CTU. --Conspiracy Unit 05:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really. The discussion is about the core of the show and how that should be portrayed in our logo. --Proudhug 05:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, although I think it's asking a little much of the logo to encapsulate everything the show is about. It is about the military, but it's also about family, patriotism, terrorism, duty, friendship, loyalty, race relations, American society, and the human condition. Oh, and time! Which I wouldn't call a "theme" so much as a "format," but it's still important - just like the split screen and the ensemble cast.


 * Regardless of where the show might go in the future, CTU is very important right now. The CTU storylines have already touched on all the points I listed above. So have the White House storylines, but that perspective isn't unique to 24. Unique to this particular show are 1) real time and 2) CTU. At least one of those two things should be featured in the logo.


 * Of course, it doesn't matter how good my reasoning is if you just don't like the logos I made. ^_~ But discussing this has given me more ideas. --StBacchus 15:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Bacchus is right. The point of this discussion was whether or not the new logos were good. They are, by the way, and I just suggested another type. It really doesn't matter if the show veers away from CTU. If it does, and there's no more Chloe or Bill, I'll be sad, but I'll move on, and so will the wiki. It'll change accordingly. But that is a very, very big if. Still, Bacchus, could you try a full CTU logo with 'Wiki 24' underneath it, just to see how it looks? --Conspiracy Unit 05:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why, sure. I was going to wait until I had a new set, but since you asked.... Is this close to what you had in mind? --StBacchus 02:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I like it.--CWY2190 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I like that one too. (the one w/ the CTU logo and text underneath) But I read that the font they used for the behind the scenes for headings was Bank Gothic.  I have the font if anyone is willing to compose something else...--TheTrueAPlus 01:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The earlier logos all suffer from difficult-to-tead text, which breaks the first rule of logo-making. Our current logo not only perfectly conveys that it's part of the 24 property with the highly recognizable and iconic circle-24 logo, but the silver on black color scheme is simple, powerful and easy to read. I'm pretty sure that most casual 24 fans don't even know what the CTU logo looks like. Certainly not as many as would recognize the 24 logo.

StBacchus, you earlier complained that our current logo is nothing more than the 24 logo with the word "Wiki" in it (something which I think gives it power), yet you just "created" a logo which is nothing more than the CTU logo with the words "Wiki 24" under it. Why is it okay when you do it, but not 24 Administration? --Proudhug 03:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Proudhug, my apologies to you, but do you delight in causing trouble? This was just a test. Bacchus, it looks great, but I am a fan of the current logo, too. --Conspiracy Unit 04:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was unclear earlier. My problem isn't with what 24 Administration did to make it, and I certainly didn't mean to insult him in any way. Like implying that he did no work in creating it, I definitely didn't mean that.


 * My problem is that I don't like the silver-and-black logo. As I said, it's plain. Also, it incorporates no themes of the show, which I do not find preferable to incorporating the "wrong" themes. I do like the digital readout logo, which is far more recognizable and iconic, if those are honestly your criteria. However, I really don't think people will come to Wiki 24, see the CTU logo and get all confused. You can just say if you don't like the logos. You don't have to invent "reasons." --StBacchus 04:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure I don't like the earlier logos. I didn't realize it seemed like I was masking this. But the point is that I do like the current logo. I realize that the norm on the internet is to say "That rules!" or "That sucks!" and leave it at that, but I've always believed it's best to provide reasons for why you do or don't like something.

You don't like the silver and black, that's fair. It's been our logo nearly since we started over a year ago, so I've gotten used to it. It's our logo; It just is. I've never given it a second thought. I can't say I'm particularly a huge fan of the circle-24 logo myself, but it's been the logo for years, along with the digital one. The digital one makes more sense with the format of the show, but it's kinda crappy looking. The cirle one is more sleek and modern.

Maybe I'm also partial to the current logo because it fits our color scheme. Of course, the colors were chosen to match the logo, so if we changed the logo, we'd have to alter the color scheme. And I'm always adverse to lateral changes. --Proudhug 05:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Begrudgingly, I have to agree with you Proudhug. And, yes, while the norm may be 'that rules' or 'that sucks', its not the best way to go, as you have mentioned. You are right, the old digital logo was of a relatively poor quality, and the new one is quite well designed and matches the site perfectly. But still, as far as I can tell, the only appearance of the silver disc logo is the Season 4 DVDs. --Conspiracy Unit 05:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yellow does match the color scheme. Of course I considered that when I made the logos. I don't know what you guys mean when you say the digital logo looks crappy. You mean the screencap we have right now, or you just don't like the style of it? --StBacchus 06:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The silver logo appears on the Region 1 DVD sets for seasons two through five, as well as the CD soundtracks, all of the comic books, the Conspiracy mobisodes, and a lot of the TV commercials. The digital logo appears on everything else.

Wiki 24 used to have yellow instead of silver, but it was deliberately changed to make it look less like Memory Alpha. --Proudhug 08:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't suggesting changing anything but the logo and maybe the background. If it were up to me, I would put some yellow in the logo and leave everything else alone, so the logo pops out. Also, I just realized tonight that the last time I changed the category boxes, I made them look identical to MA. That wasn't intentional. I could change them again if you want. --StBacchus 08:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I really like the idea of a new logo... but like the ones where inestead of Counter Terrorist Unit -- United States of America, it says Wiki 24 -- World Wide Web or something like that. I really like the background idea, and this would be a really good move for the site. May, if we do not have that, we should just have a Wiki24 logo as the background. --BauerJ24 16:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

New Article Feature
A very clever person went and implemented this cool feature over at LOST Wiki. Then I came along and stole it. The way it works is, when you start a new page, you can click a button at the top to load our template for that type of page. Check it out:


 * Greg T. Bunny (actor)
 * Billy Bob (character)
 * Day 17 13:00pm-14:00pm (episode)

I could modify it to have any number of buttons that would be helpful, and change the templates that get loaded any way people want. Let me know what you think! --StBacchus 17:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is awesome, StBacchus! I had no idea we could do stuff like this.  This should prevent a lot of work for new editors and old editors alike.  No more having to reformat new pages. --Proudhug 15:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the hope! I'm going to leave BillK a very nice thank-you on his talk page. Meanwhile, if you (or anyone) have any thoughts on how to make them better, please feel free. Or if you want to edit the templates directly, they're located at Template:Newpage_actor, Template:Newpage_character, and Template:Newpage_episode. --StBacchus 03:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What file did you edit to put this feature in?--CWY2190 01:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * MediaWiki:Newarticletext. That page is protected like all pages in the MediaWiki namespace. The templates are just regular templates, though. --StBacchus 10:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)