9,373 Pages

Forum: The Situation Room > Cheng shooter who killed Audrey

I know they are rules about unnamed characters, but we should make one exception since Cheng's shooter was the one who killed Audrey in LAD, which is kind of important to the plot. So it is pretty important issue to discuss. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:18, March 28, 2015 (UTC)

I concur that this should be an exception given how this is a key impact in the plot regardless of the character not uttering any audible dialogue. I've had this same issue with key characters and how a simple painful moan or other last-minute yelp doesn't qualify either.--Gunman6 (talk) 18:29, March 28, 2015 (UTC)
There are no exceptions made to policies - if an uncredited, no dialogue character is included then there is nothing to stop every extra and minor backgroud nobody being listed. We have a rule about this and exceptions are not made. It's exactly why Blue Rook started up a personal project page listing forbidden characters he deemed important. How important characters are is always a matter of personal opinion, so a personal project page is the perfect (and only) place they can be listed. Let me know if you need help setting up a page similar to Blue Rook's--Acer4666 (talk) 17:19, April 6, 2015 (UTC)
Noted on the personal project page by Blue Rook. But the issue is that the assassin who has no dialogue killed Audrey, who was one of the main character in LAD and that's why it should be discussed. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:39, April 6, 2015 (UTC)
Random unnamed assassins picking off major characters is a constant theme in 24. Scott Baylor, Richard Walsh, Robert Ellis, Jonathan Wallace, Peter Kingsley, Claudia Hernandez, Diana White, Omar, Henry Powell, Dina Araz, Koo Yin, James Nathanson, Sarah, Nabeel, etc etc, were all killed by "forbidden" characters. Like, they have varying degrees of importance, so it's a slippery slope to start including some of their killers based on arbitrary criteria of relative importance of the victim. You're free to "discuss" it as much as you like, but not make a character entry on the mainspace articles--Acer4666 (talk) 18:07, April 6, 2015 (UTC)
Then let's vote for a change in policy in either this thread or the next.--Gunman6 (talk) 18:16, April 6, 2015 (UTC)
Except we don't vote for changes in policy, it's done through consensus, discussion and presentation of legitimate reasons for a change, and I don't see any here--Acer4666 (talk) 20:16, April 6, 2015 (UTC)
The issue here is that the ones you mentioned above are mainly guest characters in their respective seasonal appearances. Audrey was a main character in LAD and she was killed by an unnamed assassin with no dialogue, so that should be discussed. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:35, April 6, 2015 (UTC)
If we need to, we can vote on a change in that way of changing policies through whatever means and then vote on this part of the rule of thumb. Reasons, legitimate or not, have been discussed if not fully given and can continued to be discussed as opposed to more of the same "No, I disagree/don't think so/not happening" responses that are continuing to pop up here.--Gunman6 (talk) 20:42, April 6, 2015 (UTC)
What you're suggesting is changing the inclusion policy that currently reads:
Of the hundreds of characters lacking names, only a select handful are eligible for inclusion for their own entries in the unnamed characters pages. Primarily, unnamed characters with co-star credits receive such entries. Additionally any significant character with dialogue is also eligible; in practice, this means limiting it to characters for which a useful and illustrative image can be shown unless the spoken words are especially prominent.
And changing it to read:
Of the hundreds of characters lacking names, only a select handful are eligible for inclusion for their own entries in the unnamed characters pages. Primarily, unnamed characters with co-star credits receive such entries. Additionally any significant character with dialogue is also eligible. Additionally, any character who, during the course of the show, has killed a character whose actor received "main star" billing in the credits of the season. In practice, this means limiting it to characters for which a useful and illustrative image can be shown unless the spoken words are especially prominent.
This is a completely random and convoluted addition to that policy that sticks out like a sore thumb. Having such a specific set of criteria that you have just made up in order to include this one particular edge case is a nonsensical way of forming policies. Gunman6, the way decisions are made here, as per Wikipedia's guidelines, are not going to change to a voting system just because you don't like it--Acer4666 (talk) 21:01, April 6, 2015 (UTC)
I think that idea is better because it would avoid adding unnamed characters who have no dialogue and such, but to add the ones who killed a character whose actor received a "Main star" billing in the credits in a season. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:12, April 6, 2015 (UTC)
But I just don't see the need or importance of changing a policy just to add two sentences about a random character that happened to kill a member of the main cast. Like Acer said before, the importance we attribute to characters is completely subjective and personal. If Sandra Palmer (also a member of the main cast) would've been killed by an unnamed shooter, I doubt we would be having this discussion; and making changes to the policy just for the purpose of adding this particular unnamed character seems like jumping through too many hoops with little encyclopedic benefit. Thief12 (talk) 00:51, April 7, 2015 (UTC)
