WHY are there no character analyses? All I've seen in character articles are summaries of what they did during the Days they appeared in. If this wiki is intended only for people who have never seen 24, then that might be okay. But for fans of the show who have watched it and already know what happens, character summaries are completely useless. Someone should be analyzing characters' actions and understanding those things about them that go unspoken or unmentioned. For example, rather than just saying in the summary for Day 2 that Jack Bauer killed a man in cold blood and cut his head off as part of an undercover operation, a character analysis section would go one further and say that Jack Bauer is willing to do anything to get the job done, no matter how extreme. If I wanted to know what a character did I would watch the show; if I wanted to know WHY the character did it, I would look in a wiki. So far, this one has told me nothing of the whys, only the whats. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11
- That's not what encyclopedias ever do. People could surmise and effectively defend all manner of motivations while analyzing any character's action. Who's to say who is correct? I am unsure where you got your definition of a wiki from. Wikis are supposed to be online encyclopedias, documenting what occurred in a certain microcosm. Besides, even if we all magically agreed on why all characters did all their deeds, the pages would be bloated to explosion with that stuff. It's impossible in theory and in practice. – Blue Rook 19:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)talkcontribs
- To add to Blue Rook's response, let me just say that analyses are certainly welcome on Wiki 24, as long as they're objective analyses. Keep in mind that, as an encyclopedia, this site strives to be neutral and objective at all times. As such, surmising the reasons for a characters actions does not fit within our guidelines. We're not here to figure the show out, we're here to document and archive all known information, so that others can come to their own conclusions about the things that "go unspoken or unmentioned." I couldn't disagree more about character summaries being completely useless for fans who have watched the show and "already know what happens." I've seen each season dozens of times and still can't remember every detail. Things like this are extremely useful for people who want to refresh their memory or look things up for use in fanfic. --Proudhug 23:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll concede to both arguments, but there has to be a middle ground between the character summaries as they are now and the inflated analyses Rook is predicting. Watching 24 is a better way to find out what happens to everyone than reading a wiki is, and as a result I think more can be done to make this wiki better than what it is now: a recap that is more boring to read than the show is fun to watch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168
- Have you never read an encyclopedia? It's meant as a resource for information, not a source of entertainment. Many people do find it entertaining, myself included, but no one's pretending there isn't a huge difference between reading Wiki 24 and watching the TV show itself. Despite Wiki 24 having all the exact same information as the TV show and nothing more, there's a significant difference between an organized repository of facts and a story narrative. You must realize this. While we're thrilled by those who find this site entertaining, that's not our purpose. The point of the site is to organize all of the given information so that it's more accessible and useful to people. Sure you can find out Jack's birthday, father's name and place of birth by watching the show and all of its spin-offs, but if you can't remember exactly where to find these things, it's a simple matter of searching for "Jack Bauer" on Wiki 24. This site is far from useless without filling in the blanks for people. --Proudhug 22:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I fully agree with Proudhug. This is meant as an INFORMATION resource, not a OPINIONATED resource, because analysis of character is basically your opinion of a character, and loads of people will have different opinions and the whole site will just become a editing war and this is meant to tell you the FACTS. Character analysis doesn't belong on this site. - Protocol Red 03:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could have both - as far as I know, the Wikipedia article for Jack Bauer has a characteristicss section, which does explain more in depth his personality; for example, willing to sacrifice his life to save others, his abillity to put aside emotions and make tough desicions, including killing a friend, and how his work can sometimes get his friends and family targeted. MoChan 03:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, as I said, objective analyses are acceptable, however no one's ever undertaken the task. --Proudhug 02:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if that's the case, is there a problem copying over the section, or parts of it, from Wikipedia? - MoChan 23:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Legally, there's no problem, but I personally don't like the idea of copying things from other sites, even other wikis. I'd rather take pride in Wiki 24 being being entirely made up of our own original research. Does anyone agree with me? --Proudhug 02:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree also. The notion that our community specifically created the material found here is ideal.
