FANDOM

9,378 Pages

Mysterious contact Edit

The speculations about the identity of Nina's contact doesn't seem very encyclopedic. Since when are we in the habit of speculating on things? --proudhug 15:05, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

... Everywhere? Since the "Background information and notes" sections were started? If you're referring to the speculation in the BG/Notes section here, I don't know what the problem is. It's even in the policy to put useful speculation about unexplained things in the BG/Notes. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 17:46, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

This particular example just seems way to "fanboyish." Or maybe it's just me. --proudhug 20:24, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Haha I'd think it would be weird saying nothing about the mystery guy. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 20:28, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

No, obviously it makes no sense not to point out the unknown identity. I just found it funny and strange that there's a list of "suspects." It seems we're being analytical rather than merely presenting fact. --proudhug 20:32, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why it's a problem, it's justified analysis into who the contact could be. If the final episode of 24 ended with Jack speaking to someone on the phone and all you could see was a shrouded figure, but the shaped looked like it could Tony Almeida would we not point that out? It's not that much different from that example. --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 21:51, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
Ira Gaines was in front of alot of computer screens in S1. Maybe it's supposed to be him? The problem is, I don't recall Gaines ever working with, or even knowing about, Yelena. She was strictly a Drazen asset. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 23:09, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Jack's Assignment Edit

No shit, your book says Special Agent in Charge? Because I have the compilation book with all three comics, and mine has that exact line, except it says Director of Field Ops! That's...weird. --StBacchus 21:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

WHAT?!?! That's bizarre!! I think SAiC makes more sense since that's the job he had in S1. He became DoFO after Day 2. Either way, we should make a note of the difference. --Proudhug 21:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
We're thinking that Director of Field Ops is slightly lower, though, right? In which case, the longer before Day 1 we think this story occurred, the more sense it makes that he was Director of Field Ops at the time. Not to mention that his first assignment is a field assignment, so why send the Special Agent in Charge to do that on his first day, when he should be getting acquainted with the office? Which edition of the comic do you have, by the way? --StBacchus 07:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I've got the first printing of One Shot. You'd think that'd be true about sending the Director of Field Ops instead of the Special Agent in Charge, but he's definitely SAiC in S1 as well as the Declassified novels, yet he's right in the action there. If Jack was HoFO, I wonder who the SAiC was at the time. --Proudhug 08:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nina Goes to Europe! Edit

Do you think we should hash out this "friend in Europe" thing? I was pretty confused by the Europe reference, as I assumed Donovan was talking about Nina (there was no reason to assume he wasn't... other than mentioning Europe), but perhaps your right to infer he was talking to an intermediary. I do get the impression he was talking to her on p19, as he mentions a money transfer, but that would seem to contradict the intermediary theory. The only time we actually see Nina conspiring is in the last two frames, and there she's clearly talking about Donovan, not to him, so who knows. There are several things in this book which are quite ambiguous, intentional or not. --Proudhug 18:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Word on the ambiguity. All three of the books have given me some trouble. I got to thinking about how Nina makes a big deal about how her employers aren't the Drazens but some people in Germany. What I was thinking was that Donovan paid Nina's German employers for the information, and they paid her. That setup makes the most sense to me. However, I think you're right that the implication of the "cuts" between panels when Donovan gets the info and when he talks about payment is that he is directly connected to Nina. On the other hand, if we're going by that, the implication of the cut on the final page is that Nina is talking about Jack, not Donovan...which is the impression I had and why I weaseled it on the main page. --StBacchus 19:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh man, I didn't even think that she could've been talking about Jack on the final page! That's just more ambiguity thrown onto the pile! I agree you're possibly right that the writers intended to infer that Nina's employers were the Germans from Day 1 11:00pm-12:00am, since this may have been written even before Season 2 started. However, I get the impression from S2 and S3 that Nina's connection to Germany was one of many deals she had, that she basically sold herself to anyone who was willing to pay. Obviously, the comic writers had less information to work with at this point and probably assumed she just had the one set of employers. --Proudhug 19:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot about Nina's other employers! I was just thinking that One Shot was set not a long time before Day 1, so the German employers would be the ones Nina is working for, the ones that sent her into deep cover at CTU in the first place. One Shot was published in mid-2004, so it would probably have been written after Season 2, but before much of Season 3. But if Vaughn/Hayes kept their timeline straight, Nina still should have been working for the Germans. I don't think she would have been working for more than one group at that time, but I could be wrong. About the last page, whoever she's talking to on the phone says they "have gained" information, and CTU doesn't have Donovan's stuff yet, so I figured the "him" was probably Jack. Le sigh, it is all very questionable. --StBacchus 19:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

