Talk: Canon

Revision as of 06:01, 4 May 2011

Scripts

Do the shows scripts count as canon at all? i.e., if a character is named in a script but we don't hear their name in an episode do we include it here? I say we should; its no different than including names from credits and it will help to have more named articles. It could also be interesting to compare aired episodes to scripts - maybe have a section in BGIN that states the differences. In fact, if whole characters were cut from the scripts they could make interested new inclusions into the Category:Non-canon characters. --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 22:17, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

You bring up a really good point. I was against this at first, but then changed my mind. While scripts can never be considered a canon source of IU information, we do use the non-canon closed captioning and non-canon closing credits as a valid source for the inclusion and spelling of names. So I don't see any reason why we shouldn't extend this to unaired script names. Larry Rogow's name clearly must've come from the script, but was never spoken on screen. It was included in the closed captioning and one of the reference books.

I also definitely think that including differing information from scripts in the BGIN sections would be awesome. And deleted characters from scripts are certainly welcome to get their own non-canon articles. --proudhug 02:28, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

I'll get on it; there's some characters from the Day 2 premiere that have names in the script and not on the show. --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 20:08, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Magazine

If we're putting commercials on the list and explaining why they're not canon, and putting a note on deleted scenes and closed captioning and why they're not canon, I see no problem explaining why this isn't canon, especially considering it is similar to the website, providing background information, etc. Comparing it to the tonight show is just a straw man. - Xtreme680 00:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"Straw man"? The hell are you talking about? Putting The Official Magazine on here is no different from putting The Tonight Show, since they both contain interviews with 24 actors. TOM is not a story, it is a publication about 24. It makes no sense to say that events in TOM are more or less genuine than say the comics, because there are no events in TOM. It's a compilation of articles and interviews about the show. There is no story material, therefore it does not belong on the canon list.

Neither does the website. It provides lists of facts and background information on characters. It's a straw man because I don't want to add the Tonight Show. You're adding something I did not say in order to make me argument easier to defeat. I want to add a publication that, like it or not, is official, and has information about the story and plots going on in the 24 universe, and explain it's place in canon. Is it so horrible that we go out and tell people "also, ignore this"? This place is supposed to be a guide, a helper. If I had to ask its place in canon, is it so impossible that someone might have the same question? I'm trying to establish some continuity so that one day, when they post some obviously wrong piece of information (That say, Vincent O'Brien is really named Vincent Chase or something) and someone potentially tries to add it, we'll point to the canon list. The magazine is confusing because it tries to claim that it has this word official in front of it, giving it a false sense of legitimacy. Also, it's not even a big deal dude, no need to bust out the italics on little ol me. If you really want to take it off, sure, whatever. - Xtreme680 04:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not create a straw man argument:

You wouldn't mention The Tonight Show on the canon page.
You want to mention The Official Magazine on the canon page.
Both contain interviews and "facts" about 24. Therefore:
You shouldn't want to include The Official Magazine on the canon page.

I never said you wanted to include The Tonight Show, I was just pointing out that including TOM is akin to including that show. Oh well, I'm sure you'll agree this isn't worth arguing about.

The only information on the website that's relevant to the canon list is the character profiles. This is original IU information that is written specifically for the site. Everything else on the website provides trivia or OOU facts. So far, there's no original IU information being provided in The Official Magazine, so it doesn't even apply to this page. If TOM mentions "Vincent Chase", that's clearly an error, but since it's mention OOU it doesn't matter. Kiefer Sutherland has mentioned many things about 24 in interviews that are incorrect, both in TOM and on shows such as The Tonight Show. It may be worth noting on Wiki 24, but IU information shouldn't come from an OOU source.

