Changes: Wiki 24:The Situation Room

Revision as of 00:04, 23 June 2006

Vandalism Alert Status

Red

Amber

Yellow
(CURRENT STATUS)

Green

This is the Situation Room where you can talk about Wiki 24, ask questions, suggest ways to improve the site, or provide general comments. Wiki 24 is always open to new ideas to improve our style, policies and format, so feel free to question things and/or suggest changes and additions. Try to keep the most recent discussions at the top of the page for the ease of browsing. Be sure to read the Help page before posting. If you have found any bugs or technical problems, please report them on the Wiki 24:Problems page and an administrator will try and sort the problem out.

Also, please keep in mind that this is not a site for discussion of the show 24 unless it specifically pertains to the creation of this encyclopedia. There are many other locations on the internet to talk with fans about the show. And of course, off topic discussion doesn't have a place here.

Topics in the Situation Room will remain active for about a month after their final reply, then they will be moved to the Archives. Please timestamp your posts by including four tildes at the end (~~~~).

The Official Magazine

Whilst browsing at my local comic book store the other day so I could buy the new Eternals miniseries, I saw 24: The Official Magazine. I picked up a copy, and it has interviews with cast members as well as other fan things. The reason I bring it up is this. It would be a great source for some of our actors and trivia page, and as an official source, it might be a nice time to consider it as a source of canon. It seems mainly like a secondary source of information, but they do have a Jack bauer Kill count with statistics and other potential sources that could be considered canon and affect pages. Where should this be placed on the canon chart? - Xtreme680 16:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't include The Official Magazine in the canon list for two reasons. The canon list only includes IU sources. If TOM ever includes 24 comics or stories, this would have to be reconsidered. And secondly, TOM is riddled with errors. The first issue made a big deal about how cool it is when Palmer and Bauer met for the first time in person, then proceeded to describe the phone-bomb scene. Um, this wasn't even the second time they met, it was the third!! The "Debrief" in issue #2 does mention that people spotted a "deliberate" error in issue #1, but yeah right, whatever. Despite being called "Official", TOM is really little more than a fanmag. The "Official" status just means that they get a lot of exclusive interviews with cast and crew and visits to the set and stuff. None of the creators are actively involved with the publication. TOM is a good source of OOU trivia, but that's really it, unfortunately. --Proudhug 17:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about, the canon list includes only in-universe sources? Does Jack Bauer star in ads for artificial sweetener? Are we or are we not LARPing that we exist inside 24? I'm not being dense on purpose. The use of these expressions really is frying my brain. --StBacchus 17:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all of the sources on the canon list are in-universe. Check out the first line of the page and you'll see why. There's no such thing as out-of-universe canon. That doesn't fit with the definition of the term.

While Jack Bauer doesn't star in artificial sweetener commercials (as far as I know), he does star in CalorieMate commercials, and another guy named "Jack Bauer" appeared in a Ford F150 commercial called "The Donation". --Proudhug 17:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You're saying that first sentence is to be taken literally? As in, all the stuff listed with the numbers and the whatnot are "considered to be genuine or official" within the narrative of the television show 24. Is that right? --StBacchus 18:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I had to convince Mr. Bacchus that I'm not being willfully obtuse about this, so I'm posting again. You mean that the magazine's perspective is not in-universe, meaning it has no narrative content. If there's no narrative content, it doesn't need to fit into the canon hierarchy, because the facts are either true or they aren't. Now have I got it? --StBacchus 23:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a Mr. Bacchus? Anyway, yeah, I see Proudhug's point, its only confusing if it's a narrative. Going back to the comic book store today (shut up, miss Xtreme went back home for summer) I can see that the same company is churning shit like this out for anything with a solid fanbase, including Lost. Besides that, there really isn't that much information in there anyway. They don't list the episode sor sources at all for a few of their claims, which makes me distrustful. It is nice for some of the actor pages and trivia however. - Xtreme680 00:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Appearances?

OK, so looking at all of these character pages, what exactly counts as an appearance? Obviously, if they're seen, heard, and credited, that's one thing. But there are other instances, such as:

a character is killed at XX:59 and their body is seen at the beginning of the next episode (Ryan Chappelle, Edgar Stiles)
a character's voice is heard, but the character themselves is not seen (I can't recall an exact instance, but I know it's been there) -- whether their role is credited in the episode or not
a character is not seen or heard but is still credited (Jamey Farrell in Day 1 4:00am-5:00am

There are other questionable instances, but this is just what I've noticed. --Rohrk21 21:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been (slowly) going through and verifying/completing all of the character appearances, and these are the rules I've been going by:

If they're seen and/or heard in the episode, it's listed as an appearance, even if the appearance is a recording of a previous episode or of an earlier unseen event such as Carl's voice on Keith's tape, or Jamey's murder.
Uncredited appearances count as appearances, such as Chappelle and Edgar's posthumous ones.
Previouslies don't count as appearances.
Photos of people don't count as appearances. For example, Kyle Farrell's only "appearances", or Jonathan Wallace and Nina Myers in Season 2 before they appeared in the flesh.
If a character is credited but not seen or heard, such as Jamey or Teddy Hanlin, this is considered an error and not listed as an appearance.

If you think of any other questionable situations, let me know. --Proudhug 21:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

One question though - does Gordon's severed head count as an appearance? --JPizzle1122 23:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think headshots count. --Zhoul 01:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, good questionable example! I say yeah, why not include it? Put it on the list and add "(severed head only)" to it. It's no different from Nina's and Edgar's corpses, in my opinion. --Proudhug 18:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's another thing...is there any particular reason why, for the majority of characters with appearances in Season 1, it simply says the time for most episodes (i.e. Day 1 2:00am-3:00am simply says 2:00am-3:00am, but in every episode from Day 1 6:00pm-7:00pm and on, it includes the words "Day 1"? (ex. Andre Drazen, Rick Allen, Sherry Palmer, to name a few) --Rohrk21 01:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's nothing really important. I've just been kinda changing them as I go and using the unchanged ones as a marker for where I am. Check out Rick's Talk page. --Proudhug 01:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, check out the new table idea i've come up with in the Sandbox for character appearances and let me know what you think here in the Situation Room. --Proudhug 02:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me be the first to say I think it looks awesome. It doesn't need tarting up. The non-links could be greyed out, but even that isn't necessary. Well done!

Oh, what heading should we use for the Declassified novels? If you want to make the chronology clear, it should be something like "Before Day 1" or something, right? --StBacchus 06:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Something like that, yeah. I updated the page with a full example of what I was thinking an appearances section would look like. Comic/novel/game appearances are listed chronologically, or simply omitted when the character didn't appear. So far Findings at CTU is the only "misfit" novel, since it doesn't take place before Season 1. Of course, we could run into further problems if Declassified novels or a new series of novels come out that don't take place between One Shot and Day 1. --Proudhug 14:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a question. Lots of places have headings like "Before Day 4" or something to that extent. Should we have after day 3, or before day 4? - Xtreme680 16:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd meant to address this. As one of my "eventual" Consistency Projects, I plan to sort all this out. Basically, my thoughts are this:

Events seen on screen (or on paper) are detailed under the heading for that Day; "Day 1", "Day 5", "One Shot", "Trojan Horse", etc.
Events detailing the character's life before they appeared on the show (or book) are put under a heading beginning with "Before". If the character's first chronological appearance is in Day 1, their background information appears under "Before Day 1", if they first appeared in Day 3, it's "Before Day 3", if they first appeared in The Game, it's "Before The Game", etc.
All other information about the character's life events appear in "After" headings. For stuff that happened between a character's appearances in Days 1 and 2, it's "After Day 1" for events between their appearances in Day 2 and Day 5, it's "After Day 2".
Subheadings shouldn't be needed at all, but if someone sees a usefulness to them, feel free to mention it.

So in summation, "Before" is only used for the first heading (if applicable), otherwise "After" is always used to describe events that take place between Days. --Proudhug 16:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm starting to plug the chart into pages. I started with Jack and came across a couple situations (good thing we're in the situation room *wink wink*). I was debating if it's worth it to even put all this stuff up for Jack, since he's in everything. But then I realized he's not in everything. Jack doesn't appear in Conspiracy so it is worthwhile to list what he does appear in.

The other thing is that I've included the Prequels in the charts, but it's entirely possible that at some point in the future stories will be told that take place between the prequels and the premieres. If that happens, we'll just move them from the chart to "Before Day 4" and "Before Day 5" of course. But since the Prequels don't take place during one day, rather many over months, it's possible that future stories will take place during a Prequel. Currently, Conspiracy already takes place during Day 4, which is a bit of a problem. Ah well, it really doesn't matter a whole lot as long as they're all listed, I guess. Besides, we'll cross that bridge when if we get to it, I guess. I just like to worry myself into oblivion. --Proudhug 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I had a thought. Right now, we've got two headings for each day that a character appeared in - one for recounting what happened to them that day, and a second under "Appearances." How about listing the appearances for each day under the first header, rather than in a separate header? --StBacchus 18:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The only thing about that table is that it's best made for characters with a decent amount of appearances. Like, if you've got someone like George Mason, who has a good number of episodes in both of his seasons, it's perfect. But then there's the other two sides: if you've got, say, David Palmer, who appeared in every episode of the first three seasons, or Paul Wilson, who has one appearance, wouldn't it be easier to put "David Palmer has appeared in evey episode of Season 1" or just put "11:00pm-12:00am" for Paul Wilson's appearances?

Not to take anything away from the table; it looks great, and for the David Palmer-types, that would be great to also provide a link to their episodes instead of just saying that they were in all of them.

Anyways...I tried to put in the last 4 seasons for Palmer and Tony Almeida, but Season 5 seems to clash with the "Preceded/Succeded by" bars at the bottom of the page. Any solutions? We could put appearances before things like Background Information and Notes so that wouldn't be a problem, but if you've got a solution, feel free to tell me. --Rohrk21 19:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

NYTimes Plug

Hey guys, you got really lucky being Featured Wikia this month, and got a plug in the New York times. Just an FYI. -- LordTBT 22:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC) from Redwall

Yeah, someone pointed that out. It's pretty cool. --Proudhug 22:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Unbanned IP Address

I notice that 152.163.100.14 was unblocked with a comment that the user had never made any contributions and was blocked by mistake. If you look at the bottom of this page, that IP was involved with vandalism on this site... something I pointed out and something that 24 Administration verified. Just FYI. -Kapoli 03:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions page, here I don't see any signs of them ever contributing to the wika. You can look at the block log and see the blocking history, however. If he did vandalize a page, it would be odd, since the records of contributions stay for a LONG ass time, dating back to the creation of the wika. I just felt it was kind of odd that he was banned, considering we don't even have a record of him being here. My impression was that either you or 24 administration made a mistake in the typing, since the records are usually right. But if you want, I trust you and will take your word for it. I'm going to go through the main page, david palmer page, and chloe page to see if I can't find the changes - Xtreme680 07:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it just my computer, or do Jack and Palmer's histories both only go back to May 14? There's also a brief Q&A on 24 Administration's talk page about this IP. -Kapoli 08:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No they do, I checked as well, it's something with moving pages and the history being moved as well, I believe it's my fault because I did the moves manually (I copied and pasted from the moved page, and then changed that into a redirect) rather than moving the redirected page back, losing some of the page history. But I could be wrong there. However, I remember this user as being blank of contributions for a long while, and banned users edits are still recorded, for contributions. - Xtreme680 08:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That's weird. I was looking over the block logs, and apparently 72.135.33.31 has no contributions either, but that's the person who was banned for "vandalizing" Rachel Brenner's talk page.... then the same IP was later unblocked.

I'm still positive that 152.163.100.14 was part of the vandalism. Rachel Brenner's talk page was deleted, so maybe that's why 72.135.33.31's contribution list is blank. I seem to remember that 152.163.100.14's vandalized pages were deleted as well. Plus, the IP number is right in the range of the other vandals that day. I'm confident that the blocking wasn't a coincidence or typo, but I suppose we can just leave him or her unblocked and if they return, you can block them then. -Kapoli 03:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

NY Times

By the way, congratulations on your mention in the NY Times! -- Scott (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Holy friggin' crap! That's awesome! Thanks for pointing that out! --Proudhug 01:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I never would have noticed that unless you pointed it out. Thanks a lot! - 12.216.103.51 02:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Woah! Out of what must be 100's of wiki's, ours was chosen as an example over all of them! --24 Administration 15:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I figured we'd be mentioned in a list of other MediaWiki projects, but it was just us! I'm sure it's just because we're the Featured Wikia this month, but that's still really cool. --Proudhug 17:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Parody/References

Hey all. Do you folks plan on having a category or an article with descriptions of parodies/spoofs/references from other shows and pop culture? I know MAD magazine has featured a spoof and Late Night with Conan O'Brien has their own version of 24. Over at the Muppet Wiki, we've got articles on the Sesame Street spoof 24 and a Jack Bauer Muppet. Any thoughts one where these links would be appropriate? -- Scott (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Currently, we try to avoid information on things that don't directly relate to 24, but there may be a place for these types of things somewhere, I don't know. Perhaps in some sort of Trivia section or something. I'm personally only interested in the 24 canon itself, but if there's enough demand for things like parodies and references people will probably find somewhere to put them. --Proudhug 01:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That's cool. If you ever do come up with such a category, you know where to find us. -- Scott (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Memory Alpha has one large page devoted to it, we could possibly do it like they do. - Xtreme680 02:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Linking to Research Files & Editing Tips

General announcement: if, for any reason, you would like to link to our explanation of one of the Research Files, you can do it now. It works the same way as linking to a page's header. You just add a pound sign and the header name to the page link.