One Shot has to take place in 1998 at the latest, as that was the year of Jack's earliest documented CTU mission in The House Special Subcommittee's Findings at CTU, and One Shot documents his first day at CTU. Since we know Nina worked for Faheen/Wald six months before Day 1, it's not a stretch to guess that the One Shot employers were different from the Germans mentioned in Day 1.

A lot of time passes per page in the comics. The team was in place to extract Donovan's information at the end, so it's not unreasonable to figure the last two frames take place 15 to 20 minutes after Nina overhears Walsh's phone call with Jack (can she hear it from where she is?), and that Donovan's information had already been secured. I just don't see why Nina would be acquiring information about Jack, when he's just some new guy at the office. Donovan was the one from which they just acquired important information. --Proudhug 20:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, true. Actually, it's probably closer to 50 minutes, since Jack makes the call shortly after 9am. So I suppose it probably is Donovan Nina's talking about. Meanwhile, I know Vaughn said it was Jack's first day at CTU, but the text implies it's his first day at CTU Los Angeles. Jack already knows Walsh, and he's been assigned by Division as the Director of Field Ops. That doesn't seem like an entry-level position (also, Walsh does say "assigned," not "hired"). If it's just Jack's first day at CTU LA, the time could be much closer to Day 1. Do we actually know that Nina wasn't working with Wald through the German employers the same way she was for the Drazens? --StBacchus 20:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Nina said that she was contacted by Faheen through an intermediate. Presumably she meant Wald, as he was the one she actually had meeting with.

My thoughts on Jack being assigned to CTU LA was that he'd been recruited there (by Walsh, by Henderson, take your pick) based on his previous experience in the military and the CIA, of which CTU is under the purview. It's not a far stretch to think that Jack's work in the CIA got him assigned to CTU. --Proudhug 20:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Rollback Edit

I've rolled back most of StBacchus's revision.

  • "2004 productions" is part of an in-progress project of mine to document the production timeline.
  • Plot summaries are written in present progressive tense, not past.
  • Characters are characters, no need to discriminate between comics-only and those from the TV show.