If someone wants to know where the 24: Soundtrack fits on the canon list, what do we say? Is it an official 24 product? Of course. Does that mean it contains story material? Of course not. Even if the liner notes of the CD say that Jack's last name is "Bower", it's not an IU reference so it doesn't matter. Now, if the liner notes suddenly made up something like Jack's middle name being Bartholomew, then we'd have to assess it's canonicity. Until then, it's just an OOU product. --Proudhug 07:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That's my point. It does. It says Bauer has 122 kills. I'm guessing that we will have something different due to our standards. Is 122 canon now? Or do we stick to what kills we find on the show? Just because it's from an OOU perspective doesn't mean its not canonical. The magazine, like the website, jumps around. If it didn't have things like this in here, I would not have brought it up.

When I said your argument was a straw man, I was attacking the argument, not you. It really doesn't matter either way.

Okay, my point is that TOM saying Jack has 122 kills is no different from Time Magazine saying Jack Bauer has 122 kills. They're both OOU so they're not really contributing to the mythos. Now, if TOM had a story or a comic in it where Jack walked up to some guy and said, "You know, I have 122 kills under my belt" then we'd have a conflict. The magazine saying that Jack has 122 kills is also no different from it saying that Jack and Palmer met for the first time at the hotel. It's merely pointing out an (incorrect) fact from the show, not adding anything to the 24verse. It can't actually conflict because it's not IU.

And besides, the Jack Bauer kill count is an OOU article anyway. It's not a count of how many people Jack has killed, it's a count of how many people Jack has killed on-screen, which has no context IU.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the magazine still isn't "caught up" with the show. The first issue is only current up to about half way through season 5. The second issue has information up to about three quarters of the way through. Therefore, I would assume this count only goes up to that point anyway and isn't as complete as ours is. --Proudhug 17:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

24-themed Commercials

Commercials - 24-themed TV commercials for Calorie Mate and the Ford F-150 were spoofs never actually intended to be a part of the 24verse. They are not canon in any way and are included here merely for the sake of completeness.

If those items were never intended to be part of the "24-verse", why are they part of the Canon list, which is described as the body of work that is considered to be "genuine" or "official" within a certain fictional universe? -Kapoli 23:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Three reasons. The third of which is already mentioned:

The canon page lists all in-universe items which feature the world of 24. These are meant to take place within the 24verse, but not meant to be official stories.
There's nothing within the commercials to indicate that they didn't happen within the 24verse, so why not include them? Since they were produced in connection with the show or people involved with the show, they're not merely fan films.
For the sake of completeness. It's not inconceivable that someone will want to know how "Jack Bauer #2" fits into the storyline or when Jack visited Japan.

--Proudhug 23:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Well maybe it's just me, since I've never seen the commercials, but I think something needs to be re-worded somewhere, because it doesn't make sense to me. I mean, we say they're not canon in any way, but they're still on the canon list? That seems stupid. Then again, I've never understood the whole IU/OOU explanation. -Kapoli 00:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Real-Life Information

We've been hashing out what real-life info to include on the wiki on several article pages, but I think it will be easier to follow if we just do it here.

My opinion is that we should assume things are as they are in real life unless the show contradicts real life. For instance, in real life, George W. Bush has been President since 2000. On 24, it's been David Palmer, John Keeler, and Charles Logan. If Bush had been mentioned, however, we would assume it was the same one as real life and include any relevant information. Insisting on relevance would probably eliminate most of the conflicts we've been having. -StBacchus 10:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me, we should assume that both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. existed in the 24 universe.

Bush Sr: Curtis Manning served in the Gulf War, the Gulf War was waged by George H.W. Bush. Bush Jr: The Department of Homeland Security exists in the 24 universe, it was created by George W. Bush. I don't think we should assume that the creators of this show would't want us to believe that their letting fictional Presidents take credit for real-life things.