It looks like this: [[Research Files#Go|Go]] (the |Go part is optional; the bit after the pipe controls how the link displays on the page). The point was to create a table of contents for the page, but it might come in handy at other times. For instance, if you've ever wanted to write, "Alan Milliken suffered from angina" or "Goddammit, when did anybody ever mention Go on 24?" now you can!

For more editing techniques, see Help:Editing, which contains (almost) everything I know about wiki markup. --StBacchus 13:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Set Date?

I think we should set a specific date to which the seasons happened or make a stronger policy on these. Many pages that I have read set the seasons on impossible dates, such as Day Five being in 2009? Maybe if the whole Wikia set April, 2001 being the date of Day One, we could all set dates for the seasons that would be pretty close to the actual times. This way, we could sort of have an idea when we compare the seasons and really acknowledge how much time has passed. Or, make a no-date policy whatsoever and delete it from every page containing a season-related date. I like the first idea because the second one would take manpower and be tedious work. BauerJ24 21:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone is working from the assumption that Day 1 was set before the 2004 Presidential Elections. We've been able to work out further dates from there. I personally think we should have a no dates policy. --24 Administration 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've been assuming 2000 and Proudhug's worked out 2002. ^_^ Which is exactly why I agree with 24 Administration that dates extrapolated from given dates should be confined to the Timeline page. But check it out: there are some dates that were given in the FaCTU book. If you see a year corresponding to a season, that's imaginary. I've been changing those, too. If you're unsure, it might be a good idea to ask on the Talk page first. --StBacchus 23:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Proudhug's head might explode when he sees this :-) We've been discussing the timeline up, down, and all around this wiki. Check out the Timeline Talk Page, the faCTU Talk Page, and the Situation Room archives to see how the conversations have gone thus far. Basically, the timeline is the major project that Proudhug is working on at the moment, and when he's finished compiling his information, he's going to incorporate part of it to the relevant parts of the Wiki. The best thing to do right now is ignore the dates that you see floating around and not add any additional dates until Proudhug drops the hammer and posts his timeline. Because you're right, BauerJ24, the dates as they are now are a problem. --Kapoli 21:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Proudhug will not like people adding artificial dates to the site. Even when he posts his timeline, it will still not be official. If you see any pages that use specific dates, please change them. For example, I recently changed John Keeler's page from saying "he was President during 2008" to saying "he was President during Day 4". Until the producers or Fox release an official timeline, dates and years shouldn't be used on the site, as 24 Adminstration said above. --Zhoul 22:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. IMHO.

The Proudhug wills it, and it will be so. I've never understood the date policy, but it's his baby boy. To argue against it would be like telling him Santa doesn't exist. :) - Xtreme680 22:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No comment. :-| --Proudhug 03:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Santa doesn't exist?!?!?! Didn't we agree - no spoilers? -Kapoli 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a Santa Claus, it's just pronounced "San Claus". --Proudhug 08:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

While it would not be a certain date, all of 24Wikia would use this date and it would be easier for people to understand that Jack has gone through seven and a half years, because it is not in a parallel universe, it is tied to our calendar and easier to comprehend. But the fact arises that as we progress, unless we set a 90's date, seasons will exist in the future. If the start date was April of 2000, Day Five occured/will occur in October of 2007.

They do exist in the future. Even if we assume Day 1 happened in October 2001, more time has passed between days (in the narrative) than between seasons (in real life). For the moment, we could replace what's on the Timeline page right now with something that actually reflects the relative amount of time passing. That would eventually be replaced with Proudhug's timeline, unless he doesn't want to share, but at least it wouldn't confuse people. I will do it tonight if no one else wants to. --StBacchus 23:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Poor Rachel

Poor Rachel Eden Brenner. Today she decided it would be cool to google her own name. On the first page of search results she found a little website called Wiki 24. Thinking this was pretty cool, she decided to post on the site for fun. Realizing it would be wrong to deface the actual Rachel Brenner page, she posted a comment on the Talk page about the coincidence and put her email address up to see if she got any responses. Unfortunately, the people of Wiki 24 weren't very happy to see her and called her a liar and made fun of her. Next thing she knew she was banned from ever posting on Wiki 24 again. The end.

Bye bye, Rachel. We'll miss you. Don't worry not every website out there is as hostile and skeptical of your intentions. --Proudhug 04:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, farewell Rachel. Your post was eerily similiar to about a dozen other posts I've seen on other wikis, where someone "googles their name and posts their email address". Don't let the doorknob hit you on the way out. -Kapoli 04:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And eerily her email address was somewhat similar to lemonparty, a shock image on the internet commonly used by vandals and trolls, and was not similar to ANY email address I've ever seen. I think I have been very fair in my bannings. If that was all it turned out to be, she will see she has new messages, and see what I wrote. She will still be able to post on her talk page. If she truly has stumbled upon it and wants to contribute, she can dispute it there, I will unblock her, and I will apologize for the mixup. I assume you made me an administrator because you trusted me to make calls like this. As far as I can tell, we have been very welcome to newcomers. It's not like I have been contributing for years, and we've had an influx of new users who I believe we have welcomed with open arms and in friendly ways, including Lover, Warthog demon, JPizzle1122, and BauerJ24, among others. Not all vandals move pages to things like "Jack Bauer fucked a donkey". Some think subtle changes are cute, and are harder to detect. Like I said, I've been fair, I've assumed good faith, but obvious vandalism, not on my watch. I find it hard to believe that this would happen. I google myself all the time and don't start adding comments about how I share the same name. But that's mainly because depending on which name I use, I just get pages to Jewish law firms or sports stars. - Xtreme680 05:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Next time, she'll know better. If she wants to vandalize, she needs to post profanity and put it onto a main article, not a Talk page. That way she'll only get a one-day suspension, instead of infinite. I hate people who vandalize Talk pages, especially with things like email addresses and greetings. It just burns my apple. --Proudhug 05:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I think the banning was 100% fair. It's better to be proactive about these things... I'd rather not wait until the shizz hits the fan, I'd rather get 'em early. -Kapoli 05:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing more annoying than vandalizing the talk page. If I wasn't sure it was vandalism, it was 1 day. I was sure. Vandalizing a talk page is still vandalism. It was not a greeting. It was disguised vandalism. - Xtreme680 05:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine. You win. Nothing that can't be fixed. - Xtreme680 06:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Season 6 and spoilers

Howard Gordon talked to the New York Post in an article today and had some things to say about what we can expect from Season 6. When is it okay to start putting up information, espically dealing with cast, crew, plot, etc? - Willo 68.51.105.170 19:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

January 2007. Wiki 24 has a no spoiler policy, so putting information about the cast or plot of Season 6 is inappropriate... crew, maybe not so much. The main page has a News section for the future of the show, but it's only for spoiler-free information. It may be possible to put some of Gordon's information there. --Proudhug 19:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a discussion about this. While I don't disagree that there should be no episodic spoilers before they air, I don't necessarly think we should approach the seasons this way. I don't think we should have specific spoilers (ie. Palmer and Michelle's deaths in the premire this year), but we could have general information (ie. "Jack Bauer is forced out of hiding and must deal with a new threat and his faked death.") I think that information is something that will actually help (rather than hinder) a viewers experence entering a season, as well as having cast information. But maybe that's just me. - Willo 68.51.105.170 19:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "help viewers." What exactly is helpful about posting cast or plot information about next season? And how would it even pertain to our site? Wiki 24 is a spoiler-free encyclopedia of facts about 24. It's not a news source, a spoiler source, a messageboard, or an effort to recruit new viewers. We decided against posting cast/crew and vague synopses of episodes before they aired. Whether or not it's for the next week's episode or next January's episode makes no difference. Even your "general" information about Jack's return is a spoiler. --Proudhug 20:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with proudhug, there's no reason to have any of this stuff. Maybe an airdate is good, but everything else potentially spoils the season. I prefer to see it happen when it happens. - Xtreme680 23:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

All I'll say is this (and from a neutral, eneyclopedic perspective and opinion): always have an encyclopedic page for everything that's been announced, including future projects. Squall Deckiller 03:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should make a special section for spoilers only. That way, the people that want to see spoilers can access it easily and the people that don't want to see any spoilers don't have to see any spoilers to get any information. In the section, we could have a few levels of spoilers, like TV Guide spoiler level, where they briefly outline the episode. Example: (Penultimate Episode, S5) Aboard the Natalia, Henderson attempts to shut the weapons system down. Jack goes after the President. This would make it easier for everyone to read the amount of spoilers that they want to read.

I'm sorry but I'm afraid our stance on spoilers is pretty much set in stone at this point. Our admins have to be able to monitor the entirity of Wiki 24 and if they chose to be spoiler-free, they wouldn't be able to do this with a spoiler section. There are plenty of websites out there for spoilers. Wiki 24 isn't currently one of them. --Proudhug 16:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Is that why we don't have spoilers? Because that isn't really a good reason. I'm torn on the inclusion of them myself, but I think it should be discussed, not dismissed out of hand. --StBacchus 20:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course this isn't the only reason, but it's a damn good one, IMO. Wiki 24 doesn't want to ruin anyone's viewing experience, if at all possible. I, like Xtreme680, prefer to see it when it happens. Besides, any information about upcoming episodes is considered rumor, especially this early in the game, and rumor and speculation aren't thing that normally belong in an encyclopedia. I'm curious to hear people's opinions on this, but considering we haven't had too much discussion on it at this point, I assume most people agree with the present policy. --Proudhug 20:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and admit that I'm a spoiler whore. I read them because I can't stop myself, but I don't think they belong here. I feel like an encyclopedia should be documenting the facts... meaning we should focus on what's happened on the show, not what we read/heard is happening down the road. I think that when this site mentions 'spoilers', it means that, if you haven't seen Season 1, don't read Nina Myers' page, because you're gonna get spoiled. -Kapoli 22:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Kapoli, that's a fine point, although I don't really see why we couldn't or shouldn't have a dedicated spoiler page. People seem to want it, and as long as the spoilers are contained there and clearly marked as speculation and so on, I see no reason not to have it. Proudhug, ruining the fun of the admins not a good reason to ban spoilers because the correct answer is more administrators. What about that, anyway? There are still two nominations on the table. --StBacchus 23:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If people wanted to have 1 designated page, I'd go with that, but I don't think it would work.

I'm thinking of the President Logan twist... I can totally see us posting that kind of information on a designated page for spoilers, and then someone coming along and posting on Logan's page, "In an upcoming episode, it will be revealed that President Logan is working with Christopher Henderson and the terrorists." There's a chance that people who don't want spoilers (like Proudhug or Xtreme) would see that information before someone else had a chance to remove it. Then I'd feel bad that something that awesomely jaw-dropping was ruined for someone who didn't want to know about it. While I personally love/enjoy/obsess over spoilers, I don't like ruining the show for others, and I can't think of a way to contain the information to one page. -Kapoli 00:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You beat me to it, Kapoli. This is the exact reason. If we allow some spoilers in specific areas, people will see this and, without reading or knowing the rules, will assume spoilers can go anywhere on the site. Unfortunately I can't "rollback" my memory. ;-) --Proudhug 01:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for ruining the Logan twist just then. ;-) -Kapoli 01:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I despise spoilers, but I don't really see this big demand for them. I hate looking at them, and I don't think they belong in an encyclopedia at all. If someone wants a listing of 24 spoiler sites, then I'll look them up and we can link from here or something, but I really just despise the idea in general. If there is a big demand for them that I'm not seeing, I guess I could work around them, but if I had to pick one word to describe my feelings for spoilers, it would be hatred. - Xtreme680 03:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha, now tell us how you really feel. ^_~ You're right that there isn't exactly a teeming horde demanding spoilers, but it keeps coming up. People will keep asking until either the show ends or we have a well-thought-out policy on the subject.

As of right now, the policy does provide for the inclusion of properly marked spoilers. If we had a page for spoilers, I think most people would limit the spoilers to it, out of common sense (you know, the same thing that's keeping them from posting spoilers now). However, the spoiler page could also include instructions not to spread the spoilers elsewhere on the site. Then that rule would be in a place where people who read spoilers would be likely to look, which, again, is more than we have right now.