Again, it's not about who agrees or disagrees or who follows what policy on what wiki. It's about making it easier to find unnamed characters and this is a death-laden show. Having a table filled with the shocking fatalities on the show maybe be enough for some while others will want a visual aide of key murderers on the show. Most wikias will even have various articles related to unknown/identified characters, locations or vehicles and yet we always just shy away from it because many users are uncomfortable with these notions for various reasons and we want to keep making rules that aren't necessarily useful all the time. We don't have to be no-nonsense like Jack Bauer but we don't have to be overtly-bureaucratic like Ryan Chappelle either. We add more to this detailed wiki especially since we're hoping for more detail. Less isn't always more.--Gunman6 (talk) 01:00, April 7, 2015 (UTC)
This is a discussion about policy, which everyone on this site must follow. You are trying to suggest a change in policy (because we do not make unwritten exceptions to policy). We have explained why this change is not logical, and if we allow this one shooter then it would also, by exactly the same argument, allow a whole host of other forbidden characters to be added to the unnamed page. They would become so large they would not be useful. So that is why we cannot allow this one exception, or unlimited exceptions (can't tell which out of those two you want Gunman6). If you're suggesting a free for all where we ignore policy, that is of course out of the question--Acer4666 (talk) 14:59, April 7, 2015 (UTC)
Out of the question as in "No, I don't feel like changing it." or "No, I want to stay true to whatever the wiki policies claim"?--Gunman6 (talk) 15:25, April 7, 2015 (UTC)
Hold it, both of you. While some policies would have to be met for a good reason, there are some policies that can contradict something good and more this wiki. In the real world, some governments have amend some policies because they can contradict something good and right from it. They are policies that can contradict something good in websites and have been amended. Sometimes we have to amend some policies in any wikis, including this wiki for a good reason. It's just one change about unnamed characters, which one unnamed assassin with no dialogue killed Audrey Boudreau, whose actress was a Main cast member in LAD. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:33, April 7, 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, Battleshipman, do not tell me or anyone else to "hold it". You invited me to this discussion, and if you want to change the policy you need to gain consensus, and if you tell me to shut up then you will not get that.
As for your proposed policy change: it is not logical at all. The type of credit of an actor portraying a character who gets killed by a 2nd character has no bearing on the relative importance of that second character. You are making the change purely to include this one extra forbidden character who you personally feel deserves to be listed on the unnamed characters. However, there are other characters I personally think are more important than someone who gets ~5 seconds of screen time, and certainly Blue Rook has a whole list of other forbidden characters he thinks are important enough. But the policies are not there to serve personal wishes, they are a practical and impartial set of rules so we have a sensible number of characters listed.
Gunman6, it is out of the question to have a free for all where we ignore policy because that would be chaos. Everyone must abide by the policies or community editing cannot happen, this is the case on every single wiki. If you don't want to follow policy, you cannot edit here. Policies can be changed through consensus, but until they are they must be followed.--Acer4666 (talk) 16:02, April 7, 2015 (UTC)
First of all, Acer. I wasn't trying to tell you to shut up. I was trying to tell both you and Gunman6 to settle down.
Some of the policies do serve a parctical and impartial set of rules which would allow to make this wiki clean and encyclopedic as possible. It's just that some of the important characters who we're killed by forbidden characters are Guest characters while Audrey was the Main character in LAD when she was killed by a unnamed assassin with no dialogue and some people would feel that something like that could be added to list of unnamed type of characters. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:20, April 7, 2015 (UTC)
Battleshipman, you have been warned about your attitude several times in the past and need to take this warning on board. "hold it" means stop, and telling someone to stop, shut up, settle down, or any form of talking down to people in debates is unacceptable. I am responding to the points that have been raised.
Unfortunately our policies do not stretch to accommodate people's feelings; as I pointed out, other people feel differently so an impartial policy is the only thing that will work in this instance. You are more than welcome to make an entry on a personal userpage about this character--Acer4666 (talk) 16:33, April 7, 2015 (UTC)
Let's have what Blue Rook has to say about this issue and see if he can add Audrey's assassin on his forbidden characters page if that issue cannot change that policy. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:40, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your vote of confidence guys, even despite my lack of presencein past couple of months. This issue definitely brought back the memory of some tough feelings for me, which I haven't thought about in years and years.