As it's been stated many times, this is Wiki 24, not Wikipedia. Information in articles about real life items on the site need to come specifically from the show and/or detail how exactly these items specifically pertain to the show. This includes pictures as well as stats and facts. Any trivia notes or additional real life facts that weren't mentioned on the show can be mentioned in a "Background" paragraph if it's felt more information is necessary. And as you've said, including external links is a good way to provide additional information to a reader, however, this doesn't mean we should include a Wikipedia link on every single real life item page. I think it's pretty much given that if someone wants to know more, they can easily look it up. If there's a related page of interest that may not be as easily found, for sure we could include it. Check out Memory Alpha's North America page for a good example how to do an article on a real life item, only including mentioned information and screen grabs. --Proudhug 13:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, but Aaron Pierce says he started working with Secret Service during the Reagan administration. Do we assume it's Ronald Reagan, a reasonable assumption, or do we leave the possibility that it's Johnny Reagan? I think it's idiotic when we don't state the obvious. Relevance sounds like a good rule of thumb to me. Memory Alpha does things their way, but I don't see why we have to do it the same way as them. I mean, are we to assume that canonically, Iowa really has mountains because the show said it did? - Xtreme680 03:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course we are. Are we to assume that since GWB wasn't mentioned on the show that canonically he wasn't the president? Of course we are. Are we to assume that despite there being no such thing in real life that canonically CTU exists? Of course we are. There are many things that we're meant to assume while watching 24. Some things we're meant to assume are the same and some we're meant to assume are different, but it doesn't always mean we need to include this information on Wiki 24.

The name of the president when Pierce began working with the SS was "Reagan." Obviously we're meant to assume it's Ronald Reagan, but since we're trying to create an encyclopedia of 24-related things, there's no point in referring to him as anything more than "Reagan," and including a note at the bottom expaining any further information that may be useful. In the case of Iowa, a note on the non-existence of mountains in the real world would be appropriate.

I'm not saying that we should assume things not mentioned on the show don't exist. I'm just saying that including such information is unnecessary to our project. --Proudhug 03:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That's why I say we should include real-life information where it's relevant. Basic contextual information should be included for the sake of clarity and thoroughness. There's no need to leave people wondering if we're talking about Ontario, Canada or Ontario, California just because it wasn't stated explicitly. On the other hand, I don't think we should go around making up dates. There have been dates given on the show, but they've avoided pegging any season to a specific year. I'm going to start taking out those dates when I see them.

Memory Alpha's canon policy says that "obvious errors" (like, say, mountains in Iowa) don't count. I just screencapped Andre and Alexis Drazen's dossiers from season 1, and according to those, they were born 5 months apart. Are we supposed to shrug our shoulders and assume the human gestational period on 24 is 5 months? If someone said that 1+1=3, would we call that canon? I'll simply make a note of it on their pages, but it's still an error and not something to be taken seriously as part of the continuity of the show. -StBacchus 08:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Heard But Not Seen

I don't know who the final authority here is, or where I should ask this question, but this seems like a reasonable place.... In season 2, Bob Warner says the names of Reza's parents: Hasan and Karima. But their names don't seem to be listed anywhere official. Is it OK just to guess at the spelling and put the names in anyway, since they were spoken on the show? -StBacchus 4 April 2006

I'm going to go ahead and say you should look up some common spellings of Middle Eastern first names, and see what the most common spellings are. That or look at a script of Season 2 and see what their names are spelled as in the script. -Xtreme680

I just watched the episode and it's very difficult to hear Mrs. Naiyeer's first name. This means nothing but there's an online fan transcript that spells them "Rima" and "Hassan". Briefly checking online, I found the names "Hassan" and "Karima" (but no "Reza", go figure). The DVDs don't have subtitles, the characters aren't listed in the closing credits, and 24 Season 2: The Unofficial Guide lists them merely as "Mr. Naiyeer" and "Mrs. Naiyeer". It's not official but is anyone able to check the closed captioning? I would go with "Karima" and "Hassan" until they can be verified by an actual script. How do you go about getting these? Ebay? --Proudhug 15:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, haha. The region 1 DVDs do have subtitles ("English for the hearing impaired," so I assume the closed captions would be the same), but it didn't even occur to me to turn them on. They say "Rima" and "Hassan." I thought it was Karima because that's a real Middle-Eastern name. I suppose we'd better go with Rima and Hassan, since it's as close as we're going to get without a script. Can/should we then add subtitles/closed captions to the canon list? They are most likely contracted out, so that would put them slightly below the show. -StBacchus 14 April 2006