- Yet, if enough folks clamor for borrowing some Wikipedia stuff, then that is the consensus even though I wouldn't partake in it. All I would ask is that if people begin to shift some material from wikipedia, they cite it specifically as such with a numbered attribution footnote dealy-thing. But we'll cross that bridge if and when we get there. – Blue Rook 04:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)talkcontribs
- I'm fine with creating original material and not borrowing from Wikipedia. All I think that we should do is add some characteristics to Jack Bauer's and maybe a few other character's pages (which, in a way, is quite simillar to the "Bauer-Almeida Connection.") -MoChan 17:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that "The Bauer-Almeida Connection" was deleted for a reason. That page was merely a synopsis of events between Jack and Tony and provided zero insight into any supposed "connection" they had. --Proudhug 22:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, but this is supposed to detail something besides the plot. The bottom line is, can someone write this up for Jack's page? -MoChan 03:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be a little bit more insight into ambiguous events that happen. What makes this wiki so great are pages like 'weapons used by jack bauer', where someone who has studied the program with specific knowledge can provide information that you can't get from just watching. I'm trying myself to do vehicles, phones and locations (along with many others I'm sure). But why can this sort of thing be done to events? A prime example would be Nina Myers' deception in series 1 and her link to Jamey - did she hire Jamey? Why did she kill Jamey? Why was she so instrumental in Gaines' defeat? Surely from analysing the facts and just a smidgen of guesswork we can answer these questions definitively?--Acer4666 20:24, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
- The pages that you mention (your favorites like the weapons pages) are oou articles which identify stage props to real world items, etc. There is no analogous article for the idea you have here — guesswork to fill in the blanks about iu show events. That would be merely speculation. Although I understood your good intentions when you said "guesswork", it is not permissible as a matter of policy in the iu content areas and some other places in the Main namespace.
- You can definitely put this in User space however. 06:05, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
- Haha feels like I left this comment ages ago, was before I properly started contributing to the wiki. I think I probably expressed myself wrongly. But just out of curiousity, one of the things I notice about IU articles is how much they are written literally from the audience's perspective. This isn't a proper example, but you often get stuff like
- 'Tony was working on his computer, then he went up the stairs to George Mason's office and explained that he spoke to the LAPD ten minutes ago. He explained that they told him a woman matching Teri Bauer's description was seen wandering around Griffith Park.'
- Instead of:
- 'Tony spoke to the LAPD, who told him that a woman matching Teri Bauer's description was seen at Griffith Park. He then worked on his computer, before going up to George Mason's office to pass the information on'
- Is this intentional? It seems that often events are described in the exact manner that we as a TV audience see them, instead of how they actually happened IU.
- I'd quite like to use a teeny bit of assumption in some articles, examples being:
- At the start of Day 1: 2:00pm-3:00pm, Milo tells Tony that Alexis Drazen arrived in LA later than the other assassins, after stopping in DC for two days, which didn't make sense. Cut to Alexis Drazen in bed with Elizabeth Nash, who says 'I didn't think you'd call after DC'. Can we assume that Alexis stopped in DC to see Elizabeth Nash, even though it doesn't explicitly state that?
- Also at the start of that episode, Nina gets a call from someone and says that she's going to the safe house. Later, Tony says 'I just spoke with Nina, and she said she's going to the safe house.'. In the CBSA's can we list that as a phone call between Nina and Tony?
- I know these are specific examples, I just wanted to get a feel of what sort of assumption can be worked into articles. What I said above about Nina and Jamey came from the fact that when the possibility of a 'second mole' was mentioned, Jack stated 'someone had to recruit Jamey'. Then Nina is revealed as that mole, and ends up killing Jamey to keep her quiet. Does this imply that Nina recruited Jamey? Or too much assumption?--Acer4666 14:05, February 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Aha you're referring to stuff that was mentioned by someone else to have happened to another character off-screen. That stuff is definitely good to include, even though we didn't see it explicitly, as long as we restate the original context "as reported by Tony, a woman matching Teri's description..." and also check to make sure it wasn't a lie or mistake later. The whole "as reported by X" and "as discussed between Y and Z" phrases are a great way to cover our asses about mentioned events. 16:16, February 20, 2011 (UTC)