On April 19, 2007, I created an article labeled Unnamed conspirators (Day 5) and populated it with some information about the then-unnamed Robert Joseph + his mystery pal. Most of you are probably aware on some level of my somewhat-unsettling fixation on these shadowy figures. Well back then it was in full swing: I had even started a rambling fanfic about them. And yet, in just a few hours, someone came along, blanked it, and redirected the whole thing to another article. Some editors and I then had this Talk. If I seem relatively composed in the writings, you must trust that I was not. I remember sweating. It was just over a week since I had joined the project, and I had been preview-sandboxing this page for days before finally creating it. I hoped it would "take off", and yet, suddenly it was gone: swept away by the very people who I thought would run with it. And no dissenting support from the community for bringing it back. Then, after I acquiesced and nominated the page myself for deletion, the deleting admin at the time left a comment ("alas page! I hardly knew ye!") in the deletion log, which was at best confusing, and at worst, actually quite embittering.

My point to BattleshipMan and Gunman6 with all this, is that I've been in a very similar situation, and had probably identical feelings to what you are feeling now. Perhaps even worse... think about this detail: at the time of that event (the page histories confirm this), the unnamed character pages did not contain the now-famous line "with spoken lines and/or credited actors". So everything was especially unclear to me. And yet, in the end, I came to support this inclusion policy.

In the scheme of things, the forbidden characters are mostly just background noise, or red herrings for dramatic tension. However, there are countless hundreds of named characters with complete articles who are, by any sane measure, even more useless. Fucking Carlos Corretja gets his own article? with 6 categories, an intro, sidebar, and a full paragraph? And meanwhile, the Sentox-gassed girl gets nothing? a character who was central to one of the most tense, emotional, and memorable scenes of Day 5 has no specific place in the encyclopedia?

The reason is: the description of the Sentox girl you just read is 100% subjective. It's my own opinion. Probably a ton of viewers thought that scene was lame and predictable... completely forgettable. A part of me wishes she could be an exception, the same way some editors want an exception for their preferred character. What if I argued that duration-of-total-screen-time could be an inclusion criteria? Then she could be added because I could adjust the number of seconds to include her onscreen time. By that measure, Audrey's murderer still remains forbidden: how many seconds was he barely visible for? Like three? But the grounds for my exception would be arbitrary. Just like the grounds for Audrey's murderer here. We all can construct a new rule to argue adding our individual exceptions...

  • "screen time" to accommodate the Sentox girl...
  • "killing a character who was portrayed by a first-billed performer" to accommodate Audrey's murderer...
  • "non-dialogue verbal sounds" to accommodate various guys who went argh...

But as you can see any such undertaking is completely arbitrary. As such, while recognizing the emotions involved in all this, I support the position that this character should not be added, and the inclusion criteria remain unamended. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 04:53, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