Tie-in Merchandise

They can be bought at this website here, but I think it's OK to put up the pages with those names. If anyone has a problem, then we can move the page later, unless anyone wants to buy the script, which I doubt they do. Also, considering the writers and producers worked on 24: The Game, I am suggesting that we move it above the Fox website, and another question. We cover unofficial book guides to 24, or at least have links up for them. Where do they fit in the canon discussion? -Xtreme680

Only one of the shows writers worked on the game. And I think the only other people from the show who did were the actors and Sean Callery. I'm pretty sure the rest of the show's crew had nothing to do with the creation of The Game. I'm not sure whether The Game should take precedence over the website or not. My thinking is that there's less chance of the show contradicting the website than there is contradicting The Game. Really, they're probably of equal "value," but maybe you're right. I don't know who writes the website.

As for the guide books, I don't think the issue of canon really pertains since they don't contain original story material. Unlike Findings at CTU, they're merely non-fiction summaries of episodes and compilations of information. --Proudhug 01:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the show's creators have anything to do with maintaining the website, although it is possible that whoever made the website used the show's bible (man, would I love to get a look at that!). Without knowing whether some hack at a web design company made up the information on the web site, I would consider the game closer to canon, even though it's just the one writer. -StBacchus 14 April 2006

For people who are just interested in the programme and not the trading cards/fan books etc. is there any way to distinguish what info has come from the TV show and what has come from the spin offs? It would be good to have some sort of way of telling where the in fo has come from--Acer4666 23:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In the top corner of most pages there are little icons that inform you of this. There are numbers 1-7 representing if the information comes from the seasons, or one that says "EU", meaning "Expanded Univerise" i.e. the novels, game and other tie-in content. --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 08:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes

I'm going to paste the argument I wrote at Template talk:Spinoffs:

...but the very concept of the books contradicts the series, and the characters. Trojan Horse has Teri being held hostage at gunpoint along with hundreds of other innocents. Chaos Theory has her bringing Jack a package while he's on the run from the cops and nearly getting shot. Do you think any of that can count as background for their relationship, when in Day 1 he's completely devastated by the idea of his work affecting his family? Hell, that season is child's play compared to what the books would have you believe they already endured. They're great reads, but by no means should they be considered even partly canon. That's part of the reason I added the EU and Canon templates - to clearly distinguish between info that is firmly established and EU stuff that will never be acknowledged except in their respective books/comics/etc.

Add to this the fact that the books/comics patently cannot fit in the timeline of the show, and the fact that they're essentially licensed fan fiction, and I really don't think we should consider them as "canon" per se, or a source of background information. I'm talking about instances like on the Counter Terrorist Unit page - the only source that the World Trade Center bombing was the impetus for starting CTU is the Declassified intros. The showrunners and writers have never even mentioned the WTC, for obvious reasons Also, I don't recall, but I believe that CTU being a branch of the CIA was taken from the novels, rather than a particular episode.

This would require overhauling a few pages - Operation Nightfall would need to be rewritten to place what little was in the show at the forefront, then subsections detailing the events of Nightfall and Findings, which don't match up. Ryan Chappelle would need to have the profile moved or otherwise "decanonized," as well as any other info from Findings. ...etc.