That said, I appreciate the cleaning up of much of the synopsis. --Proudhug 02:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression, that due to the Article Policy, we wrote things in the past tense. I don't do much editing for episode guides, but most of the character guides are in the past tense. If we're going to write them in a different tense, perhaps we should reflect that in the article policy? - Xtreme680 02:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It's my understanding that when writing an article about a television show, film, or novel... the article should be written in the present tense. I can't remember the exact explanation I've been given in class about it, but it's kind of like the events of books and movies are always happening, so we discuss them in the present tense. Now, as for actors... I think that if an actor is still active in their role on 24, they should be discussed in the present tense, but someone like Penny Johnson Jerald would be discussed in the past tense. Characters are the same way. I've written my guides in present tense, and actors/characters based on their status on the show as it is today. Here's a website that lists the times for a special use of the present tense: http://www.englishonline.net/writing/tips/tense.html --Kapoli 02:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess I wouldn't really mind, I just thought that the site was meant to explain all of the events as though they had already happened, and it seems kind of odd to change the tense between character pages and episode/video game/novel pages. The website only seemed to indicate the kind of tense you used when talking about a show or movie in general, like saying "Blade Runner has lots of religious symbolism", and is the sort of tone we might use when talking about the show in general, like saying "24 uses real-time", and not "Teri walks down the hall". But I'm no english professor, nor do I care much, I just sort of want a policy. - Xtreme680 03:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Hold it! I found another website... http://www.cofc.edu/~rogersa/gldnnugt.html (see "nugget 2"). Apparently, if we want to be grammatically correct, we should write about the characters in present tense also. That seems weird, especially if a character's status is "Deceased", but I guess it works. I suppose that some actors can be written about in past tense, since actors exist in real life and the characters/episode guides exist only in the literary world. I don't know, what do you guys think? -Kapoli 03:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Woah, sorry guys, I didn't mean for this to become a huge discussion (as everything seems to do, lately). Yes, in-universe articles should be written in the past tense. Real world articles are written in the present or past, depending on what the topic is. However, plot synopses are written in the present progressive. Read any of our episode guides for an example (Day 5 3:00am-4:00am). Paragraphs about the episode are written in the past tense, but I'm just talking about the actual synopsis. --Proudhug 03:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That Article Policy really needs to be rewritten, or at least expanded. Of course, so do many of our meta-pages. So much to do, so little time! --Proudhug 03:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll see if I can't get on it. - Xtreme680 04:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! Okay, plot synopses are present tense, got it. Since we're talking about the article, though, what's with all the links at the bottom? It is necessary to reproduce the whole cast list or include links to things referenced only in passing, like Sinn Fein? The only thing we could write about Sinn Fein without using the dreaded real world info would be that Michael Donovan used to support them. Does that warrant more than a note on the Michael Donovan page? --StBacchus 07:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Good question, StBacchus. I'm not familiar with One Shot, so anyone can feel free to put me in my place if necessary, but shouldn't this kind of be set up in a way similar to episode guide? I don't think we need the huge "reference" section at the bottom. Couldn't we change "Notes" to "Background Information and Notes" and put any relevant trivia or notes there? I think that having a huge paragraph of one-word links that are (for the most part) already linked in the article, is redundant. Come to think of it, if there's something listed in that reference section - like Sinn Fein - that isn't linked in the actual article, then do we really need it linked as a 'reference'? --Kapoli 07:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The References section is something that I really like that Memory Alpha uses. No one has added it to the Episode articles yet, but I'd planned on doing so eventually. Basically, the idea behind it is to list all of the in-universe articles that have information derived from this particular comic/episode/novel/etc. I find it to be a handy tool to quickly see which people, places and things have had their articles affected by this episode. I mean, we've established that other people have thier need to quickly identify if a character is alive or not. I think this is just as redundant as that, only more practical. Feel free to ignore it and leave the project to me if you don't like it, however if everyone absolutely hates it and thinks it clutters the article, I'm sure I can be persuaded to nix the concept.

As for Sinn Fein, yeah basically that's the only information we'd be able to provide from the comic, but it's still part of our effort to archive everything. If I'm not mistaken Sinn Fein is also referred to in Operation Hell Gate, but even if it's not, we still make articles for every little thing whether or not it contains any original information. Mainly for consistency. --Proudhug 08:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine how I would use such a thing, but if you would, that's good enough for me. Like I said, I don't think any of us should be guessing at or judging how other people use the wiki, only trying to make it easier to do so. I do think it would be better to leave out the cast, since they're all linked twice already. Also, if there's going to be a whole article on Sinn Fein, wouldn't it be appropriate to include some real-life information, so that readers know why it was referenced? --StBacchus 08:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I wish I'd known that the idea was to include that section in the episode guides. I've actually removed it from some because I think, well, I think it's kind of an eyesore. I feel like having a huge block of blue links made up of anything affected in the article/guide is not only redundant, but also very similar to the Research Files. Weren't we trying to delete the research file links that led to articles about stuff just mentioned in passing? It was my understanding that we wanted to keep stuff that was really mentioned in the show, not just concepts that might lend to a better understanding of the episode. If something like "Sinn Fein" isn't even major enough to be listed in the article itself, then do we need a separate page for it? --Kapoli 09:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Or Sahara, which is there because of the following quote: "Expecting a full report from Langley is like expecting snow in the Sahara." I guess I could see explaining the joke as a note (although again, that involves the dreaded real-life information), but I don't see why it means the Sahara needs a page. --StBacchus 09:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Curiouser and curiouser. On a completely different note, I thought we were doing it Star Wars style, where instead of doing references, we put sources on pages, so instead of listing a bunch of stuff at the bottom of the screen, we put appearances, as well as additional information, like the CTU Washington page. I think Memory Alpha's constant referencing is sort of annoying. - Xtreme680 09:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the problem with Research Files is that many of them are for things that weren't mentioned or seen on the show at all, or weren't exactly encyclopedic topics, plus the fact that they were being cut 'n' pasted from Fox.com and including erroneous real world info. Something like "Sahara" is a tough call, I think.