I figured this would be the route that it went since people do get emotional about adding someone without any dialogue. And yet this still doesn't help make the online encyclopedia navigable for viewers who do want to know about random unnamed/unknown characters. It also never made sense why anyone yelling in pain didn't account as dialogue. Words are still words, whether inaudible or not. --Gunman6 (talk) 05:57, April 10, 2015 (UTC)
My whole point was that it is 100% impossible for the encyclopedia to be navigable for such unnamed characters who don't have dialogue. There's no navigable way to do it, fundamentally. Every single background face would have to be included. ...unless we start making arbitrary exceptions for user requests subjectively. Since we cannot include all of them, and it is senseless to pick arbitrary exceptions, it isn't possible.
Also, as Proudhug established in the past, shouting argh is not a speaking a word. Yes, it does come from the mouth like words, but it is non-word noise, like burping, coughing, sneezing... for the purposes of this encyclopedia, it is in a "non-word body sounds category", in the same family as clapping, knuckle-cracking, farting, queefing, etc. Shit, I remember popping a zit back in grade school that had so much pressure behind it, it made an audible sound that was a cross between a quick little "rip" sound and a quiet "puff" of air. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 18:49, April 10, 2015 (UTC)
Whatever you say, Blue Rook. It's just that "killing a character who was portrayed by a first-billed performer" could become a new rule in unnamed characters, like you tried to do so with the Sentox girl in the past. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:04, April 10, 2015 (UTC)
Apologies if I made it seem like I had actually raised a Talk to get Sentox-girl an entry in the unnamed pages. It was only a hypothetical "what if" proposition for this thread. But more directly: how could it really be possible to accept this rule you are proposing? Please consider what would happen next. If we made this exception, would it mean that we then "shut the door" on future exception requests? Imagine if Acer wanted to include a Forbidden character on Unnamed FBI agents, and said "let's amend the inclusion criteria so we can include such-and-such guy". And imagine if some other editors and I supported Acer's proposal, added the guy, and then me and him made sure that his favorite guy would not be erased from the unnamed FBI page. Then, you came along and said "I want to add Audrey's murderer because he killed a character portrayed by a first-billed performer". If me and Acer and other editors said "yes", what prevents a third user from asking for a third exception? And a fourth? Or, if we said "no", wouldn't you be furious? It would be arbitrary favoritism if we said "no" to subsequent exceptions, and, it would be un-navigable anarchy if we accepted all requests. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 18:49, April 10, 2015 (UTC)
I'm not asking for other exceptions. Just one thing to amend since Audrey was portrayed by a "first-billed performer" and that should be amended and the other requests would be ignored if you don't want un-navigable anarchy. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:58, April 10, 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, sounds are still uttered using the vocal cords, regardless of whether or not they might form actual words. I would still be for that particular exception as I find it rather "unsound". I'm all for including any character regardless once more because again it's already subjective enough that we're choosing to exclude characters simply because they didn't say anything (much like we refused to list a key location because it wasn't given an address). We also have characters who much like Robert Joseph, were only obtained from the end episode credits or trading cards yet neither uttered a word nor were that huge a character. No one likes it when a group plays it safe so I see no reason to keep making exceptions. Just best to rewrite it and be done with it as opposed to hours more of "Nah, let's not" or "Well, just this once."--Gunman6 (talk) 20:53, April 10, 2015 (UTC)
If we did what you recommend Gunman, assuming I understand it correctly, then every single background face would be in the unnamed pages. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 01:19, April 15, 2015 (UTC)
At this rate, we might as well given how a wikia typically should be informative and not subjected to only a list of people considered relevant. --Gunman6 (talk) 09:34, April 15, 2015 (UTC)
To put it mildly, that would be inconvenient, if not to say ridiculous. To have hundreds of entries of worthless characters, all of them saying the same line ("This lady ran in the subway that was attacked" or "this man walked past Jack Bauer in the street") would be a detriment to the Wiki, and again, absolutely ridiculous. It would unnecessarily clog the Wiki with mostly useless information, thus detracting from real useful information on relevant characters. Thief12 (talk) 12:36, April 15, 2015 (UTC)
Wow, I'm shocked that this discussion is still going on. I get the point of BattleshipMan and Gunman who don't wanna make exceptions for unnamed characters, who are in "their eyes just as relevant as main or guest characters". However, and in that have they right, some unnamed characters say words, but don't get a page (and I know it's because of the rules), but a character who hadn't said a thing, like Robert Joseph gets a page. They're saying that it's therefor unfair to give someone a page who hasn't said any word at all, and the one who says something doesn't get any page. By the way, I'm not choosing any way, I'm choosing the right way and that's what the best is for the Wiki itself. I'm not going to argue like a little child. That's not my style, and I'm not referring to any user who reads this on this forum. --Station7 (talk) 22:37, April 15, 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify, if an unnamed character "says words", he/she doesn't get a page, but he/she does get an entry in the respective "Unnamed characters" article. Thief12 (talk) 01:12, April 16, 2015 (UTC)
I know that, but it was an example. That's what the guys here are trying to say. The articles are unfair. that's what they are saying. About that unnamed characters projct, I know that. --Station7 (talk) 07:44, April 16, 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's our mission to say what we believe is useless, only be helpful and list stuff on the wiki that people are looking for. And if one is using the same lines then it's clearly time for them to be creative as opposed to lazy. --Gunman6 (talk) 23:51, April 15, 2015 (UTC)
Look, I understand the rules, but sometimes a few little things would need to be amended. Audrey was portrayed by a first-billed performer and she was killed by an unnamed character with no dialogue and that's an issue. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:19, April 16, 2015 (UTC)
Do you honestly think that some random user will come to this Wiki browsing for "Chinese dude that killed Audrey"? or isn't it more logical to think that he/she would look for Audrey's page if he wants to see who killed her (which would be readily available in Audrey's infobox/sidebar)? And let's imagine that we did add the guy to the "Unnamed characters" article, what information would be there?
"This henchman stood in wait outside the park. When Audrey was being escorted out, he shot them fatally injuring Audrey and then fled"
Not much else to add there, and all of that information is already on Audrey's article, as well as on the episode page, and probably on a bunch of other articles. What purpose and benefit will that entry bring to the Wiki that will make it easier for fans to find that information? Thief12 (talk) 01:10, April 16, 2015 (UTC)
Since this keeps coming down to the civilians (of which there are countless), we could simply amend the rules to where any unnamed or uncredited federal agent or terrorist on the show is listed so that way we don't have to keep making exceptions to who does or doesn't get listed. That way, we do not have to keep having these conversations and continue debates over who is or isn't relevant as they're the two groups of people that drive this show: Federal agents Vs. Terrorists. We're always trying to organize who played either type of role and most of the background performers/stuntmen are the ones who portrayed either FBI/CTU members or the various villains so it wouldn't have to be a debate as to who gets listed. By being a member of all of one of the forces that drive the conflict and mayhem on this show, they instantly become relevant. Not including civilians does make sense on second thought since aside from the never-ending number shown on this show, one could make a case for their relevancy.

