9,386 Pages

Forum: The Situation Room > Unnamed characters

What should I do with the guy played by Tony Wayne who was a phone archives worker? He's unnamed but I doubt he is an agent. Should I stick him in the unnamed civilians area?

On the unnamed characters topic, I believe unnamed terrorists should be changed to unnamed antagonists, or perhaps more importantly it be treated as such. I know this was tried earlier but reverted. Yet, the line between a terrorist and the hazy category of "other antagonist" is so blurry that I think it useless. Otherwise we would have to start doing things like "unnamed non-terrorist henchmen/women". – Blue Rook 20:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)talkcontribs

"Unnamed antagonists" makes far less sense than "Unnamed terrorists." The two teenagers in episode 3 were antagonists, as well as the CHP officers in episode 10. It's much more logical to categorize people into their affiliations (with "civilians" housing the leftovers), rather than their dramatic story usage. "Terrorist" is sort of a blanket villain category right now, but if an unnamed Secret Service agent or politician or security guard is also terrorist, they'll go on the page for their affiliation, rather than "Unnamed terrorists." Ideally, the category probably shouldn't exist at all, but replacing it with "Unnamed antagonists" would be a step in the wrong direction, not an improvement. --Proudhug 02:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree now that "antagonists" is best not used there. But when you said 1. the category ideally shouldn't exist at all, and 2. that an unnamed terrorist working as a security guard should be placed among the security guards, I disagree.

Ideally it shouldn't exist at all? I think it's one of the most useful of the bunch! I see that you say its more logical to place the unnamed by affiliation instead of dramatic story usage, and the examples, but (not trying to be a kvetch here) I don't grasp the reason as yet.

I'm almost positive that if there was a survey of some kind, people would prefer to have the terrorist-aligned villains on their own page rather than spread out among everyone else. My point is, unnamed thiefs and robbers and rapists (who don't know anything about their season's terror conspiracy) would be listed among the Unnamed Civilians, or flight personel or CTU agents if they were as such. Yet, people who happen to be secret service, CTU, civilian, cops, what-have you, who also are terrorist conspirators, they should be listed in the terrorist page. My reasoning for the point is this: a terrorist only masquerades as a civilian, a flight attendant, a medic, a Secret Service or CTU agent, but in the reality of 24, they are terrorists after you boil it down. (Surely you wouldn't say that an unnamed character who is a terrorist working as a Secret Service agent has the afilliation of the secret service, right? The guy's a terrorist, his affiliation is terrorists.)

The best way determine if a doorman is really an unnamed civilian or an unnamed terrorist: what would Jack do if Jack read the man's updated file? Walk past him (civilian) or point his gun and shout his lung out in his usual style (terrorist)? What I'm proposing changes literally nothing as things stand now, it would only call for a different course than yours should a security guard turn out to be a terrorist, or some such analogous eventuality.

In a nutshell: given the nature of the show, a character's clear loyalty to the terrorists supercedes whatever his day job is. – Blue Rook 04:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)talkcontribs

What's the difference between a thief masquerading as a security guard and a terrorist masquerading as a security guard? I don't follow your logic why one should be listed as a security guard and the other a terrorist. The problem I see is that terrorists aren't masquerading as other things. Nina Myers wasn't masquerading as a CTU agent, she actually was one. Sure she assisted with terrorist activities, but so did Charles Logan and Walt Cummings and Roger Stanton, and I'd think it would make more sense to consider these guys government officials before terrorists or even antagonists. I think the person's "official" title is more clear and logical in most cases. As this is an encyclopedia, documenting someone's job is better than conjecturing their loyalty. One is objective, one is not. Marko Khatami was clearly a terrorist, but he was killed when he decided he didn't want to go along with the plan to detonate a bomb. So should he be considered a civilian first, since his loyalty ultimately lied with civilians, rather than the terrorists? That sounds silly to me. Loyalty doesn't work as a means of categorizing people, as it can be very subjective and unclear. Nina had no loyalty other than to herself. Her loyalty changed depending on what was best for her, be it to CTU or to terrorists. I doubt she considered herself a terrorist first or a CTU agent first.
Like you said, it doesn't matter right now since we've yet to run into the problem, but if/when we do, hopefully we can find a clear majority among our users about what to do. --Proudhug 14:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. On a different topic altogether (not important enough to start a new thread), what do you say about these disambig concerns of mine:

1. Graves (Day 2) apparently also appears in Day 3. I have yet to see that episode and fill in the == Day 3 == section. Regardless, I no longer think it is sufficient to keep him called Graves Day 2 given this information. Should we do Graves (CTU)? or just leave it?