As far as character pages, I strongly feel something like EU and Canon is needed to distinguish between the show's established history and the books. The latter is based on a template at the Fallout wiki, since that series has more cancelled projects and non-canon elements than most others. I just don't want to mislead readers into thinking something is true when it's only true in the mind of one or two writers with no input on the actual series. --Pyramidhead 18:06, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

So how are you proposing we include all the novel/comic information? Have an "expanded universe" section at the bottom of a page that effectively moves all the information we currently have into a separate section? I understand your point that the novels and comics degenerate from the impact of many of the storylines of the TV series but the fact remains that they are officially published media related to 24 that the creators must know about; they would not be allowed to be published without their consent. Just because some people are less than happy with the events that take place in the expanded universe stuff that doesn't mean we can disregard their information. --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 20:48, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Of course somebody at Fox knows of the books, but there's no way that someone like Howard Gordon goes through and okays all of it. It's a situation very much like with Star Trek: hundreds of people have written novels set in that universe, and yet not one of them can be said to have actually happened. All I want is to draw a clear line between what is established and what isn't. In some cases, yes, that would mean moving some info to the background section - CTU's origins come to mind. In others, like lengthy character summaries for a particular book, something like the Canon template would be helpful, so that it's perfectly clear which is which. --Pyramidhead 23:20, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

"not one of them can be said to have actually happened"? None of this actually happened but its all within the 24-verse. The changes you are proposing seem unspecific; either we should put all of the stuff in background info section or go with your template, not bits of each depending on how the article looks. I think it is fine to leave all the information in, and I would much prefer to go with the template. It needs to be established that novel/comic info isn't non-canonical though; just that its semi-canonical in that if it contradicts something from the show, we go with the info from the show. That's what you're suggesting, right? --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 23:57, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

As a 24 purist I'm with Pyramidhead on this one, and I always will be unless something in the series or the upcoming movie clearly directs me otherwise. Everyone knows that the showrunners legally gave license for the novel/comic writers to create their works. But that genuinely isn't the same as saying "the novel/comic stuff therefore occurred in the lives of the TV characters". There is absolutely no evidence to support that the showrunners even read the novels/comics or remotely care about them at all. It's just a way for them to get royalties, plain and simple. They never sat there and adjusted future episodes to account for the plots of the novels or comics. The Kim Bauer of the TV series never lived through the experiences of Chaos Theory; the Jack Bauer of the TV series has no idea who Enrique Hinojosa is. At this wiki, we take an unwarranted extrapolative leap when we force the circular pegs of the EU content into the square holes of the TV series.

Again, it doesn't matter that the EU content "doesn't conflict" with the series most of the time. Hell, even if the writers took great pains to make sure every detail had no contradictions, it wouldn't change the fact that the EU stuff is by nature someone else's appendicized 24 misadventures. Thematically and in terms of the overall plot, none of it fits, but more importantly none of it came from the minds of the showrunners.

Proudhug would shit a brick but I strongly believe there should be a separate namespace for all EU content. Somewhere on Jack's page would be a link to the separate article: [ [Expanded universe:Jack Bauer] ] where we'd account for all the appropriate details. There'd be one for Chloe, one for CTU-LA, one for everything that appeared in the spin-offs. As perhaps a less desirable option we could do subheadings on the existing pages. But mixing it all in together, like we're currently doing, adulterates the series with other things.

Remember that I'm not concerned with the quality of the EU stuff. I'm sure there are many instances where parts of the novels are superior to the writing of certain episodes. We really should document the events of the EU, but it needs to be segregated (to use a term generally hated by all, I know, but it's appropriate). Blue Rook talk contribs 20:44, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

As a first step, I would propose changing the "First appeared" entry on each character page to the first episode they appeared in rather than whichever book/comic/etc. we've decided comes first chronologically. Besides the fact that there's no set order, the episode is where the character was first conceived and introduced to us from our perspective. Does anyone have a problem with this? --Pyramidhead 20:30, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Also, here's a possible rephrasing of the canon policy that would reflect these changes. Naturally, feel free to contribute. --Pyramidhead 20:46, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

In the case of the 24verse, the only canon source of information is the television series itself. While the creators of 24 have never explicitly stated their views on the canonicity of the 24 novels, comics or games, we at Wiki 24 have chosen to prioritize information from the series' writers and producers over other spin-off media. Expanded universe media produced without the participation of the showrunners, such as the 24 Declassified series and all graphic novels, are considered non-canon in the context of the series. In the case of contradictory information, we utilize the following order of precedence to determine which facts are "true."