Plus, let's face it; who does the typical wiki visitor look for when they're not looking for who played who, who created what, who killed who, who is who? They're looking for all the various heroes and villains as the good versus evil is the general requirement for any story to take shape. If we just list all the heroes and villains, we're finally aiming for the overall complete factor we keep striving for.--Gunman6 (talk) 01:38, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're bringing up now about "any unnamed or uncredited federal agent or terrorist". I thought the "issue" you two were bringing up was with unnamed characters that had a "key impact in the plot regardless of the character not uttering any audible dialogue" (that's a quote from you) like the shooter that killed a "member of the main cast", and now all of a sudden, you're talking about ANY unnamed agent and terrorist regardless of whether they speak or not, or their overall relevance? You have to sit back and figure out what is the exact purpose and goal of what you are proposing, before actually proposing it.
As for the idea about "any unnamed agent or terrorist", again, that would be ridiculous, considering the amount of background agents and terrorists that appear in this show. The "unnamed agents" and "unnamed terrorists" articles would be endlessly filled with filler. As it is now, we already create actor pages for any background actor we identify (like Jon Wennington, Daniel Dow, Danny Hebert, David Blake, etc.) regardless of whether their characters speak or not, but I don't see the need to add endless entries about every single unnamed background character, most of which would have virtually no information and little relevance.
The best alternative I can think of is to use the "Role on 24" section that we sometimes use in actor pages to add a bit more information on what the background actor did on the show (see Jermel Nakia and Rimmel Daniel for examples). If the actor that played the "Cheng shooter" is ever identified, all the relevant information about the "unnamed character" could go there, just like it would also be on Audrey's article like I said before. I really fail to see what additional benefit we could get from listing him in the "Unnamed terrorists" article when all we need is already on the Wiki in multiple, easy-to-find places. Thief12 (talk) 00:44, April 17, 2015 (UTC)
Well, I didn't even know he was already identified. Anyway, I already added a bit more information here. Thief12 (talk) 00:45, April 17, 2015 (UTC)
BattleshipMan brought up the exception to Audrey's uncredited/unspoken killer while I'm building on it and saying that terrorists should be listed regardless as it's part of the show's key material. The fact that there are several FBI/CTU agents and terrorists who are part of the day's events makes them instantly relevant.
The actors are listed only by episodes or for when the pages are suggested under similar pages. The problem is that their characters are not listed where they could easily be found which is on the Unnamed Terrorists/Agents pages. Adding numerous civilians I can understand as being an awful option but those two opposing forces are key characters, dialogue or not. I've already stated that since we're always wondering who played who that it would also be easier for people to navigate and find the roles easier on the Unnamed characters pages as opposed to go to EACH individual performer's page. That's far less scrolling when it's all there on one huge page. Given with how many people we're already trying to find, it's already rather ridiculous that we're asking "What's the purpose?" when it's the same as listing all the other credited/uncredited characters with dialogue as even those guys have five-second scenes but yet were relevant because they're following the main characters and are part of what's having today's attempts to stop an attack/start an attack.--Gunman6 (talk) 23:44, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has spun out into a disassociated "shotgun blast" of numerous, mutually-exclusive arguments, all aimed at getting Audrey's murderer on the terrorists page. First, he should be the only exception. Next, we need to include every single character ever. Now, we need to include every single agent and terrorist.
Gunman just as you are saying that terrorists and agents are part of the show's "key material", I could say that they are 100% background filler, simply bodies to drop during various shootout scenes since this is an action show. Your statement and mine are both opinions. Opinions cannot have a place if deciding to change these inclusion criteria. This is getting frustrating. It is like certain editors are intentionally refusing to acknowledge that arbitrary exceptions are not permissible, and then changing the argument to some other inclusion criteria to see if that will persuade anyone else. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 18:36, April 23, 2015 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.