2. Scott (Day 2) will soon be joined by another Scott from day 2 (it seems there is a sniper Scott who worked for Kingsley, I'm going to make his page when I get to the episode). What would be the process: Scott (sniper) and Scott (thug), correct? – Blue Rook 07:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)talkcontribs

1. If that character does indeed appear in both seasons, yes, he should be renamed "Graves (CTU)," as it's a more accurate disambiguation tag. And the current "Graves" article should be moved to "Graves (Day 6)," by the way.
2. Yes, that would work well. I don't personally like the word "thug" (especially since they could both be considered thugs), but unless someone can come up with a more encyclopedic-sounding name, it'll do, I guess. Perhaps "Scott (Eddie Grant associate)" and "Scott (Peter Kingsley associate)"?
--Proudhug 12:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Graves is all settled; the new Scott is Scott (Peter Kingsley sniper) and I'm thinking of making the other Scott (Eddie Grant bomber) instead of thug, since it's more specific. Whatcha think? – Blue Rook 23:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)talkcontribs

Sounds good. Bomber makes me think he's an airplane, but that's just me. --Proudhug 00:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Those characters who are given names such as "presidential aide" or "presidential staffer" -- we need to agree whether these characters are government officials or simply civilians. For instance, "Palmer aide 2" played by Margaret Easley in "Day 3 9:00pm-10:00pm" is classified under "Unnamed civilians", however Maggie, an aide to Jim Prescott is categorized as "Government official". So either Palmer aide 2 be moved to "Unnamed government officials" or Maggie be removed from the category Government Officials. Comp25 04:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There is some fuzziness here in general, yes, but I don't think Easley's character and Maggie are good to be contrasted for this purpose. I certainly don't think a change needs to be made in these cases. Margaret Easley's character just stuck her head in a door and relayed a message to Palmer at District. We don't even know if she's a paper-pusher from D.C., a District worker, or whatever. Maggie, however, is completely different. She was sitting at the round table with Prescott and the Cabinet throughout a whole national security meeting of the highest importance. They're both civilians but I highly doubt an unelected or non-appointed official would be in Maggie's seat. Thoughts?Blue Rook  talk  contribs 08:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

All right. There's another thing. Unnamed characters are placed under the heading of which season they appeared. This makes sense. But there is a slight problem with this. That is, what to do if an unnamed character appears in more than one season, e.g. Division Agent played by Bruce Nozick. It creates a double entry, with a note saying this character also appeared in Day X. I guess we could delete all the headings. Just a suggestion. Comp25 00:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Without the headings it would look like an unintelligible jumble.
On a related topic, how certain are you that it's Nancy Harding talking to Michelle in Day 4 6:00am-7:00am? That character deserves an entry, but I'm not confident that the character was played by that actress. What do you think Comp? I'd also like a third opinion too. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 06:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I got it off a site. Also if you Google "Nancy Harding Michelle Dessler's assistant", a number of sites come up with the match. But, I guess it could be an error. I watched the episode and it's hard to tell. If you don't think it's Nancy Harding, then I guess we could leave it as unknown. Comp25 16:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comp25 mentioned this in his Nov 11th post above: there are some multi-season unnamed characters, and they have separate entries for each season. I agree with Comp now that they should be combined. But instead of erasing headings as was previously suggested, how do folks feel if I just made a separate heading for multi-season unnamed characters on any unnamed page which contains them? As you can see at the bottom of Recurring characters, there are at least three such characters. I'm proposing we combine each of their entries into 1 subheading for the character. Then I can just stick them under a new broad heading called "multi-season news reporters" (any other ideas for the heading name?). The other option is just leave them be, which I don't think is a good idea anymore. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 01:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I took the initiative and am doing this now since there were no complaints, fixing the links of course as well. It requires little work and the outcome is more organized. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 20:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this. My suggestion would be to just list them under the first Day they appeared. Does this cause any problems? --Proudhug 06:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't like it since it would be incorrect; content from one day would be present under the entry beneath a prior day. Looking at the current organization (the two reporters and that Division agent), do you like it? I think it is perfect. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 23:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
It's fine. I was just making an alternate suggestion. --Proudhug 03:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.