Honestly, I don't care whether or not we decide to include spoilers. I also have suggestions for what to do in case we, all of us, decide to have none whatsoever. What I want is for our rules to be sensible, fair, and clearly stated. That will cut down on the administrative overhead of deleting and reverting people's good-faith mistakes. --StBacchus 07:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should have a section for spoilers. I read spoilers (bad habit, DONT EVER START!) and above, Kapoli said that she reads spoilers. That way, if you make a few people administrators that don't mind reading spoilers, clearly mark a section for spoilers, and make it blatantly obvious that if you post spoilers outside the page dedicated to it, you will be banned, then it won't be a problem for people that DO want to read spoilers. We could even put a "lock-down" type thing at the top of the page showing that if you were re-directed to that page, you know it is a spoiler. That way, nobody can complain if they read a spoiler because it is shown all too well.

Featured Article template

Unless anyone has a major problem with me doing so, I'm going to move all but the current Featured Article template from the top of the pages to the Talk pages. It's very obtrusive having it plastered across the top like that. --Proudhug 15:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Haha, just kidding. I thought about bringing that up once upon a time, but decided against it. It's on the bottom of some pages too, I think. -Kapoli 15:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. That's how wikipedia rolls, and it looks much nicer. - Xtreme680 17:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm proberbly tired but I don't get it lol. What do you want to do? --24 Administration 21:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved all of the {{Featured}} templates except the current one to the talk page, rather than the article proper. This is the way Wikipedia does it and it makes it unobtrusive. I also added them all to the Featured Articles category, so it's more organized. --Proudhug 21:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wanted Pages

Occasionally I'll go through the Wanted Pages and look for stuff that appears wanted but isn't really wanted, like a link for "Jak Bauer". Obviously, that was misspelled, so I'll trace the link back and fix the misspelling to remove that item from the Wanted Pages list.

I've come across a few things that have no pages linked to them, despite saying there's 1 link... like Talk:Audio recordingSHIT! I don't understand how those pages end up there. I guess it might not be really important, but I'm curious about it. Anybody know what's up? -Kapoli 00:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That's really bizarre. I have no idea what to say, aside from it could just be a software error, much like the "Below are the last 50 changes in the last 7 days, as of $3" message at the top of the Latest Intel page. --Proudhug 01:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It might be a vandel's page which has since been deleted or renamed. --24 Administration 09: 54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well that's no good. Any way to remove those? -Kapoli 10:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'm doing now. Those pages should be redirected, and I'm trying to delete all of the unnecessary redirects that we have (which is a lot). Not the useful ones we use all the time, but vandalism, uncommon misspellings, page names no one would ever search for and have no links, things of that nature. - Xtreme680 01:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so all of those pages on the "Wanted Pages" list that say (1 link) but actually have no links (like Talk:David Palmer covered in pelican shit) will be gone? Sweet! -Kapoli 01:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the hope - Xtreme680 01:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So I made a list of those pages on the AfD page. They originally had no links to them, but now technically they have 1 link.... but can we get rid of them? That'd be super. -Kapoli 10:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

New admins, again

We seem to discuss this briefly and then let it drop. So what's the plan? Should we set up a page for nominating and voting - like the Featured Article page? Should people who are interested in being admins just leave a note for the current admins, or do we need to go straight to Angela/sannse/Mindspillage/etc. on the main Wikia page? Where are we going with this? -Kapoli 00:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to make a page for it, so: Wiki 24:Requests for adminship. It's loosely based on the one Wikipedia uses. As always, anyone should feel free to make changes as they see fit. I went ahead and nominated you and Xtreme, since I think you'd both make excellent admins. --StBacchus 11:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

While missing out on the fun argument on quotes and missing this as well, apparentally I have become an administrator. I am not quite sure what to think. - Xtreme680 00:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Party at Xtreme's! Congrats on becoming an admin! -CWY2190 01:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There will be Bud Light and vodka mixed with Cranberry Juice served at my userpage :). - Xtreme680 01:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! Thanks to you and Kapoli for nominating me, as well. Are we going to add more admins at some point, or do we think three is enough? I am curious about what the selection process was. --StBacchus 09:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Memorable quotes

What do you guys think about keeping memorable quotes strictly on the episode pages and eliminating them from character pages? This'll reduce clutter and unnecessary redundancy. A character like Jack Bauer who's been on the show for years will have dozens of memorable quotes and it's a pain having to scroll through them all. --Proudhug 21:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the rest of you, but I remember quotes by who said them, not when. Not to mention that dialogue is a major source of characterization. Maybe we could compromise. Multi-speaker quotes can go on the episode pages and single-speaker quotes on the pages of whoever said them. Jack will still have dozens, though. Maybe he could have his own quotes page. --StBacchus 21:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you think some people come to Wiki 24 to find quotes? That seems a little odd to me, but it's possible I suppose. Quotes are basically excerpts from episodes (or novels, comics, etc.), so it makes more sense to me to have them on those pages. I agree that most people will sooner remember who said a quote rather than when it was said, but a list episodes in which the character appeared is available to search. --Proudhug 22:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I came to Wiki 24 to find quotes. It seems like an innocent enough thing to do. On The OC Wikia, for a mainly dialogue based show, I list a few quotes on the page and then provide a link to a page containing all the notable quotes. Maybe this would work? I really don't it's that much trouble, most characters have the menu bar, which helps jump to the section you want to read, and its not hard to click, hold, and drag to speed things up. - Xtreme680 23:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that we can be more selective about the quotes we put on character pages. We need to determine if a quote is better known for a character or an episode. For example, "I'm so sorry..." or "the only reason you're conscience..." would be on both, but "Right here, right now you are going to face justice" doesn't really define Jack Bauer, though it does define the episode. I think we should be pickier as to what goes on character pages. Not every episodic quote should be on the character pages. - Willo 68.51.105.170 02:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm torn on what to do. I definitely like the memorable quotes on the character pages and episode pages, so I kinda like what Willo proposed. Some of the quotes don't make sense or aren't as "memorable" out of the context of the episode, so those quotes should remain on the memorable quotes section of the episode pages. But I do remember quotes based on the person, rather than the episode, so I definitely want to leave them on the character pages, too. We already have so much redundancy on this site, I don't think keeping some of the quotes on the character pages will hurt. -Kapoli 03:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I like Willo's idea, too. It makes sense to me that a quote would be placed on the episode page when it's more important to the episode and the character page when it's more important to the character. I do think some redundancy is fine, though. We don't have a master list of quotes, nor is it very easy to search for them, so putting them where people can find them is key. I also like Xtreme680's idea. Not every character would need a separate quotes page, but I think his format would work very nicely for characters like Jack who have a lot. --StBacchus 07:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The following is another unpopular rant by Proudhug. Please enjoy.

Okay guys, this is really starting to get nuts. It seems that 90% of all the edits anymore are people adding "memorable quotes". We even have three pages that are specifically reserved for memorable quotes! Is all of this really necessary? Where should we draw the line with how much to include? If Joe Username decides that every single line of episode 27 is memorable, is it alright for him to upload an entire episode transcript, not only to the episode page, but to each individual character page of every single person in the episode?? And who decides what's "memorable", anyway? If I think Jack saying "Hi, Kate" is memorable, but no one else does, is it okay for me to add it to the site? We should probably change the heading to "Quotes" or "Select Quotes" or something. As Zhoul commented to me off-site, the word Memorable screams "F4N SITE!!!" And that's what it's starting to look like with all of these quotes. I'm okay with the specific pages for Jack and some other main characters, but I'm still of the mindset that these belong solely on the episode pages, which is where they came from. And that they should be kept to a minimum. --Proudhug 22:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This ends the latest Proudhug rant. Thank you for your time.

Well, I have noticed a few NEW users who are focusing on memorable quotes, but I don't think that's a problem. I appreciate the help that they're contributing, and I haven't seen any quotes added so far that I think are "unworthy" of being on the page. Plus, we need NEW users, and I'm not going to risk chasing them off by barking at them that their contributions and edits are not what they should be.

As for keeping the quotes to a minimum - aren't we trying to be a comprehensive encyclopedia? Aren't we trying to be the go-to site for everything 24? Who's to say that people don't come here looking for quotes?! I've referred at least a dozen people on both IMDb and the 24Insider to this site when they're looking for a quote or appearance. We don't know why people come here, we don't know what they're using it for, we don't know what they're interested in. I don't see a downside to including too much information - the only problem I can see with this site is limiting the amount of information we have.

If you, or Zhoul for that matter, don't like or don't want to help with the Memorable Quotes, then don't read 'em or don't contribute to them. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but I'm getting REALLY tired of defending everything on this site that you don't like. As an editor, I agree with you on some issues, but as a 24 fan, I'd like this site to have as much information as possible. Are there parts of this site that I don't like and don't want here? Yeah! Should we keep them for the sake of completeness even though I think they're unnecessary? Absolutely! It's not about what one or two people think belong here.... this is a community effort and all of our opinions carry equal weight. We're getting dangerously close to alienating new editors and editors who have been around for awhile, and let's face it, two or three people can't handle this site on their own. --Kapoli 22:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, since my name has risen to the top of Proudhug's pudding like a piece of juicy tapioca, I might as well reply. While I haven't personally observed the overwhelming influx of quotes that he has, I can certainly comment on their semantic usage. Despite the obvious fan appeal to having Memorable Quotes, is there really a place for them in an unbiased, objective encyclopedia setting? Definitely, the word "memorable" insinuates fan subjectivity, as Proudhug reinforced with my (*nudge* memorable *wink*) quote above. Memorable by whom? Can a computer algorithm decide what's memorable? Probably not, but an encyclopedia in its rawest form should be able to be computer-generated given the stance of neutrality. It's fact-based only. "Random Quotes", yes. "Memorable Quotes", no. Consider the following made-up quotes. There is no neutral discernment between:

1) Jack: "Are we there yet?" Tony: "Hold on, just a minute longer."

2) Jack: "Damnit Tony, why aren't we there yet?!" Tony: "Don't you have a beanstalk to climb? Piss off!"

However, clearly #2 is more colorful, and thus "memorable" by human standards.

There seems to be a general web of subjectivity here that needs to be addressed once and for all. Should any, some, or none at all be allowed on the site? Given that it's first and foremost an encyclopedia, I should say none. Yet we still see examples seeping through, like these Memorable Quotes, or the Status indicator on Character Sidebars (though that has been tailored somewhat objectively though not satisfyingly enough to me -- more on a possible revamp to this later). I don't know as if there's a clear-cut solution at the moment, but these so-called "rants" (I prefer the term "discussions") can hopefully get the ideas flowing. --Zhoul 22:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Kapoli, I've never read an entry in an encyclopedia that had more than one or two quotes for something. It's a pretty rare thing for an encyclopedia to include; the quote has to be pretty crucial to the definition of the person or event. Wiki 24 seems to be getting a little unprofessional in that respect. But that's just my opinion. Like you said, this is a community effort, so if people can't assert their suggestions on making the site nicer, cleaner, easier to use and navigate, then what's the point? I'm painfully aware that a lot of people probably do come to this site to find quotes, which is why I would never campaign for their abolishment. As a matter of fact, I was the one who created the quotes heading on the episode pages in the first place! But c'mon, I can't be the only one who thinks we're bordering on excessive at this point. Or at least approaching bordering, if that makes any sense.

This has been addressed before, but Wiki 24 can never be the "go-to site for everything 24." We're an encylopedia, so we cover a lot of ground, but certainly not even close to everything 24. An encyclopedia is still just an encyclopedia. --Proudhug 22:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Webster says an encyclopedia is meant to "treat comprehensively" a subject. There's a lot of subjectivity right there. It doesn't say, for instance, that an encyclopedia covering a teevee show can't include lots of quotes; I would argue that the word "comprehensive" suggests that the one thing an encyclopedia must have is as much information as possible. Proudhug, if you want to keep claiming that things are outside the scope of this project, you're going to have to be more specific than just saying it's "not encyclopedic." I agree with Kapoli - if you don't like the quotes, ignore them. The whole point of making separate pages for quotes was to keep them from cluttering up other articles. If you have usability or aesthetic issues beyond that, please by all means explain what they are and suggest alternatives.

Zhoul, you seem to be arguing that we shouldn't include quotes at all. Indulge me in an analogy. Paper encyclopedias are limited by space, but the Wikipedia article on Mark Twain has lots of quotes. And it certainly should, being as he was a writer famous for his wit. Instead of the article merely asserting that Twain was witty - which isn't objective, but is absolutely vital information to include - the quotes make the case.

One would likewise expect a scripted TV show to produce a lot of memorable quotes. In 24 particularly, the dialogue often packs a lot of meaning, because the real-time format limits what they can do with editing. If you read the quotes I picked for Lynn McGill, you can see his character arc - robotic bureaucrat to crazy dictator to humbled hero. Did I pick them subjectively? Yes, of course. Subjectivity is inherent to writing about creative works. You can't will it away. Every time an editor chooses to include or omit a detail, a quote, or a description, that's a subjective decision. The best we can do is minimize bias (not eliminate - that can't be done, either). If you disagree, consider that your own argument that "memorable quotes" screams "fan site" is wholly subjective. I think it screams IMDb, personally.