Official:

TV series - Information from the television show overrides contradictory facts from any other source.
DVD Prequels - Prequel episodes included on DVD releases are completely official.
Related spin-offs - 24: The Game, 24: Conspiracy, The Rookie, and 24: Day Zero were all made with the participation of people involved in the TV show.
Website - The character profiles on Fox.com/24 are a semi-official source of information, though they may be contradicted by the TV show at any time.

Unofficial:

Other novels, comics & games - Other novels, comics and games are considered a form of "official" fan fiction. They are created without the participation of the show's creators, and therefore any information derived from them should be clearly indicated as such through the use of the Template:EU and Template:Canon templates.
Commercials - 24-themed TV commercials for Calorie Mate and the Ford F-150 were spoofs never actually intended to be a part of the 24verse. They are not canon in any way, but may be included here merely for the sake of completeness.

Here's what a character page might look like when the EU and official information is segregated. Note the first appearance is now (rightly, in my view) the first episode featuring Henderson. Also, I know Trinity is technically first, but to be consistent I think we should just list them in order of publication. --Pyramidhead 08:37, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Wiki 24 was founded on the idea of including all information about 24, so as Blue Rook said, we do need to document these events. I do understand the problems people have with trying to fit the EU into the continuity of the TV show, but I think segregating it all creates just as many problems as it solves.

While I tend to fight against major changes to the site, I'm always willing to concede to good ideas, provided they follow three fundamental criteria:

All information included on Wiki 24 needs to be provably accurate and/or from an official source. This includes both IU and OOU.
More information is better than less information. If a proposed idea requires the removal of information that fits the first criteria, it's not appropriate for the site.
The more people Wiki 24 appeals to and the more uses it has, the better. This also means making the site as consistent and non-confusing as possible. Again, provided it fits into the first two criteria.

So, provided we can come up with a solution that fits these criteria, I'm in favor of a change that satisfied everyone. My biggest problem here is that, unlike something like Star Trek, to my knowledge the creators have never given us any indication of what's considered canon and what isn't. The only things that we know for sure aren't canon are deleted scenes and retconned information (be it from a novel or a previous TV episode). Obviously the TV episodes and Redemption are canon. But are the DVD prequels canon? What about the PS2 game? The website bios? The Rookie, Conspiracy, Day Zero? What possible criteria would we use to determine canon? I think, until the creators give us a solid line to work from, we can't arbitrarily step in and decide that ourselves.

Another problem is that, in the example Pyramidhead gave on the Christopher Henderson page, it makes the page visually unattractive and a tad confusing to read. The best solution I can think of is to somehow tag all EU information by either citing it like Memory Alpha does, or make it visually distinct from TV information by using different colors, different fonts, etc. I think the former idea works better, as it avoids the dilemma of figuring out what's canon and what isn't. --proudhug 20:54, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Whoa. Who's "Proudhug"? ... :) Haha bud it's excellent to have you back! I've always known about your appreciation for an all-inclusive timeline, and have been worried about your take on these recent discussions, but it's great to know you're as reasonable as ever about discussing anything. Proudhug it really is rousing to hear back from you after these months, I hope you can stick around again. But er anyway let's keep this on topic.

I think we need to set down some definitions before we proceed, so we know what the heck terms we're using. "Unofficial", "non-canon", and "EU" seem to be used interchangeably recently and these terms simply aren't the same things. I'll lay these terms out now so we can discriminate among them and then begin the discussion on how we want to differentiate the two types of content from that common point of understanding.