The References for episodes and Refernences for things like CTU Washington work in tandem. Basically, the episodes will list all of the articles that include references to it. For instance, The House Special Subcommittee's Findings at CTU, 24: The Game, Day 3 11:00am-12:00pm and Conspiracy would all list "CTU Washington" under the References heading. --Proudhug 10:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

So would we include every single wikilink from an article in the reference section? Or just the ones that haven't already been included elsewhere in the article? I'm asking because of the cast... StBacchus is right - the cast is already listed as a group right above the 'reference' section. Do we need to link them all again? -Kapoli 11:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Actors wouldn't be listed, as they're not in-universe. Characters should be listed only if the episode provides new information on that person (other than what they did for that hour, of course). The same applies for locations and things.

For example, if "Day 9 3:00am-4:00am" mentions that Jack's favorite food is lasagna and he used to be a cheerleader in high school, his name would be added to the Reference section for that episode since it provided information that would appear on his main article. Conversely, "Day 9 3:00am-4:00am" would appear as a Reference on the "Jack Bauer" page. If an episode provides no information other than what that person did for that hour, it doesn't need to be referenced. The only exception would be first or only appearances of characters, as the episode provides the information that this character exists. --Proudhug 14:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

So in addition to the list of episodes in the "appearances" on a character's page, there's going to be another list of episodes in the reference section? -Kapoli 21:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that would look pretty dumb. Why don't we move "Appearances" to the actor pages instead? It serves the same purpose, since the list is usually identical, and there have only been two actors who played more than one role on the series, that we know of. --Proudhug 01:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm mega redundancy confused. We had talked about putting appearances MUCH earlier on the character pages, but now, we have to include those appearances on actor pages, as well as put the same episodes as sources on character pages, and then list those characters on episodes? This seems confusing and repetitive. I like the idea of putting sources on character, location, and weapons pages, but the list of appearances is already a sort of source guide for most characters. Why not leave the appearances, and put additional sources after that? - Xtreme680 02:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to come up with an alternative to including Appearances and References on the same character pages, since it would look pretty silly, not to mention confusing. An Appearance and a Reference aren't the same thing, but many articles would have similar or identical lists. Come to think of it, it doesn't seem right to put Appearances in in-universe articles, anyway. Something like that would be more fitting for the actor pages.

To recap, here's my proposal for citations:

  • All in-universe articles contain a "References" heading. This section contains a list of all the episodes, games, comics, novels, etc. that provided the information found within the article. Episodes (games, etc.) that don't provide any information other than what happened to that person, place or thing during that time aren't included... with the exception of first appearances and only appearances.
  • Articles for Episodes, games, comics, novels and other media will also include a "References" heading. This is the inverse of the in-universe References. All in-universe articles that contain a Reference to this episode (game, etc.) will be listed here.
  • Actor pages include an "Appearances" heading. This section lists all of the episodes in which that actor appeared. For people like Rudolf Martin who played more than one role, a distiction will be made between the different characters' appearance(s). Similar heading can be created for directors and writers, including authors.