Finally, just a little reminder that the topic of this site is not The Western Canon. It's television. It's not even serious television, like PBS. Why would we want to leech all the flavor out of empty-calorie fun like 24 by adhering to obsessive standards of objectivity and solemnity? --StBacchus 09:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You've made some excellent points, StBacchus. However, I never said quotes were not encyclopedic, just that it's nothing you really see very often. In that respect it seems non-encyclopedic for sure. To me, anyway. But who's to say what information can and can't ever appear in an encyclopedia? We're all merely trying to determine what to include in this encyclopedia. Keep in mind that I don't think we should abolish quotes, just limit them, and relegate them to more specific locations. Also keep in mind that this is just my opinion, and the only reason people post their opinions are to fish for those who agree.

You make a good point in your choice of quotes for Lynn McGill. That's a legitimate use of quotations for an encyclopedia, in my opinion. Unfortunately, most other pages don't have any such "adjenda". --Proudhug 10:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough! I apologize if I mischaracterized your argument. I do agree that people sometimes include way too much (see my edits to Richard Walsh) - the trick is deciding which quotes actually "say" something, or which are funniest, and there's just no metric for that. Earlier, Willo suggested putting quotes that define the characters on their pages, and quotes that define episodes on episode pages (I think he was getting at the same thing you are, that some quotes are best considered excerpts of episodes). What do you think about that? --StBacchus 11:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I started thinking about encyclopaedic examples where quotes would be included. Most historical figures would have them: Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King Jr., even Mark Twain as you mentioned. So I'm definitely not discounting the use of quotes here. The key is assessing what's "memorable", and keeping things succinct. Like I tried to illustrate above, the word "memorable" isn't appropriate because it's not neutral. Suggestion: Drop the word "Memorable" from the description and simply call it "Quotes". It's far less suggestive and biased. Anyway, I believe part of the selection process should be "What quote shapes this character?" rather than "Which quote is arbitrarily funny?" For example, in an entry for Martin Luther King Jr., you are going to find quotes from his speeches about the fight against racism and such. You are not going to find: "Hot damn, this pizza is good!" because it's not relevant to supporting the rest of the description of who he was. If in Jack Bauer's profile, it is stated that he is a rogue operative who likes to break the law for the greater good, then quotes like "Mr. President, I will kill you if I need to!" would be appropriate, because they back up that claim. Similarly, quotes like "Damnit!" show off his testy nature. That being said, we don't need to highlight all 100 quotes that demonstrate Jack's "coolness".

Incidentally, IMDb is in no way an official source of information, so it's perhaps not the best gauge of a professional encyclopedia. However, if we want to make the comparison, IMDb uses the phrase "Personal Quotes" rather than "Memorable Quotes".

One last thing: I think each episode should house all of its quotes, listed chronologically, and I think those quotes should go on a separate child page for that episode. That is, the character quotes should be a subset of the episode quotes, and not a mutually exclusive entity. Because he's in every episode and has a gazillion quotes, Jack Bauer should also have a separate child page. All other characters can probably have their quotes listed on their main page. Or maybe we should set a cap of ~15 quotes: once you reach 15, you get a separate page...? Finally, all quotes appearing on character pages should cite the episode in which they appear. Specifically, they should hyperlink to the quotes page for the given episode. This way, people can easily navigate to find the context of the quote. --Zhoul 14:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The IMDb uses "Memorable Quotes," and this isn't a professional encyclopedia. Professionals get paid. Editors here do it only as long as it's fun, hence the concern about driving people away. If you'd like, we can post some guidelines on the Policies page, but you're never going to get people to stop adding quotes they like, especially if they're funny. Anyway, why shouldn't we include a hundred quotes to demonstrate Jack's coolness, or ones that are funny or deep?

I like your formatting and organizing ideas, but I have a quibble with dropping the word "Memorable." Unless we're including every line a character ever said, the quotes are pretty much ipso facto going to be the ones that people find memorable. There's no need to be coy about it; in fact, plain "Quotes" suggests that there's no discrimination going on, when actually what we all seem to want is for people to be more selective in what they choose to include.

It's fine by me if all the character quotes are also on the respective episode pages, and that quotes are cited by episode - although that's going to be tough to do since we haven't been doing it all along. I suppose setting a hard limit on the number of quotes that go on a character page would work, although it seems needlessly constrictive. How about a range? Fewer than 5 quotes, they stay on the character's page. More than 10, they go on a separate page. In between, editors use their own discretion. --StBacchus 18:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'll try and see if we can try and get a compromise then. My feeling is that, fewer than 5 quotes, and it's not really a huge problem to scroll past them. As for long lists of quotes, well, wikipedia has wikiquote, so I see no problem with us doing something similar. IMDB has memorable quotes for movies, personal quotes for biographies, and has been said, it's sort of a different monster in and of itself. I feel if there is a separate page once a character's quotes get out of control, it really is no problem. You know that page is what it is, a collection of quotes.

That said, I don't understand the viewpoint that when something gets hard to do or decide, we do away with it. Willo really did come up with a nice idea. Quotes are a way of a character's way of representing themselves, and reveals information about their personal views, ways of handling stress, and political beliefs. It would be far more subjective to try to interpret these views and characterizations in a paragraph about them. Quotes speak for themselves and also help define the character. They seem important to me. - Xtreme680 20:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I just added a Jack/Chappelle quote to Jack's extra memorable quotes page. So... what's the verdict here, should I not have done that? Also, last week I added Jack's monolouge to Logan in episode 5.24 - is that too long? Anybody? If my quote contributions are what Proudhug was talking about, I can cut it out - unless we want them to keep coming. --JPizzle1122 23:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In-Universe (IU) versus Out-Of-Universe (OOU)

Here is an example of IU and OOU writing, and hopefully it is clear why IU is the preferable method for summarizing events of 24. (The example is hypothetical, and yes, it is taken to the extreme to illustrate the point. Notice the important use of past vs. present tense: we are describing what happenED, not what we ARE seeING while watchING the TV screen.)

IU: Jack Bauer drove his car into the ditch, rupturing the car's fuel tank. Although Jack sustained gashes to the forehead, he remained conscious and was able to escape the burning wreck before it exploded. He then called Tony to come pick him up.

OOU: Jack Bauer's car veers off the road, much like it does in Season 3 with Sherry Palmer in the passenger seat, and winds up in a ditch. Suddenly, the ruptured fuel tank explodes, but not before Jack is able to escape, as he has done many times before. Little does he know what awaits him in another hour, though. He calls Tony (played by Carlos Bernard) to come pick him up and take him back to CTU. --Zhoul 04:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent illustration, Zhoul! The IU example isn't saying "This is real!" It's merely keeping to the IU perspective for consistency of prose. The OOU example is what I'm taking about when I say "sloppy and amateurish". --Proudhug 04:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, I shouldn't have snapped off a post five minutes before work, and I was unnecessarily grumpy. I agree with you guys about the above example. Number 2? sucks. But I am cautious about the divide for two reasons:

Mainly, I'm afraid that people could get very dogmatic about it, to the point where the readability of the articles is affected. The whole point of making the distinction is so the articles are clear and easy to read, right? I agree that in almost all cases, such OOU information as the actor's contract status, the homage to Brian DePalma, and the improbability of satisfying the First Lady in five minutes should be relegated to "Notes" (or whatever). But there should be some flexibility too - for instance, in cases where a character's fate is unknown. It's OOU information to just say that, but it still belongs in the main body of the article. And characters aren't even very complicated. For other things, like CTU Los Angeles Building, arranging the information according to IU/OOU may not make the most sense. Not to mention that those types of articles should probably have their own set of style rules, because they are rather different from character and episode pages and don't fit neatly into the style guidelines for either IU or OOU as I understand them.

Which brings me to point number two, what does it mean to write IU or OOU, exactly? It's supposed to be a guideline, so it can't be an "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" thing. We should all be agreed on exactly what the rules are. Something like this:

The main body of a character page is to be written in past tense and should refer only to story events, characters, and times. Do not include information about the television production, fan response, or anything else not part of the narrative.

I don't think I've written anything except CTU that set off Proudhug's internal alarm (feel free to correct me on that), but I would really not like to spend a lot of time writing only to have to spend even more time correcting because my personal concept of "IU" is different than everybody else's. --StBacchus 10:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Whoops! I guess someone took that comment about the lack of vandalism as an invitation after all.... thanks very much to Proudhug and Xtreme680 for correcting everything immediately. I wish I could have been here to help. -Kapoli 22:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it was loads of fun. :-D --Proudhug 02:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Day vs. Season

I've been meaning to post this for a long time, but held off because I've been busy preparing to move and I wanted to actually get involved in this project. However, as I'm unsure how long it'll be before I can dive back into Wiki 24 head first, I might as well bring it up now and let others get the ball rolling if they like.

Currently, the articles for Days (Day 1, Day 2, etc.) redirect to the articles for Seasons (Season 1, Season 2, etc.). These are two completely different things and there needs to be a distinction. Specifically, there need to be two different articles for each of these. "Season 1" is OOU, while "Day 1" is IU.

Obviously, "Day 1" would never be used IU, but it's the IU term we've coined to refer to "the events of Super Tuesday". Likewise "Day 2" refers to "the day a nuclear bomb went off in the Mojave Desert (... plus the first eight hours of the next morning)". It's kind of how "GFFA" (Galaxy Far, Far Away) is the unofficial IU name for Star Wars galaxy, despite not really being used IU.

Conversely, "Season 1" refers to the first year of production on the TV show 24. Presently, IU articles are littered with links to Day 1, etc., and not only would it be a pain in the ass to change them all to [[Season 1|Day 1]], but there's no need. Rather, we need to create Day pages for each season, written from the IU perspective. Much of what's already in the Season pages can also be moved over. Like I said, I'd planned to do much of this project myself, but I figure I might as well throw it out there in case anyone wants to get a head start. --Proudhug 18:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This sounds good. Most of the pages just use the redirect, I know that I always do, and I think this is a good idea. That page can described the events of the day, and provide a few especially kickass pictures from it, as well as divide up the major plots (for example, Day 3 could be Salazar sting operation, buying the virus, and stopping the virus or something.) - Xtreme680 21:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with what you're saying, Proudhug. And, for the most part, I understand what you're saying needs to be done, but I'm a little unsure about the details of what you're looking for in a "Day 1" page. Do you want it to be like an episode guide, with pictures, background notes and info, etc.? I'm going to be working on the Research Files from time to time, filling in the tables and connecting the items to the show, but I'm definitely down to help out with the Season vs. Day project, too. -Kapoli 23:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to reiterate that I am 100% against using IU/OOU at all, in any way, for anything, especially organization. There is no reason ever for people supposedly writing an encyclopedia to roleplay that we live in 24. Maybe there's some merit to dividing up the season pages this way (I think it will make them less functional and the site harder to navigate), but could we please drop the amateurish, lazy shorthand and just say what we mean? --StBacchus 23:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm very confused about what you're protesting here, StBacchus. What do you mean by "amateurish, lazy shorthand"? Who's roleplaying that we live in 24? It's about a consistent and organized style of writing. Do you have a problem with the way all of the pages on Wiki 24 are currently designed? Because like I said, 95% of them are done the way that's being suggested. Since I haven't seen you feverishly changing the way all of our pages are written, I think you might just be misunderstanding what we're talking about with IU and OOU.

Kapoli, I'm not entirely sure what all would be on the "Day 1" page myself, but it wouldn't be like an episode page, rather the "Season 1" page would. "Day 1" should have information about the actual day that Jack Bauer experienced, as opposed to the real-life production year. For example, it'd have a more detailed plot synopsis than the "Season 1" page, probably organized into sections with kickass pictures (TM Xtreme680), perhaps notes and clues about when it takes place in the timeline, the major impact on the 24verse, and anything else we can come up with. The "Season 1" page would keep the episode guide, the cast & crew list, list of pertinent guide books, have a brief plot synopsis, background information and trivia about the season, such as when and where it's aired all over the world, things that happened during production or broadcast, etc. Think of these as being the difference between an article about the movie "Titanic" and an article about the actual historical events of April 14/15 1912. One's going to talk about cast & crew, one's not.

Oh and I guess in light of StBacchus' concern about reduced ease of navigate and functionality, I should point out that each page should have an italic note at the top directing the reader to the other page. Something like "For information on that actual events of Season 1, see Day 1." and "For information on the production of the first season of 24, see Season 1." --Proudhug 02:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that writing "IU" (in-universe) aids in keeping descriptions of events concise and consistent while summarizing events. When you write "OOU" (out-of-universe) it's easier to wander with your words.

