9,386 Pages

Forum: The Situation Room > "Mentioned" cate change?

What do you all think of this idea? Over the period of a few days, I create several categories such as Category:Mentioned characters (Day 1) etc and fill them with all the characters that are currently found in Category:Mentioned characters. Then, I take the latter category and use it strictly as a parent categ for all the new, more specific categs (there won't be anymore articles in there). This will solve the age-old awkwardness of our current lack of any kind of Day category for these guys.

If you like the idea, how do you feel about the actual naming of the categs... would you prefer:

  1. Category:Day 1 mentioned characters — or,
  2. Category:Mentioned characters (Day 1) — or,
  3. Category:Mentioned characters of Day 1

I prefer option #1 or #2 at this time. Thoughts? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 10:41, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

I would say option 1, it's most similar to the kind of stuff we have now, no? I don't really mind either way for option 1 or 2. --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 00:32, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
I am in favour of this change, it would be great to split down the mentioned characters a bit more. Could we have a separate section for extended universe mentioned characters as well? Out of the options I have to say I prefer option 2 for the following reason: users who are not aware of the change will start typing 'mentioned characters' into the category box, so if option 1 was used they would never see that we have split them down, whereas with option 2 it makes it more obvious that you should be specific. If other users agree with this change I will be happy to help out with the switch or get it started myself--Acer4666 21:40, January 19, 2011 (UTC)
If no one has any objections I will get started on this change--Acer4666 14:17, January 20, 2011 (UTC)
And how about Category:Mentioned characters (EU) for all the other ones from non-seasons? I don't think each novel and comic should have its own mentioned characters category, like the Days will, because they will be so small. Perhaps sometime down the line, one or two EU sources will quantitatively earn such a unique category, at which point we would then sort it out like we're doing now for the Days. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 02:39, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
Also, Prequel/Sequel/Etc characters like Marcus Holt should be going in the EU mentions category, because they were not inside the confines of a season (Proudhug also considered Prequel-only characters to be EU, as well). Blue Rook  talk  contribs 03:55, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

On another note, I believe these categories should be after Cat:Characters and before the CTU/Police/Occupation categories. The only reason "Mentioned characters" was after the status categories was because the wiki had always been that way before. It makes more sense now to put the new categories in this other placement, to me. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 04:44, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 16:20, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
Haha I just did a big post about how it's a shame that proudhug and signorsimon weren't around anymore only to have an edit conflict with...simon himself! weird. But also I was asking if there is a convention for the ordering of categories - should living/deceased come before job? also why do some articles have 'characters' and 'day X characters' as categories?--Acer4666 16:35, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Heh! Gotta love that; been there myself a few times of course.
The convention (including our new additional component) that has developed here is outlined below. There are some exceptions but this is the general gist:

  1. Characters;
  2. Novel/Comics characters [if applicable];
  3. Day x characters or Mentioned (Day x) or specific novel(s)
  4. Job/Allegiance 1;
  5. Job/Allegiance 2 [etc.];
  6. Status;
  7. Unidentifiable/Unknown actor/Single episode [if applicable];
  8. Featured [if applicable]

So, jobs should appear fight before Status Category. At the moment I'm not sure if "Killed by Jack" should be before or after "Deceased" but it's obviously not important, nor is it a big deal if those two remain mixed (so long as those two are consecutive).
Also, I'm not sure I understand your last question. Can you rephrase it/expand on it? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 03:30, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Ah it's ok you have answered my last question, I just meant some articles don't have 'day x characters' as a category and some do, but now I see what the convention is. Thanks for all the help in getting me started here!--Acer4666 10:44, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
Having started sorting these characters out, a couple of questions came up:
1) Is it right that anyone who is mentioned in a novel must have their 'Storm Force characters' category removed, for example, and replaced with a 'Mentioned characters (EU)' one? How do you differentiate between appearances and mentions in novels, as they can sometimes be ambiguous?
2) Where does the 'Day X antagonists' category fit into your list above?
3) See Talk:Jacob_Baylor for my query about people who are mentioned in more than one media, and whether are not they can be classed as 'mentioned' or not.
Thank you! --Acer4666 18:21, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
1) I think we have to remove the "Storm Force/Specific Novel characters" and replace it with EU Mentioned, because this has definitely been discussed before and the consensus was that conclusion. Essentially, if the House Subcommittee talks about someone, they aren't a character of that specific novel because they didn't appear. They can still receive the very broad "novel characters" category however.
2) The Day X antagonists fits in right after that particular day if they were villains. So for Charles Logan as an example, it is Day 4 characters | Day 4 antagonists | Day 5 characters | Day 5 antagonists.
3) If Baylor's son was mentioned in Day 1 and then also mentioned in Findings, then he would get both categories: MentionedDay 1 and MentionedEU.
Please remember to use the commas in the alphabetization schemes, and to keep an eye out for the arrangements when changing categories. Although it does not matter terribly much, there are a few instances where you have moved the status category before the jobs/affiliation category. If you'd like to propose this arrangement then we can consider it, but otherwise we should just be consistent. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 22:40, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
Gotcha. Sorry about the commas I didn't realise it would affect the sorting - what are the views on DEFAULTSORT for people with first and surnames? It makes it a little easier for changing categories, especially if they are ever changed in the future--Acer4666 22:45, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
DEFAULTSORT is very good, but not mandatory. It makes the most sense for articles with many categories (or, the potential to gain many categs). The only time it gets funny is when an article was Featured: in such cases, a specific sort needs to be utilized to override DEFAULTSORT because the Featured Articles Category is an unusual category because it's arranged strictly by article title, and surnames have nothing to do with it. Feel free to use DEFAULTSORT... with the commas, too ;) Blue Rook  talk  contribs 06:55, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree that we shouldn't bring up any random mentioned character in the comics but fortunately that was never the real case. Instead, they simply have characters who are later revealed as traitors (Logan) or even the contact of Jack's who is strangled in Day 1 and Saunders from Day 3 make appearances as relevant to their prequel storyline.

Really, the only mentions that would end up being talked about would be material like all the Declassified Books where people like Curtis Manning are mentioned as "the new guy" in Washington, D.C. but if they're a random rival candidate of Palmer's or someone that Bauer mentions he was pals with in college then that can just be left for the reader to know about should they make the effort to get these books (unlikely as it is) and left off this wikia.--Gunman6 19:25, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.