I think this will create a really impressive sense of organization to every article. Thoughts? --Proudhug 02:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I might be confused.... we've got an episode guide full of wikilinks for every location, object, character, weapon, etc. and then we're going to put a section at the bottom of the guide with all the wikilinks re-listed in a group? And then on the character pages... we're going to list the episodes the character is in, but in the "Reference" section instead of the "Appearance" section - and only the episodes that "add information" about the character? I know sometimes a particular character won't have a very big role in an episode, like Michelle returning in the last minute of the Day 4 6:00pm-7:00pm episode... she doesn't have any lines, and is only shown for about 30 seconds. That episode doesn't really add any information about Michelle, like her favorite food or pasttimes, but I think her surprising return and that episode should still be included on Michelle's page.
I personally prefer the "Appearances" listed on the character pages. I mean, the character page is meant to identify the character and give information about how he or she fits into the 24verse... I think that listing when he or she is featured on the show is important. We list the first and last episode in the character sidebar, so shouldn't we leave the episodes to the character pages?
I've looked at a few different Wikis, and I prefer the style of the Lost wiki and the Star Wars Wookiepedia... wikilinks throughout the articles, no huge blue paragraph at the bottom. I mean, if we have all the links repeated at the bottom (and links of some information not even included in the article), then should we even have the characters, etc. linked in the article? Just a few thoughts. --Kapoli 03:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
And I meant to mention that looking through most of the other wikis really pained me. We seriously have one of the best wikis in existence. Southpark, Simpsons, Friends, Buffy, Charmed... they don't hold a candle to this one. I like what we've done and the track we seem to be on. I may not like the "References" section, but if that's what everyone wants to do, then I'll help do it. --Kapoli 03:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I think wookiepedia is a lot easier to use. I don't think Memory Alpha is very easy to navigate nor does it look very nice. Those links at the bottom are both ugly and all of the blue is hard on the eyes. It's hard to pick something to look at when there is just a massive block of links. Lost looks nice, but I think they have a lot to ask for in terms of content and npov. Most of the information we have is not trivial, it's what happens during episodes. Plus, if a character is affected by the game, episode or novel in question, they should have a link during the article. I also think that having both sections titled as references is confusing. The episodes, novels, comics, and games are the sources of information. The references section makes it look as though it is the opposite, and we derive information for episode guides from character pages, not the other way around. - Xtreme680 04:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I see the utility in Proudhug's many links, but I also think it would look and function better if it were divided into clean sections rather than a Borg Cube of blue text. So how about this:

  • Leave Appearances on the character pages (I'm not married to that, but it ain't broke, so)
  • The cast goes under Dramatis Personae
  • Books and episodes used as sources for character pages go under Sources
  • Things referenced in books or episodes go under References
  • Add a See Also heading for miscellaneous stuff that didn't get linked in the article text or under other headings. In the case of One Shot, that would include things like United Kingdom, Kingman, and Ballycastle. (Although to be honest, I still don't think any of those things require their own pages.)

Something else I noticed in the latest edit of this page: do we like the Memory Alpha convention of separately linking the character name and title, like Agent Dillon? Maybe someone could convince me that it doesn't drive me crazy? --StBacchus 09:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I can see the utility in that, I agree. My problem wasn't so much the links being there, just how useless they were in the "blue orb". - Xtreme680 09:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
StBacchus... I can get on board with those ideas. I think it's just the huge block of blue, mostly one word, repeated links that turns me off.
And about the separate linking... I hate that. Whenever I notice it here, I try to fix it. I can't stand President Charles Logan instead of President Charles Logan. I see it mostly with Sec. Heller, I think. I think people do it because they don't know how to add a pipe to change the appearance of the link. That's why some articles are flooded with Jack Bauer... Jack Bauer... Jack Bauer instead of Jack Bauer... Jack... Jack. When someone clicks on "President Charles Logan" in an article, I imagine they want to go to Logan's character page, not the page for "President". Heck, I don't know what people want... I just know that I don't like separate links for title/name. --Kapoli 10:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I much prefer President Charles Logan. Wikipedia usually does this too and I use it all the time to find out information on titles. If I'm reading an article and come across a title I want to know more about, it's easier to click the link than to search for it elsewhere on the site. Not to mention the fact that it does usually make articles easier to type up. I think it's best to have both links (pres and Logan) in the article so the reader can choose. I doubt many people are dumb enough to click on the "President" part of "President Logan" and be totally confused.