As for Day X/Season X, I think Day X is where the scene-by-scene summaries of the events that transpired should be transcribed (perhaps with timestamps, though that might trivialize the purpose of the hourly subpages). Also included would be many stillshots captured by "eye-witnesses" or "security cameras" if you wanted to IU-pretend. The Season X page, conversely, should simply provide a paragraph-long synopsis for each episode, and have all the relevant links to production and cast information. --Zhoul 03:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think timestamps would be necessary, since synopses that detailed are on the episode pages, as you pointed out. And considering them pictures from "eye-witnesses" or "security cameras" is taking the IU thing into the role-playing realm. Actually, I think I get now what StBacchus is saying about that. Clearly, I'm doing a terrible job at explaining myself, but writing articles from the IU perspective doesn't mean you're writing as if it's all real and Jack Bauer will read it. It just means you're separating all blatantly OOU information in order to keep the style consistent and easy to read. --Proudhug 03:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess the way I'm thinking about it, the Day X page would look more like an episode guide, and the Season X page would kinda stay the way it is, with a few minor changes. I'm envisioning the Season page to have:

Information about when it was aired on Fox
DVD release information
Cast for the Season
An episode list
Background information/trivia about the Season?

And I'm picturing the Day X page as having:

A detailed plot synopsis, complete with photos (but without times, as I feel that would be too detailed)
Memorable quotes?
Background information/trivia (like "It's been a year since Super Tuesday", or something like that.... maybe not.... maybe I'm not understanding what IU and OOU is?)

I'm still a little unclear on what needs to be done, but like I said, I'm down for doing it. Let me know what the plan is. --Kapoli 03:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you've pretty much got what I'm thinking, Kapoli. We may also come up with more than what you've listed. Day X is about the day, not just a synopsis of it. --Proudhug 04:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Category alphabetization

I just thought I'd bump this up as a refresher:

I suspect some people don't understand how this works, so I'll chime in with a bit of explanation. When you include a category listing at the bottom of an article, the software automatically puts the article onto that category page, obviously. It lists them in alphabetical order by the name of the article. However, sometimes it's preferred that a different form of alphabetization occur, such as sorting characters by their last names. In these cases we type how we want it sorted after a pipe (eg. [[Category:Characters|Bauer, Jack]] lists the article under "B" instead of "J"). With names like "O'Brian" and "O'Neal" the apostrophes are excluded ([[Category:Characters|Oneal, Moira]]) so that "O'Neal" doesn't come before "Olsen". There are other ways that we have to "trick" the software to get what we want. We did this with the episode categorization. By "naming" episodes with numbers, we have them appear in proper chronological order in category pages, rather than the confusing true alphabetical. However, I've noticed people including things unnecessarily, such as [[Category:Locations|Mojave Desert]]. This does nothing at all. "Mojave Desert" is already going to appear under "M" so there's no need to direct it there. I hope I've helped clear up some misunderstandings. --Proudhug 08:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I thought that all categorys had to have the [[Category:Locations|Mojave Desert]] part in them. So they don't? -CWY2190 14:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's just a way of manipulating the order they appear on the list. Omitting the pipe just leaves it as it is. It's like making a link [[Jack Bauer|Jack Bauer]]. It's just redundant. --Proudhug 14:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

New Admins

Xtreme680, 24 Administration and I all seem to think that a couple additional administrators would be a good idea. I understand that Proudhug feels like adding admins isn't necessary at the time because he still has time to check all of the edits, etc. but I don't think that's a solid reason to hold off on adding another administrator or two. While it might not be "necessary" right now, it certainly isn't going to hurt anything or anyone.... it can only help the Wiki. We're all active on the Wiki during different times, and everyone here has something unique to offer and different priorities/projects that we're focusing on. I'd like to see something official started for nominating/voting/appointing new admins. -Kapoli 06:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a good point that we're all on at different times. I think a little extra coverage wouldn't hurt. Besides banning vandals, what are the extra admin duties/privileges, anyway? --StBacchus 09:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's easier to curb vandalism, and of course page deletion as well as image deletion. Duties include helping to resolve disputes, deal with copyright issues, the ability to protect pages and edit protected pages. Wikipedia also states that "The community does look to administrators to perform essential housekeeping chores that require the extra access administrators are entrusted with. Among them are watching the Articles for deletion debates and carrying out the consensus of the community on keeping or deleting these articles, keeping an eye on new and changed articles to swiftly delete obvious vandalism, and meeting user requests for help that require administrative access. Since administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information. In general, administrators acting in this role are neutral. They do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with." - Xtreme680 21:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more of a problem to have too few administrators than too many. Over at WikiFur we find vandalism is rarely a problem, because there's always one or two administrators around. --GreenReaper 22:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. The question at the moment is, who? I know there are a number of really committed editors and I think they would all deserve the privilige and the Wiki would benefit from it. --24 Administration 18:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I was going to propose that we could do something like have one admin for every 500 articles or something. So say, once we hit 1500 articles, we'll ceremoniously "crown" a new admin, based on the largest number of edits or something. --Proudhug 18:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say Kapoli. She(?) has done alot of work for the site and always seems to be around. I'm sure there are others, but I don't feel like thinking right now. And because this wiki is wikia of the month, we should be expecting more visitors (and vandals). -CWY2190 18:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I see a problem with Proudhug's suggestion of "every 500 articles".... there's a difference in creating articles and making edits. I could create 500 new articles right now to get the number up there and have a ton of edits, but what if each article was just a blank page with the title on it? Then what would happen to the editors who spent time writing/creating excellent articles and detailed episode guides and spent time renovating certain areas of the Wiki? They wouldn't have as many edits, but I'd consider their contributions greater to the Wiki. I don't think going by the number of pages is the best way to do it, and I also don't think that we should necessarily limit it to adding just one admin at a time. I don't see any issue or reason for hesitation about adding a couple more administrators right now.

And thank you for mentioning my name, CWY2190. I'm very flattered and would be honored to be an admin of this Wiki, but there are a couple of other editors whom I think would do an amazing job as well. As soon as we can all agree on what to do about adding new admins, I'll nominate someone, too. -Kapoli 22:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously a new admin has to be a recognized contributing member of the community. Someone who creates 500 new blank articles isn't going to have that recognition. This was just a "general rule" suggestion, as I thought we could have some fun with this. --Proudhug 22:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Currently the top ten contributors are:

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to look at this as an order for Admin consideration. We could always make it every 400 articles. Or every 300. But if people want to do it randomly, that's fine. Or we could just make everyone an Admin since we're all good editors anyway. It's not like it matters since vandalism is pretty rare here, anyway. Haha, I actually kinda miss vandalism. I honestly can't even remember when the last time we had a vandal was. I hope that doesn't sound like an invitation. O_o --Proudhug 23:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Neat, where did you get that list?

I thought Proudhug meant every 500 total articles, not per person. But we could also add admins for every X number of active users/contributors, or something. For right now, we could just do a simple vote, where anyone who wants to be an admin can "run" (or if they don't want to throw their name in, they can be nominated). Democracy, huzzah! --StBacchus 23:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha, actually I did mean total articles, but whatever. --Proudhug 23:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew you meant total articles, which means we'd add an admin once we get 1500 articles. We're at 1060-something right now.... I was saying that if I created 400 new articles, but my articles were shitty compared to the 100 awesome ones that StBacchus created, would I still be the new admin if I had the "largest number of edits"? I also think it's gonna take several months to reach 1500, and I'm interested in getting another admin or two now. --Kapoli 00:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just confused. All I know is, we should probably get some new admins now. As far as my number of edits, a lot of them are generally cleanup and gnome type work. Some of them are new actor pages, but most of them are things like adding categories, templates, changing redirects, changing links for disambiguation, things like that. I'm more of a refiner than a dude who adds a lot of content. Keep that in mind. Also, administrators should have a good idea of policy and style, most importantly that which is disputed. - Xtreme680 02:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hee, sorry, I didn't mean to overexplain! Just wanted to make sure we aren't talking at cross purposes. So, who actually has the power to grant admin status? It's ultimately up to them. --StBacchus 06:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Only bureaucrats do. The only people that can make users bureaucrats are the bigwigs at wikia. If you create a wikia, then you automatically are given bureaucrat status, which is like an administrator that can make others administrators. The only people here with brueacrat status are also the administrators, proudhug and 24 administration. - Xtreme680 18:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

After today's vandalism, I think we need to add a third admin, sooner rather than later. I'm sure Wiki 24 will get more vandals due to this being wikia of the month. But I feel it needs to be done. The problem is how to decide. Flip a coin, draw from a hat, do rock paper sissors. But I really believe we need another admin. -CWY2190 03:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. How about we find out when everybody is generally online and arrange it so there's at least one admin available at all hours? I mean, I don't know if it's supposed to be like a job or anything, but if we know there's only one person ever around at noon, that person should probably be an admin, yes? --StBacchus 10:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's all about comfort. I'd prefer to add as many people as the community is comfortable with, to make sure they will uphold policy, make sure things have a consistent style, not abuse authority, and know how to use the tools provided with the administrator status so they can use them to the best of their ability. I think an ability to help resolve disputes in which they are not as concerned may be the best quality a new administrator could have. A few months of good edits and a proper knowledge of wiki editing and features should be a must. I also think users should be nominated, not nominate themselves. This would help show that the community trusts them with administrator status, and is not bestowing it upon them because they don't want to appear unfriendly. I'd prefer getting a new one sooner rather than later, as we may want to allow a period for discussion and objection over the nominee. - Xtreme680 05:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

All good points.... the thing is, there are only like, 5 or 6 people who bother to comment on stuff like this, so we might not be able to get alot of people to vote for nominees. And I'd like to add more than just 1 new admin in the next week or so. As far as nominating/voting/appointing the new admin(s), where can we start doing that? -Kapoli 05:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article

It's June 2. I figured I'd go ahead and swap out the Featured Article... it looks like Government beat Nina Myers by a vote of 4-3. I hope that I did everything right, but if not, then I'm sure an admin will come along and fix it up. --Kapoli 08:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikia of the Month

Guys, we have crushed. Although the wikia administrators are slow, we completely dominated the voting for Featured Wikia for June. That is AWESOME. Well done guys! The wikia site still has redwall up, but I expect it to change soon. GREAT JOB EVERYONE! - Xtreme680 22:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Xtreme680 asked me to have a look at Wikia - it's featured now. I picked a few spots that seemed good. Congratulations! --GreenReaper 09:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Awesome! This is a great wiki with wonderful collaborations, and it deserves the honor. So, congratulations to everybody who's contributed! --StBacchus 09:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The point of the site

This is at the end of the bit on Assuming Information, but I see no point in arguing further until this matter is clarified.

Proudhug wrote: I realize that you and many other people may visit Wiki 24 and want to know more about the First Lady or some other real-life thing seen on the show, but I'm afraid that the simple fact of the matter is that it's not what this site was created for. It's not part of the aim of the founders to cater to the needs of every 24 fan. We do want to be as complete as possible in our misson, but there's still a lot we're not interested in documenting. This includes real-life information, fanfiction and many other aspects of 24 that don't fit into our goals. I apologize if this isn't why you are here.

So your goal is what, the narrowest possible 24 encyclopedia? You're right, that isn't what I signed up for. I had this crazy idea we were trying to make the best resource for 24 information online.

What I want to know is, why? You've been pretty hostile toward "rogue" uses of the information here, as if your project will be tainted by people who want to find quotes or learn what happened to a character. But why? Why not cater to the needs every 24 fan? I see no downside to including as much information as possible. There is, however, a substantial downside to including not enough.

The bottom line is, why should I or anyone else put any effort into making this wiki good if you're going to declare by fiat that our thoughts, opinions, and uses for the information don't matter? --StBacchus 14:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I often get worried I might come across as hostile at times, as I'm sure many people who have to take a position of authority do from time to time, however that's certainly not my intention. There are so many wonderful editors here, yourself included, who are doing such amazing work and I respect the opinions of each and every one, as I hope you do mine. Because of this, I hate the rare instances where I'm required to put my foot down so to speak, as a wiki is a community effort not a monarchy.

However, in order for the site to not spiral into a free-for-all glob of random information and text, we need a clear set of guidelines for what the site is and what the site isn't, and moderators to help people follow those guidelines.

There are many things Wiki 24 is not:

a news site
a discussion site
a fanfiction site
a spoiler site
an advertisment for other 24 websites, stores, merchandise, etc.
a site to download episodes, clips, or transcripts
a store for merchandise
a source of expanded information on real-world things

Wiki 24 is a community-driven project aiming to document every piece of encyclopedic information from and about the TV show 24. While everyone has their say on how the site is designed and what content gets put here, we have to always keep in mind what the site is and what the site isn't.

I think Wiki 24 is still pretty darn far from narrow, even with the exclusion of real-world information. It's true we are narrowing our focus somewhat to exclude the aformentioned list of 24-related stuff. Those are all wonderful things worthy of their place on the internet, but currently, Wiki 24 simply isn't that place. It's not that we don't want to include as much information as we can, or that we're trying to presume why someone may or may not visit the site, or that we don't want to appeal to every 24 fan. Rather, the site has it's own goals and we hope everyone enjoys the site and finds it to be useful and accomplishing what it's supposed to.