Official / unofficial: These terms refer to licensing from the owners of the property. Fanfics are unofficial and it goes without saying they have no place outside user-space at all. Pretty much everything else, from the TV episodes & novels & even the silly Calorie-mate commercial, are "official". As such, the distinction between these two isn't important for this discussion.
Canon / non-canon: The big difference is here. Each of us has different ideas of what is canonical (stuff that actually happened in the fictional lives of the characters from the show) and non-canonical (double fiction, stuff that was simply based upon the already-fictional world of 24 but didn't occur in the lives of the characters from the show). At the end of this article, I will outline what I consider to be canon and the reasons why.
IU / EU: Like the difference between "official" and "unofficial", the distinction between these two terms isn't important, at least not until you take the mental step I've taken. Anything that isn't the TV series, Redemption, and the prequels is definitely considered EU, but it's the canonicity of the various EU content that is in question. But because of the bad taste it leaves in our mouths to decide what's "canon", I propose now we use "IU" as the official term for canon, and "EU" for the stuff that is outside the canonical universe.

Going from these definitions, I say it's our duty to construct this project in a manner that makes the content coherent. We're doing expository, not creative, work, but at the same time we have sources that conflict irreconcilably and a line needs to be drawn in the sand by us, since the showrunners simply will never do this (it's not even in their best interest to do so)... and if we leave things alone, like we have been since the wiki started, the content as a whole is incomprehensible.

So let's be bold and start discriminating among these sources. Make no mistake: this discussion will be a long one, but perhaps the most enriching one our community will have in its history.

My system for IU/EU is identical to Pyramidhead's except for the spin-offs and the terms used:

IU:

TV series / Redemption - It's always fun to start at a place we all agree on, and so rare.
DVD Prequels/Debrief - The showrunners made these, and even the actors were in them. Definitely IU.
Website - Though it can be contradicted by the episodes, the website otherwise sheds real light on new details of events from the show. It was maintained by FOX, it is great supplemental material.

EU:

Other novels, comics & games - Other novels, comics and games are considered a form of "official" fan fiction. They are created without the participation of the show's creators, and therefore any information derived from them should be clearly indicated as such through the use of the Template:EU and Template:Canon templates.
Commercials - 24-themed TV commercials for Calorie Mate and the Ford F-150 were spoofs never actually intended to be a part of the 24verse. They are not canon in any way, but may be included here merely for the sake of completeness.
24: Day Zero - this was an advertisement for deodorant. As innocuous as it was, the only positive points about Day Zero in a discussion like this is that its plot was so unambitious that it simply can't be retconned, and that it had Kiefer's voice playing Jack.
24: The Game - the Game was directly contradicted by the series. It didn't occur in the lives of the characters.
The Rookie - this light-hearted, scaled-down version of 24 is just what it is. Trying to force this into the timeline of the series is silly.
24: Conspiracy - though there was a good effort to realistically connect the Conspiracy plot to Season 4, it's impossible to take these events seriously.

There's my input. I'm a purist but I agree that all this should be in the wiki. Let's just start being realistic about things that fit with the show, and things that don't! As I explained, a consensus really should be made, and it's best to have a strict interpretation to play it as safe as possible. Blue Rook talk contribs 05:44, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about my lack of presence, but I've been really busy with a lot of things and I'm quite ashamed to admit that I haven't seen one episode of Season 8 yet. :( Naturally, it is for this reason I've had to avoid Wiki 24. I will be back, but not until I've caught up, of course. Though I'll probably keep lurking the Latest Intel. I have a new major Wiki 24 project in that works that I think is quite exciting, so there's that to look forward to. And some day I'll get that dagnabbit timeline finished!