I can see your point about the big blue blob, but I don't agree. It's in lieu of making another long bulleted list. It can be annoying to have to scroll down through several big lists, and we already have those with Dramatis Personae and Memorable Quotes and such. Yes, it makes that specific part harder to read if it's in a paragraph, but it saves the article from being way longer. Perhaps they could be put into a table or chart. And you guys are right, "Sources" would be much better than "References" for in-universe articles.

"Doesn't every episode offer more information about a character?"

No, not at all. What did last week's episode offer about Jack? Nothing, as far as I can remember. As for the Michelle thing, of course her return will get a mention on her page, but like I said References only pertain to information besides what happened to the character that hour. Most of the time that a wikilink is made during a synopsis, it's only because that character, location, etc. was mentioned or seen. Chances are the References section will mostly be a totally different list, although it may be a subset of the wikilinks much of the time, with a few articles thrown in that weren't in the synopsis.

If an episode mentions that Jack's favorite TV show is Friends, that he was born in Alaska, that he is allergic to snakes, or that he is one eighth Jewish, there's a good chance that this information isn't going to make it into the episode synopsis. It's background information or biographical information that contributes more to the article than just what happend to him that episode.

"We list the first and last episode in the character sidebar, so shouldn't we leave the episodes to the character pages?"

This is precicely why it isn't needed. First and Last in the sidebar is usually sufficient and putting a complete list at the bottom is redundant. If you need to know more about their appearances, you can read the entire article or better yet, look at the actor's page. Putting "Appearances" on actor pages makes more sense because it's more consistent with episode lists for writers and directors.

Whoa, whoa. Is there something wrong with me, or have the underlines disappeared from the links? Or were they never there?? Because I seem to recall that links were underlined in the past, so you could see that "President" and "Charles Logan" were separate if you looked closely. But if you're going to have to mouse over to see that, I officially hate the separate links.
How about instead of a bulleted list for the references, one of those info box thingies like they have on Wikipedia?
The appearance list is not redundant at all. For characters like Jack Bauer who have been in every episode, sure it's obvious. But how about someone like Ron Wieland, whose four appearances spanned nearly all of season 2? --StBacchus 17:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
StBacchus, as far as I know, the links have always appeared just as blue text, not underlined blue text. It's when you mouse over them that a line appears, and the line is either continuous underneath President Charles Logan or it's separate President Charles Logan. I don't like the separation.
I think if we're going to do a reference section (or "Sources"), then we should include the title there. When we refer to President Logan, we're not talking about the office of the President of the United States and Charles Logan. They're not two separate things. It's like CTU Los Angeles. We're talking about CTU Los Angeles, not the organization and the city individually. When we're talking about one concept or one person, we should pipe the link so that it's all together. -Kapoli 17:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Underlining links is an option you set in your own preferences. I personally have them turned off since I think it looks distracting. The underlines appear when the mouse is placed over the link, to avoid "accidental" clicking.

How would an info box work with references, since infoboxes are static charts?

As for double linking, I realize that we wouldn't be talking about the office of the President of the United States and Charles Logan, but we are talking about the title "President" being used with Logan, so there's a good chance someone will want to isolate that bit of information. Check out the Wikipedia article on Jack Bauer again and you'll see at the top that it says that he "is the main character in the American television series 24." "American" "television series" and "24" are all linked (they're all linked wrong, but that's not the point). Obviously the article is only refering to one thing: 24, but the other qualifiers are linked to provide additional information. I just also checked out the article on G.W. Bush and it mentions both of the people he defeated in elections. "Democratic Vice President Al Gore" and "junior Democratic Senator from Massachusetts" are all triple linked when they only refer to one thing. This seems to be the standard means of doing things with MediaWiki and I personally find it extremely useful. --Proudhug 17:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. I had the underlines set to Browser Default, so I turned them on Always, and it sure is annoying (although I swear that's how it looked yesterday). But here's the thing. If the underlines are off, President Charles Logan looks identical to President Charles Logan. And nobody who isn't logged in can change the setting.
I don't know how the info box works, I just like the look of it. Surely we can manage to make a box that contains different links on each page. Maybe a table with one cell? --StBacchus 18:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know anything about tables... so I'm no help there, but if someone else figures out a basic formula and just needs help substituting information, I can definitely manage that - just like the episode list tables that StBacchus did a while back.
As for the links looking the same without underlines - they do look the same if you've clicked on both links, but for someone like me, who hasn't clicked on "President", the words are different shades of blue and look kind of awkward (to me, anyway). I'm probably just being picky. I guess I think that if someone clicks on President Charles Logan to read about Charles Logan's character, then from there, they should be able to find a wikilink for President. With something like American television series 24... I think whoever wrote that made a mistake. Having the words in that phrase linked separately suggests that the words are mutually exclusive, and they're not - they're a description of the real thing that should be linked - 24. If the words need separate links, than the sentence should be structured differently. I mean, if someone says "President of the United States of America", we wouldn't put [[President]] of [[The United States of America]], would we? United States of America describes which President we're talking about... President Charles Logan is like saying Mr. Charles Logan. It's his title, we're not talking about the title by itself. -Kapoli 19:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really a judgement call. Sometimes it's practical, sometimes it's not. I just don't think we should never do it, since I use it a lot and assume I'm not the only one who does.