If we were truly the "best resource for 24 information online" we'd include spoilers, we'd post fanfiction, we'd provide entire transcripts and/or episode downloads, we'd post cast and crew sightings, we'd have a messageboard, and so forth. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and most of us have agreed that real-world information should be kept to a minimum. It's really a small matter and I hope it doesn't result in us losing one of our best editors over it. --Proudhug 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't include spoilers because we choose not to. It's just not a preference for some people. We don't have transcripts because it violates copyright, same with episode downloads. Cast and crew sightings just aren't in our aim, and since we're an encyclopedia, we obviously don't have a messageboard. We do provide some 24 news, but due to our spoilers policy, most of the time we don't. We do have pages for a future book, and I think we will put more information up for a Season 5 dvd page before it goes up. I'm not sure what any of these things have to do with some of the problems StBacchus has brought up. I certainly think no one wants to turn it into a fan site. There are plenty of those, but not enough with the nature of wiki 24.

I don't necessarily agree to the scope of what StBacchus agrees as essential real world information, but if it's relevant and we have indication of it being true on 24, it seems like we should put it in. But I think more than anything, this needs to be a place for fan resource and information.

More than anything, I think the terms founder and administrator are given more wieght than perhaps they should be. Not any disrespect towards Proudhug or 24 administration, because as Colonel Stryker so eloquently put it in X2 (paraphrased) "Have been editing this wikia when Xtreme680 was still sucking on his momma's tit." But I think, to summarize my (and I think a few others' viewpoint) I will have to quote Michael Clarke Duncan in the epic Armageddeon "We all helped raise her, so we all sort of feel like Daddies here."

This wikia is a community. Therefore it should be controlled by the community. Seeing as how I can see several members which would make excellent administrators, I want to start a formal process for administratorship. I like the way MemoryAlpha does it, and to quote their administrator page, "Memory Alpha's general policy is to grant administrator status to anyone who has actively participated in the development of the encyclopedia for a while and is a recognized member of the community. For a wiki, the more administrators that participate in the system, the better." There are enough differences in opinion among editors that I think a few more administrators would be good for the wika. Also, seeing as how we are getting more traffic and have recently won wikia of the month, we should probably have a few more anyhow. Anyone opposed? - Xtreme680 22:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Xtreme680 that adding a couple additional administrators is a good idea. I don't know how the nomination process for a new administrator would go, but I think that whatever happens, it's important that everyone remembers that this IS a community effort. We all have to make compromises and sacrifices and make sure we're on the same page, or a page that we can all be happy with.

I have a lot of respect for the admins here, but I don't feel like their vote or opinion should count for more than anyone else's. I haven't seen that as a problem here yet, but I have seen it on other Wikis, and the thing is.... Proudhug and 24 Administration may have founded this Wiki, but if they hadn't, I know that one of us regular editors would have. We can't afford to alienate each other with our opinions on certain issues. I'm excited that we're the Featured Wikia for June, but there's no way we would have gotten here without the help and contributions of everyone. The admins do alot, but really, the administrators are nothing more than editors with a few extra perks.

As for "assuming real world information", I've sat down and tried to come up with a well-articulated response several times, but I can't seem to get all of my ideas sorted and worded the way I want them. Do we need real-world information on this Wiki? Absolutely. Do we need to include huge amounts of real-world information? No, but it's hard to draw a line right now as to how much is too much. I think we have to take it at a case-by-case basis.

As far as the debate about the "First Lady" information... I don't think we need a huge detailed synopsis about the First Lady, but I'd like to include a brief history of the First Lady and the role she plays in the White House. Below that, I'd like to describe the First Ladies of 24... whether we list the 4 Presidents and discuss each of their First Ladies (or lack thereof) or just talk about Martha and Sherry (even though Sherry Palmer wasn't actually First Lady, she did mention wanting to be F.L. SEVERAL times in Seasons 1-3, and David Palmer pretended that he was interested in re-marrying her during Season 3, so I think that's worth noting), that's something to decide.

Those are my thoughts... I'll be happy to discuss any of these issues further on any Talk pages or back here. I want everyone here to be happy with the Wiki, happy with their contributions and the contributions of others, and content with the policies/style choices. What I don't want is for anyone to feel they're wasting their time, especially people who have made several significant contributions to the Wiki. -Kapoli 23:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you guys for your opinions. It's good to see we're all pretty much on the same page here. There are many niches that Wiki 24 fills, but we have to go on the majority for what to include and what to exclude.

My comments about the founding of the site were only to illustrate the point that Wiki 24 was created with a set of goals in mind, not to put more weight on one editor over another. Many of those goals have been altered or abolished, and many more have been added, and while things will stabilize somewhat, they will never be fully set in stone. That's the beauty of wiki communities.

Fortunately, I've never really been in a situation where I'm completely against the wishes of the masses, and I think this has been reflected in the strength of our editor-base. I'm looking forward to seeing our community grow now that we're the featured Wikia. If things get too large, we certainly will need more admins to regulate the site, however I don't currently see that it's necessary. As I've said before, I'm still currently able monitor nearly every single edit that's made to the site and it's quite easy for people to contact me or 24 Administration with any problems that may have gotten missed. --Proudhug 00:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My comment about the foundation of this Wiki was meant to address the statement that Wiki24 "was created with a set of goals in mind". The point I was trying to make was that if someone else, say StBacchus, had created this Wiki, she may have had another set of goals in mind... like maybe including a lot of real-world information and a messageboard and not including any timeline information. I think we all have an idea and a set of goals for Wiki24. Obviously our goals are going to overlap at times and clash at other times. We have to work together and each make sacrifices about what we want.

And as far as new admins go, I like the point that Xtreme680 brought up about Memory Alpha... "Memory Alpha's general policy is to grant administrator status to anyone who has actively participated in the development of the encyclopedia for a while and is a recognized member of the community. For a wiki, the more administrators that participate in the system, the better." I don't think the size of the Wiki has anything to do with it. If there's concern about new administrators having opposite ideas about certain topics and turf getting encroached on, then I don't think that would be an issue. I think that there are editors of this Wiki who would make great admins, and I don't think waiting until we get "bigger" is necessarily the right thing to do. -Kapoli 01:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Proudhug, there is no community consensus on real-life information, so please stop acting like there is. You have consistently argued against not only me, but also Xtreme and 24 Administration on the issue of what to assume. On the issue of how much to include, it looks like we've got you and Xtreme on one end of the spectrum and me and Kapoli on the other. George Bush might call that a mandate, but I don't. That's why I was hoping other people would chime in, because neither of us should be acting on behalf of the community without hearing what the community has to say.

Here's what I would like to see, and it's not that radical: if somebody has a question about 24, any question at all, Wiki24 answers it. If they want to know why Martha Logan is so mouthy, we have the answer. If they're writing Tony/Michelle fanfic and they want to know when the wedding was, we have the answer. If they want to know whether Jack killed Paul Raines personally, we have the answer. If they want to know what year each season takes place in, we have the answer. If there is no offical answer, we have the best thinking on the subject (the timeline would fall under that category). Hopefully, we have the answers arranged in such a way that it's easy for people to find them.

I have yet to see a reason why any reader ought to be left in the cold, except that "the site has its own goals." What goals? Why is including a few possibly extraneous but possibly useful sentences such a dire risk to the mission that certain pages become battlegrounds? What does it hurt to make sure everybody gets the answer they're looking for? I appreciate the concern about getting off topic, but this site is in no danger of becoming a free-for-all, and honestly, I doubt it would even if there were no admins or regular editors. At the moment, I'm more concerned about scaring off potential editors by too much reverting or deleting when we could be rewriting or advising.

I'm not against having more admins, though. It would probably be useful to have enough people to watch for vandalism at all hours. --StBacchus 16:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a great deal of practicality in keeping extraneous real-world information to a minimum. One of the main uses I have for Wiki 24 and for other sites such as Memory Alpha is to find out what real-world information has been used on the show. For example, let's say I'm watching Season 3 and I decide to look up Mexico. The reason for me doing this isn't to learn more facts about Mexico, it's to find every reference to Mexico on the show, every time it's been used or mentioned, and what information the show has given us about Mexico. This is very useful for people writing fanfiction. If the page is littered with information about the Mayans, Aztecs, the population of Mexico City, the country's major imports and exports, etc., this feature is useless. A reader will either assume all this information was given on the show, or have to find another way of getting what they want. There are already hundreds of easy-to-access sources of information if I want to know more about Mexico, but Wiki 24 is the only place I can find out specifically what was on the show. Keeping real-world information to a minimum allows both sets of people to accomplish their goals (those who want to know more, and those who want to know specifics), but adding too much alienates the latter set. You said yourself we want to cater to as many people as possible. I mean, saying a Ford Taurus is a car isn't going to hurt anything, but quoting the gas mileage will confuse people, or at least reduce the site's usefullness. Memory Alpha's Mexico page contains a picture taken from the actual show, as well as historical information that only derives from the show. Wiki 24's Mexico page should do the same. --Proudhug 16:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that took a while to read. I think I'm just going to start by putting on the table what I believe the Wiki should be doing. On the whole extra information front I can see both sides of the argument but I believe that some extra information to fill readers in on articles wouldn't hurt. With the above Memory Alpha example, Memory Alpha is in the unique position that it's show is set 200+ years in the future and therefore they have a greater chance off error if they speculate on details. Our show is set now (give or take 5 years) and therefore we should assume that most of the real world information is the same unless it is contradicted on screen (i.e. the President is Charles Logan).

Now, the whole status bar issue. I personally think that it is one of the most important things on the entire information bar seeing as it gives readers a clear, easy answer as to whether a character is dead or alive. If someone wants to quickly check, they can look at that section and instantly see. As for this "it's impossible to know" bit, it's common sense really. I think we should use the general rule that if the writers wanted to bring the character back onto the show without them having come back from the dead or suprising everyone that they're alive then the status should be ALIVE.

Administrator priviliges, to be honest, are generally exactly the same as a regular user's except you have a few more buttons. I would have no problem with allowing the propperly dedicated users on this wiki getting those priviliges.

I think that's everything covered. As StBacchus said above, I'm more concerned about scaring off new users than whether a sentence about Mexico is added to an article which wasn't mentioned in the show. At the moment, Wiki 24 is the definetive source for 24 information, even if it isn't anywhere near complete (which a Wiki can never, be to tell the truth) and I'm very happy with how it's going. --24 Administration 19:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, 24 Administration, you made some excellent points. I don't want to scare anyone off either. The bottom line is, we're going to have to take the real-world thing on a case-by-case basis. I don't have a problem with including basic establishing information to introduce a topic, but too much can be damaging, as useful as it may seem. As for the status bar thing, I see it as more of a hassle for editors then a useful tool for readers, but since I couldn't see ever having use for it, I really don't have an opinion either way. --Proudhug 19:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Proudhug, just because it isn't useful to you doesn't mean it isn't useful to anyone. Having status in the sidebar is very useful, take our word for it. Personally, I don't see the point of the Characters by groups page, yet that was one of the handful of pages GreenReaper chose for the Featured Wikia abstract. Out of curiosity, why would you want to know exactly what 24 had to say about Mexico? You don't have to answer, but I ask only because I would like to understand your point of view. I am a fanfiction author myself, and that's the point of view from which I've been writing articles. Anyway, if that's your objection to the inclusion of real-life information, then I believe we can find a solution that makes everyone happy. How about a more robust system of citing sources? I've been trying to make it clear in the writing ("In real life...." versus "On 24...") what information comes from the show and what does not, but maybe we could do more.

To go back to another point, I'd also like to add a section to the policies about reverting and deleting. I'd like to see less of that - I'm including from myself, too. It's more constructive and less scary to n00bs to rewrite and comment, everyone knows that. But it's easy to forget, especially on certain pages that get changed a lot.

As long as everybody's here, I'd also be interested to hear what you all think about the In-universe/Out-of-universe distinction that currently exists in the Manual of Style. I don't want to just change it without getting some input, but I think the style guidelines can be written more effectively without including it. All we need to say is what we mean. Episode guides: present tense. Character pages: past tense. Real-life information: keep it relevant, keep it to a minimum, mark it clearly, don't contradict the show. Something like that.

My apologies for being long-winded, everybody. Thanks for reading and commenting! --StBacchus 09:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Fancy tables

I've been fiddling around with the fancy table style we have for the episode listings, Bauer kill count and the upcoming Research Files revamp, and I've noticed that there are some odd differences when viewed in Firefox as opposed to Explorer. The horizontal division lines are thicker in Firefox, and for some bizarre reason, the far left border line is often non-existent for the first few frames or so. Anyone else noticing these problems and/or know of a solution? This is bugging me almost as much as the missing external link icon. I may just have to avoid visiting the site in Firefox entirely. :( --Proudhug 17:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't even have internet explorer, and everything looks fine to me. Perhaps I don't even know what I am missing. - Xtreme680 19:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well color me confused. I only use Firefox, and I've never had a problem with the appearance of any of the tables. How bizarre. -Kapoli 19:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying you don't have the problems I've noted above, or that you just haven't noticed them before? --Proudhug 00:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have never experienced the problems, I literally don't even know what the problem is, because the pages look exactly like how I have always seen them. - Xtreme680 00:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I just noticed that the left border problem I was having (and still am) usually fixes itself with a refresh. However, the horizontal division thing is a constant. Take a look at the episode chart for a page like Season 1. In IE, the horizontal lines that separate each episode is one pixel high. In FF, it's about seven. I usually use FF at home, but I was working on the Research Files chart at work today in IE and couldn't figure out how to make those lines thinker. Then I got home and saw that it "fixed" itself. --Proudhug 00:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that'll learn me for not testing in IE! I don't know what's going on with the left border, Proudhug. I had that problem just a second ago on the On-screen kills by Jack Bauer page, but it went away as soon as I reloaded. Meanwhile, I have a fix for the spacer bars.

The problem is that the browser fills in the height of empty cells, and FireFox sets it at 10 while IE sets it at 1. The solution is to set the height so the browser doesn't have to rely on its default. I went ahead and changed all the tables on the Season pages, CTU Los Angeles, On-screen kills, and Research Files. If there are any others that need fixing, just change this:

|colspan="5" style="background: #999999;"|

to this:

|colspan="5" style="background: #999999; height: 10px;"|

It doesn't matter what's between the . It can be deleted entirely. It's just a comment that lets editors know what the cell's doing there. --StBacchus 12:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the explanation and for changing those! --Proudhug 14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sub-headings on Character Pages

I know that some character pages, like Jack Bauer, have a sub-heading for Day 1, Day 2, After Day 2, Day 3, etc. Those sub-headings are necessary and helpful to sort the information we have on Jack and other characters in multiple seasons. But for a character like Jessie Hampton, is it necessary to have a Day 1 sub-heading? Her only appearance was in Day 1, and the only information we have on her is from Day 1. Do we need the sub-heading "Day 1"? I think it's kinda silly to have those kind of sub-headings for characters that only appeared in one season. The same thing goes for location pages. Thoughts? -Kapoli 05:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I originally found it odd that people were putting the "Day" subheadings for characters that only appeared in one season, but I've since grown to really like them. I think they're a good idea for three reasons.

It adds a nice sense of consistency with those pages for people/places/things that do appear in more than one season.
It's a nice, quick reminder of when the events for that character/location/thing take place.
Most pages aren't this complete yet, but I think the majority of articles for things that only appear in one season have at least a little background information that can be put into an earlier paragraph.

In the case of Jesse Hampton, information about her job, partner, ability to speak spanish, etc. should be put in her introductory paragraph(s), as it doesn't specifically pertain to Day 1, while the stuff under the "Day 1" heading is only what specifically happened to her during the day of the California presidential primary.

I hope this clears things up. :-) --Proudhug 06:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Assuming Information

The issue of what unknown or ambiguous information we can assume has been coming up a lot lately, mainly on the histories of pages that are suddenly contentious. The issue is critically important to how we all write articles, so I think it should be discussed here. Here are the current guidelines and my comments:

Certain articles should be written from an "in-universe" perspective and some from an "out-of-universe" perspective.

It is cleaner to write some articles in past tense and some in present. We can and should agree on some grammatical rules (I like the current ones). However, there's no good reason to create a fictional perspective to write from.

No assuming real-life information is true on the show, ever.

It's evident from the use of real people and places that the show is supposed to be set in the real world. The writers only reference a real person or place or event when they want the viewers to assume something about it (they have also avoided referencing real people and places when they do not want the viewers to assume things). That information is relevant to understanding the show, and the wiki will be a much stronger reference if it is included. There is no need to send people hunting through a huge article on Wikipedia when we can sift out the relevant information.

Assuming timeline information is okay, though.

Unlike people, places, events, and things, there have been very few time references in the show. Not only is it virtually impossible to say with certainty in what year a season took place, it's likely supposed to be that way. Only once in five years has it been possible to calculate the year (using Kyle Singer's driver's license), and that's a debatable case. Until and unless a date is given unambiguously on the show, all timelines are purely speculative.

No putting in negative information.

Being as the whole wiki is a work in progress and many articles are in various states of completion, I think we should be able to say what we know for certain is missing information. Right now, the Audrey Raines page stops at her capture by Henderson. Readers shouldn't have to guess whether that means she vanished after that or if someone just hasn't gotten around to adding the rest. It's more clear to give every character a concluding line, even if all we know is that we don't know what happened to them.

I'm hoping everyone will comment on these rules/guidelines and any others they feel strongly about. Otherwise, we're all going to waste a lot of time reverting each other's edits. --StBacchus 07:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'll share my thoughts as well. Out-of-universe and in-universe? Yes, I agree with that and like the current tense. It's nice. I prefer having character trivia on actor pages, things like that.

I agree with the policy on real world information. It sometimes seems so out of place with what has been presented on the show.

I'm also really skeptical of the timeline. I haven't seen it yet, but I guess I'm just wondering what it looks like, what the references are, and why it's taking so long, considering I've only seen the date mentioned once. I think you'd have to assume a lot of things for the timeline to all work out. There's a lot of canonicity issues with the house subcommittee book even contradicting itself, and I guess I have never understood the whole project.

And I think it HAS to be the way most things have been. If I remember correctly, Karen told Bill that Hal Gardner would take over as president. There's no reason to believe that's not true. We haven't seen a lot of things on the show, but as long as there's no reason to lie, we have to make certain assumptions about it being true. Maybe Kim isn't really Jack's daughter. We never saw the conception, and so we can't assume it's true? That just seems, odd to me. Even watching events, there is always some sort of viewer interpretation. Some events logically happen. Henderson got shot, he stopped breathing, therefore, he is dead, even though none of us took his pulse and he was not examined by a coroner. Logan is arrested, he gets impeached, Gardner becomes president. Some of it really is unknown. But explaining assumptions and that things never happened doesn't sound like the spawn of satan to me. - Xtreme680 23:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm proposing changing the current rules to this:

The in-universe/out-of-universe distinction should be used only to illustrate the grammar rules
Real-life information can be included as long as it is relevant to understanding the show and does not contradict the show
Timeline information can be included only if it is stated unambiguously - basically, if it involves math, it probably shouldn't be in the main body of an article
Negative information should be included where appropriate

I believe that following these guidelines, rather than the current ones, will make Wiki24 a far better resource. --StBacchus 00:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The timeline is a completely separate project. It does rely on much speculation and assumption in order for it to work, however in working on it, I've come to the conclusion that placing Season 1 in 2002 makes 80% of everything fit nicely together. For this reason, I'm not prepared to start slotting dates into Wiki 24 that aren't etched in stone. Rather, I only bring it up because it could work as a general guide for events. That said, there are a lot of dates that are given specifically. There's no doubt that these should be integrated into Wiki 24.

Take a look at the Star Wars timeline. It wasn't until the mid-90s that people started working out an official timeline. There was already a lot of SW story material in existence and much of it was contradictory. In order to come up with a coherent timeline, assumptions had to be made and errors had to be glossed over. I think my 24 timeline could be a step towards solidifying an acceptable date for the fanbase to accept. I'm not saying it's now, or will ever be, accepted as canon, as the SW timeline is, and therefore much of it won't be immediately fit for inclusion in Wiki 24, but if enough people agree that it's consistent enough, who knows.

As for the Gardner thing. This isn't even an issue of assuming, rather it's simply that it didn't happen yet. If Jack says "In ten years I'm going to buy a Mustang" should we add that Jack bought a Mustang ten years after Season 5? If Bill said, "I'm going to lunch with Fiona Apple next Friday", should we put it down as having happened? We have no reason to assume it won't happen, but that doesn't change the fact that it hasn't happened. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that it was said Gardner would be sworn in as President, but we can't assume it did happen. --Proudhug 00:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Re IU/OOU: I think there needs to be a distinction. There's nothing that makes me cringe more than reading an IU article that's written from that perspective and then suddenly someone mentions "episode 14" or that "this happened because the actor wanted to leave the show." It's ugly, it's jarring, and it ruins the atmosphere of the article. There's no reason why all OOU information can't be relegated to a "Background information" section. 90% of our articles already conform to this method anyway.

When should negative information be included? Isn't this the reason why have "incomplete information" and "stub" notices? I don't see why we'd want to assume Wiki 24 is and always will be incomplete. The goal is to become complete, not to add things ad infinitum, is it not? Should we be looking ahead to the journey, or the ultimate destination? Once the majority of the articles on Wiki 24 are "complete" fact-wise, having all of these negative information comments is going to leave the site looking very sloppy and amateurish. --Proudhug 00:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Many articles aren't marked with stubs or incomplete information notices. When once of us finds something incomplete, I think we usually change it rather than tag it. But let's say that Audrey just wasn't in the next season. Wouldn't it strike you as odd that we never found out what happened to her? We could say something like "Audrey did not notice Jack being pulled off by the Chinese. Despite their loving relationship earlier, she was never seen nor heard of again." I don't think that's sloppy or amateurish. Besides, we are amateurs. Professionals seek ratings, we're fans, making something for fans, it makes sense to try and tie up a page with a short conclusion. It points out plot holes and unanswered questions rather than ignoring them. I guess I don't see how it's sloppy. If we're able going to be "complete", then ignoring things like unwrapped storylines seem necessary for completion.

Plus, if Gardner is going to become president, sometimes between season 5 and 6, and there is going to be a season 6, won't we just add that later? I don't think that leads to a slippery slope. Tony and Michelle were going off to have a new life together at the end of season 4, and I believe that had been touched upon before season 5 began. Are we to assume they're liars? - Xtreme680 01:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Audrey did not notice Jack being pulled off by the Chinese. Despite their loving relationship earlier, she was never seen nor heard of again."

And that's a perfect example of an OOU note that would be included in a different section. It would depend if she was never seen nor heard of again IU or OOU. If someone in S6 declares that "Audrey hasn't been seen since Jack disappeared" then it's perfectly fine to add that to her bio. But if she was just never mentioned again on the show, that's OOU and would be included in "Background information and notes" or something. --Proudhug 01:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a good compromise. - Xtreme680 01:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Realistically, we are never going to get every editor to remember to put those tags in. Nor will every reader know that if a page is lacking a tag, that means it's done. It's better to be clear in the article's actual text. To be complete, we should include whatever happened to the character, even if we don't know what happened to the character. Behrooz disappeared. That's the end of his story. It's a very important piece of information. Proudhug, what do you mean by sloppy and amateurish? Why don't you rewrite the information instead of removing it?

There's a very good reason all OOU information shouldn't be relegated to Background Information: we don't live inside the show, and the whole project is innately OOU. OOU information is already all over every page. Or maybe I'm not looking at the right 90% of pages, because the ones I see have things like "Written by" and "Dramatis Personae" and "Day 1" integrated right into the articles. That's how it should be, too. It's easier to read and makes more sense that way. --StBacchus 02:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Things like "Dramatis Personae" and "Written by" are OOU because they're included in OOU articles. That's fine. Episodes, actors, writers, novels are all OOU things so they're written from that perspective. Characters and locations are IU so the majority of their text should reflect that. The problem that I have with mixing the two is that it's jarring to read. Every once in a while we're getting stuff like this:

Steve Ward worked as a gas station attendant during the third World War. He grew up in Rome, Italy before moving to the United States in 1983. His family lived in poverty for years until Steve was forced to get a job selling drugs. Steve had learned how to handle firearms from his uncle Bud and he soon began getting hired as an assassin for various domestic hate-groups. During Season 8 of the show, Steve was killed off because the writers felt his character was a bad influence on children.

The last line completely pulls you out of the narrative. It's like in the Bugs Bunny cartoons when his legs would suddenly get erased by a giant hand with a pencil. This is what I mean by sloppy and amateurish. It belongs in a separate "Background" paragraph with any other relevant OOU information, not mixed in with IU text.

I just randomly generated three pages and came up with Cyprus recording, Evelyn Martin and Marianne Taylor, all of which are good examples of IU articles sticking to an IU perspective. As a matter of fact, I kept clicking Random Data and couldn't find any IU articles that had OOU sentences in them, though I know there are still some out there. So it's probably more than 90%.