As for the two different formats looking identical, you just have to run your cursor over the words to see which links are separate. This makes it very easy for people to navigate and keeps the site looking nice at the same time.

I made a basic table at the Sandbox. It'd be nicer if there was a border and it looked kinda like the episode sidebar templates, but I don't know a whole lot about how to do stuff like that. Would something like that solve the aesthetics problem? --Proudhug 19:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Proudhug - that looks so much better than the block of text! I don't know how to do borders and stuff, but if we could add one, I'm sure that it would look great too. Within that "reference" table, would we organize the links in any particular way? Alphabetically? By category (characters, weapons, locations, organizations, etc.)? By appearance in the article? Does it matter? Maybe not. I'm just looking forward to figuring some of this stuff out so that we can get back to writing articles and stop worrying about how to write the articles!! Everytime I click on "Latest Intel", the majority of edits are on Talk pages!! --Kapoli 19:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha, no one's being stopped from editing articles! I openly volunteer to undertake most of this task myself if need be. I've been organizing the links alphabetically, but categorically might be another good idea. I don't want to section to become too obtrusive. --Proudhug 19:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

StBacchus has a couple of tables in the Sandbox now, too. I really like the last table - they use those tables on Wikipedia all the time and I've always thought that they look great. I like the idea of being able to break the references into categories, and the spacing/centering of that table, too. Also, the color of the table is exactly like the episode lists, and that helps contribute to the consistent look of the Wiki. --Kapoli 14:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

They do look nice, but I have a few problems with them. The third one looks too much like the a standard infobox template, so I don't think we should use that one. The second one also does, but less so. I don't want the References to be an eyesore, but at the same time I don't want it to draw too much attention. I prefer either of the first two tables. I'm thinking the in-table heading of "References" should go, though. A standard ==References== heading will do, plus this will put it on the Table of Contents. And having both would look kinda silly. --Proudhug 14:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they look like the infoboxes, but since we don't use the infobox template anywhere else on this Wiki (at least, not that I'm aware of)... I don't know why we can't use it here. Maybe if the background was the same color as the page instead of black it wouldn't stand out so much? And I agree with removing the heading from the table and just leaving a standard ==References== heading on the page. Eh, doesn't matter to me... I just think the third table looks cleaner and more organized. -Kapoli 14:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

We already use the infoboxes as sidebars such as Template:Jack Bauer and Template:United States. I'd like to leave it open to create horizontal ones for the bottom of the page in the future. We could try using the regular background and see how that looks. Either way, it should look pretty good. --Proudhug 14:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the background color so it's the same as the page and eliminated the References heading inside the table. The strength of the last two designs is that they're fluid and easy to use - you just dump your links right in, no need to worry about counting the total number or making new cells or anything. And they'll scale to whatever the user's window size is. I think I like the second one best. What do you guys think? --StBacchus 23:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the second one is the best. Thanks for making these, StBacchus. --Proudhug 07:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

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