"Real-life information can be included as long as it is relevant to understanding the show and does not contradict the show"

I'm not sure how much you think we need though. Clearly we're meant to assume that the show takes place in the real-world yes, but Wiki 24 is an encyclopedia of 24, not a guide or source of explanation of the real-world stuff they mention on the show. If someone wants to know about the Secretary of State, there are plenty of other sites to find that out, but if they're looking up the SoS on Wiki 24, they're going to find out how and when it was used on this show. Obviously merely putting "The Secretary of State was some guy who voted in Day 2" is pretty silly, but adding that he's fourth in line for the Presidency is completely irrelevant. Saying that Detroit is a "city in Michigan", rather than merely "the place where Reza Naiyeer's cousin was from" is fine, but that's all that's needed to establish the article. This a guide to established 24 facts, not a guide for further expansion. --Proudhug 10:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There's still plenty of Out-of-Universe information on the pages you're calling In-Universe: Appearances, Sources, References, Day 1, Day 2, "Played by," "First appearance," "Last appearance." You and I aren't in disagreement about how articles ought to be written. I already said I agree with the grammar rules we have in place now. However, we don't need to say anything about the distiction between the show's world and the real world to lay out the rules clearly. In fact, it would be more clear if we just left that out of it.

How much real-life information do we need? I think we need enough. I know that's dreadfully vague, but that's all there is to it. We need to include enough real-life information that anyone curious enough to click the link comes away with a better understanding of the people, places, and events on the show. That's not expanding on the show, only providing background information that the writers expect us to have already. As I've said before, there's no need to make people hike over to Wikipedia and read ten pages on the First Lady if we can tell them everything they need to know.

This a guide to established 24 facts, not a guide for further expansion.

A timeline with dates is an expansion on the show. A picky person might make the point that if you're assuming nothing, you can't assume that there are 12 months or 365 days in a year. Good thing I'm not arguing on that side. But okay, nevermind that the presidential line of succession has come up numerous times on the show, it may not be relevant to put it on the page of everyone who's in it. That can stay gone. Nonetheless, I do think we should err on the side of including more than enough information rather than not enough. It's better to be too helpful than not helpful enough, and it hurts nothing to include a little extra information. --StBacchus 14:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Those items bits of OOU information on IU pages are relegated to specific sections. of the article. This is what I'm saying. OOU stuff shouldn't appear in the main body of the article, rather the sidebar and other specific sections highlight any important OOU information. They need to be distinct.

I realize that you and many other people may visit Wiki 24 and want to know more about the First Lady or some other real-life thing seen on the show, but I'm afraid that the simple fact of the matter is that it's not what this site was created for. It's not part of the aim of the founders to cater to the needs of every 24 fan. We do want to be as complete as possible in our misson, but there's still a lot we're not interested in documenting. This includes real-life information, fanfiction and many other aspects of 24 that don't fit into our goals. I apologize if this isn't why you are here.

As I mentioned earlier, my timeline is a separate project. Parts of it will be posted on Wiki 24, such as dates that are specifically mentioned, but for the most part it's to be it's own thing. If it holds up as well as I'm thinking it will, inputting other unspecified dates may not come with as much assumption as I'd once thought. However, this won't be for me to decide. --Proudhug 20:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Linking

Since I think this is less important than the policy on speculation, I figured I'd put it down here. What makes the wiki format work is that pages are linked. I probably wouldn't have the idea to search for something like the 5th street bridge. However, it is a good article to have. But since we have it, the only way for people to find it is to link it from the necessary pages. I've noticed, by using what links here from the toolbox, that some of the pages that we have recently created have been poorly linked. Sometimes they're only linked from the userpage of the creator. I feel that these pages would be best served if people took the time to create links from episode pages and other pages. A general rule of thumb is, if it's worth linking to, it's worth linking back. (This obviously isn't true for huge pages like season pages, and major characters like David Palmer or Jack Bauer). Anyone have any problems with what I've proposed? Overlinking is definetely a problem, but we can't let pages be underlinked. - Xtreme680 23:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. If someone creates a new character page, then they need to make sure that the character name is linked in the episodes that the character appears in. If the character has ties to a particular location, link it from there, too. You're right, Xtreme680, If it's worth linking to, it's worth linking back. Sometimes people don't realize that something like key card has an article, so they don't link it, so I can excuse that exemption, but ALL additional names, locations and days should be linked once per article. If the "Mike" article mentions Bob, Tom, Dave and the Old Merry-Go-Round, then all of those pages need links from Mike's article. I wish 24 had an old merry-go-round. -Kapoli 19:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that if it's worth linking to, it's worth linking back. Jack Bauer will always be the most linked to page, but that doesn't mean that every little thing that links to him needs to be added to his page. I suppose it's a general rule, but I'm sure there will be a lot of exceptions. --Proudhug 00:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I pointed that out, but episodes the character appeared in is almost natural. Things like weapons and technology are also usually good linking pages. The fact is, we want all character pages to be easy to find. There are some character pages that are only linked in a loop, and you wouldn't be able to find them without knowing the name of that obscure character you want to find out about. - Xtreme680 00:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I missed that sentence somehow. I'm not exactly clear on what you're proposing, though. I agree with what you're saying, but are you suggesting that we start doing it from now on and fix what's missing as we come by it, or that we make a specific effort right now to track down these missing links (heh heh, "missing links")? This was something I'd always planned doing anyway, as soon as I get time. (Man, I've got so much planned for this site, but I've been so damn busy these past few months!) --Proudhug 00:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, if it's linked on someone's user page, chances are that it's poorly linked elsewhere, as a general rule. Not to knock on warthogdemon whatsoever, but he had so many new character pages so quickly that the links weren't to be fleshed out. This is both a "from now on" general rule, and something to do as we come by. We edit an article, and then check to see what links here. We find something missing, we add it. It's not a "right now" project by any means, its more of something to consider and watch for. I'm sure I will keep trying to add and change links, as orphaned, dead end, and disambiguation links are among my pet peeves. - Xtreme680 01:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto... it's something to keep a lookout for, not something that I plan to go search for. WarthogDemon didn't realize when he created those articles that he needed to linky link everything. He corrected those articles, but there are plenty of other pages that need links added or have a red link that should really be blue, it's just spelled wrong or something. I'm not going to go searching for 'em, but I do think that this is something that people should keep in mind when browsing and editing pages. -Kapoli 02:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

New policy on speculation and unknown information

I've updated the Manual of Style to include a section on unknown information and speculation. I've noticed people doing this a lot lately and it just makes for ugly writing. We need to avoid sentences like "Her fate is unknown" or "It is assumed he later became President." Doing so will make Wiki 24 look a lot cleaner and more professional. --Proudhug 01:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I was thinking about the unknown status and I thought that there is a simple way to work it out. If the producers could bring back that character without them having risen from the dead then they're alive. If not then they're deceased. For President Keeler, for example, he would be unknown. --24 Administration 15:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And Eveyln and Amy... They're the most obvious ones. - User:Willo 68.51.105.170 18:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

New Character Categories

So now we have categories for the individual seasons and for CTU characters (in addition to the "CTU Field Agents" and "CTU Intelligence Agents" categories)??? That's fine with me, I just want to make sure I'm understanding everything correctly... will we categorize Jack under Characters, Day 1 Characters, Day 2 Characters, Day 3 Characters, Day 4 Characters, Day 5 Characters, 24: The Game Characters, CTU Field Operations Agents, CTU Characters, Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, Day 4, Day 5, and 24: The Game??? That seems excessive to me. -Kapoli 20:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's an excessive amount of categories, it's just confusing, a lot of unnecessary work, and steps into a problem I think some pages have. Some major characters have WAY too many categories. - Xtreme680 23:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the Category structure usually works on Wikis, but it seems to me we need to work something out. While I too hate the idea of characters having mega lists of categories at the bottom of the page, I don't see any way around it. You've got categories and subcategories, but if you only put the article in the lowest of the subcategories, then the higher categories contain nothing other than other categories and that's totally useless.

The way I saw it, it was very hard to locate characters because the list was so long and I also thought it was cluttering up the categories for each day. So, I made categories for characters from each day and removed the characters from categories for each day. --24 Administration 15:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

So yeah, I guess the real question is, do we really need so many categories? I think they can be very useful for people, but it can look quite ugly if an article has too many. It's Catch-22. --Proudhug 01:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the new categories. We could make some decisions about which categories should be used in what cases. It's maybe not necessary to mark characters who are in multiple seasons/products as being Day 1, 2, The Game, etc. characters. They aren't especially tied to the events of a single day, after all. I also think it's not necessary to have a "Jack Bauer" category. Jack Bauer is the most linked-to page on the site, so it's already plenty easy to get there. --StBacchus 11:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Jack Bauer category isn't so bad, his page is getting especially large, and will only increase in size, so it may work. He also has some pages specifically dedicated to him, and it would be hard to categorize those pages otherwise. As far as the number of categories goes, well, we tend to go for usefulness over beauty in general. - Xtreme680 23:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

So every single character should be included in every single relevant catgory? I wouldn't mind doing that for any character pages I come across but I've noticed some characters appear in "Day #" or "Day # Characters" but not in both categories. Should I make sure each relevant character is in both from now on? Just want to make sure now so there aren't so many links to be gotten rid of should over-categorization be unnecessary. - WarthogDemon

No, just go for "Day # Characters". Since we have the character categories, we no longer have a need to put them also in Day # by itself. - Xtreme680 18:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through and started to move the Day 1 Characters that are still characterized under Day 1. I did the names from A-E, and I'll continue to recategorize the rest. -Kapoli 03:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Xtreme680 and I went through and moved all the characters from "Day X" to "Day X Characters". Thanks for the help, Xtreme680!! -Kapoli 05:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

24 Administration or Proudhug, I think there has been some vandalism on Chloe's page, Palmer's page, the Main page, Jack's page, etc. Looks like it's mostly 152.163.100.14 and 152.163.100.133. I changed some of the pages back, but I can't do them all right now. --Kapoli 04:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Also check the Chloe O'Brian history page for one from 152.163.100.71 I'll see if I can't track down the rest of the vandalism in the meantime. - Xtreme680 04:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism update. User:Blitz moved the David Palmer and Jack Bauer pages to David Palmer on wheels and The man who never seems to die respectively, as well as the talk pages. I have reverted most of the other vandalism and these as well, and I recommend that he be given some sort of punishment and that these pages (which I have redirected back to the previous pages) be deleted - Xtreme680 21:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Today, both Jack's page and Palmer's page were redirected to "The man who never seems to die" and "David Palmer on wheels", respectively. I don't want to be a bitch about it, but the user "Blitz" needs to be banned. Permanently, in my opinion. This kinda shit is not funny and it's just creating unneccessary work for everyone. A dozen articles had their content erased or changed to something perverted yesterday... the main page keeps getting screwed with... pages are getting redirected... it's really pissing me off. Is there a solution to this as far as requiring users to log in or something else? I'm tired of it and - since I'm not familiar with moving pages and reverting edits - I'm sure Xtreme is tired of it too seeing as he's been correcting everything. -Kapoli 21:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, is this not pissing anyone else off? We shouldn't have to do this every day. I want bans, and ferocious ones. I'm sick of talking about policy too, someone just write a vandalism policy, protect the main page from moving, and we'll continue on our merry way. - Xtreme680 19:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that. Every single word of it. -Kapoli 19:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The above IPs are banned for infinite time. I think that taking a zero tolarance policy on vandalism is now in order. Anyone found vandalising will be banned for an infinite time period. Look at Wiki 24:Vandalism for more information. --24 Administration 19:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks 24 Administration! Seeing "with an expiry time of infinite" has made my day. I appreciate you taking care of it, and I completely SUPPORT having a zero tolerance policy. -Kapoli 19:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Happy to help. If anyone sees any vandals, please report them to Wiki 24:Vandal Alert. --24 Administration 19:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you very much. I like the vandal alert level too. "Vandals, if you try and commit suicide, Jack Bauer doesn't care. He'll just shoot you in your hand for justice." - Xtreme680 21:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Do we ban IPs or do we ban names, or both? Since it's free to make an account on here and you can make infinite e-mail addresses, I think we really have to ban IPs. We also need to discuss a solution to this, because there were two bad edits to Chloe's page, Palmer's page, and Jack's page, as stated in the first notice on this topic by Kapoli. The IP's were almost identical. Maybe they logon at a library or something. Should we enact a building-wide ban? This prevents anyone from that building to be on and possibly innocent people, but we get the vandalism person off.We need to discuss another way to get this solved. BauerJ24 00:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 ::: I had to convince Mr. Bacchus that I'm not being willfully obtuse about this, so I'm posting again. You mean that the magazine's ''perspective'' is not in-universe, meaning it has no narrative content. If there's no narrative content, it doesn't need to fit into the canon hierarchy, because the facts are either true or they aren't. Now have I got it? --[[User:StBacchus|StBacchus]] 23:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
+::There's a Mr. Bacchus? Anyway, yeah, I see Proudhug's point, its only confusing if it's a narrative. Going back to the comic book store today (shut up, miss Xtreme went back home for summer) I can see that the same company is churning shit like this out for anything with a solid fanbase, including Lost. Besides that, there really isn't that much information in there anyway. They don't list the episode sor sources at all for a few of their claims, which makes me distrustful. It is nice for some of the actor pages and trivia however. - [[User:Xtreme680|Xtreme680]] 00:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 == Appearances? ==