On topic, I just have to say that: A) I see no actual criteria for your distinction between IU and EU. It all seems rather subjective, based merely on what you personally enjoy watching/reading. And B) You didn't propose any actual solution to differentiate source materials, merely what you personally feel is and isn't canon. --proudhug 07:06, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

You've missed my entire point. The system is based on 1) the degree of gravity or seriousness in comparison to the TV episodes, and also 2) whether it's been contradicted or not. Conspiracy and the Rookie have not a single iota of gravitas comparable to the show; they're fun little spin-off adventures. It's subjective of course, but the distinction is as clear as the one between a toddler's scrawlings and artwork. As for the second criteria, the novels and The Game have details contradicting the show and irreconcilable differences. Blue Rook talk contribs 21:59, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I did miss your point. I don't understand what exactly you're proposing, and how a subjective view of canonicity fits into it. --proudhug 22:40, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

I'm proposing a strict view of IU/EU (less inclusive of non-show material than other views) precisely because there is no objective standard of determining what's canon. The less content we segregate into the IU sections, the safer we play it with the timeline of the show. Blue Rook talk contribs 22:55, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

But I don't understand what this "strict view" would accomplish, or how it would affect Wiki 24. If it means removing information from the website or cluttering it up with more headings and confusing sections, then of course I'm going to be against it. Our job isn't to judge what's "real" and what's not, but rather to document all information about 24. This includes creating articles for non-canon characters, such as those that have been retconned or culled from deleted scenes. And it includes documenting contradicting information from different media, or even from the same media. Any TV show that's been on for eight seasons is going to have errors in it, and when you factor in novels, comics, video games and other media into it, those errors will multiply. This is the exact reason why the canon hierarchy was created in the first place.

It's never a good idea to impose subjective views on our readers when it's possible to include all available information. If you were proposing a way of marking which information came from which media, I wouldn't fight against that, as it's adding more information to the site and becoming useful to more people, but it doesn't sound like that's what you're doing. Do you just merely want to rearrange the order of our canon hierarchy? --proudhug 23:28, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

The goal is to decide what is EU and concentrate it on a different part of the page from the IU. We're still documenting all the information, but the difference is now it will be clear what data came from the show, and what didn't. Currently it's all mixed in together as if they were all of equal important, which is an unwarranted, subjective, and extrapolative step in itself. With this system we're being clearer about what came from where. Blue Rook talk contribs 23:48, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

I guess what I'm against is the idea that we'd be imposing a subjective belief of what's canon and what isn't. There's no way that we'll be able to get everyone to agree on this because there are valid points for and against nearly everything. One person may argue that the DVD prequels are canon because they were made by the TV crew, but someone else may argue that they're nothing more than Toyota commercials and point out that The Game and The Rookie were also made by the TV crew. One person may argue that The Game contradicts the TV show and therefore isn't canon, while someone else points out that the TV show contradicts itself so that's not a valid reason. One person may argue that the novels are little more than fanfiction, but someone else may point out examples of writing that is superior to the TV show. There's no way to avoid the fact that everyone will have made up their own mind as to what they personally believe is canon. Someone's personal canon may include the TV show, DVD and web shorts, and The Game. Or only the TV show and DVD prequels. Or only the TV show. Or the TV show, novels and comics, but not video games. Or everything available under the sun. Who are we to judge what's "silly" and what isn't? Or which contradictions completely invalidate a story and which ones are permissible?

I don't see how starting to cite information isn't a better solution. It allows readers to make up their own minds as to what events are trustworthy and ignore the rest. Remember we're an encyclopedia, here to document information, not critique it. I'd hope that this site can be equally useful for all readers, regardless of their own personal canon beliefs. --proudhug 00:40, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

I do follow all of that, but I'm not sure that you're aware we're already working on a highly subjective series of judgments at this wiki about canon. Do you see, to assume that it's all equal, is a judgment in itself and one that doesn't work? The change we're proposing is just the labeling of some stuff at the top of the articles as IU, and other content next as EU. I don't know what others might say, but in my idea for this change, there is no value judgments about "canon". I'm just proposing the safe decision to segregate some data under a new heading.

And we really have to face this fact: the traffic we get is virtually exclusive to people interested in details about the show. Of course we'll have all the same (and new) official content here, but it's no longer working to have it all artificially crammed together. Blue Rook talk contribs 03:36, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Rook, you just said "The change we're proposing is just the labeling of some stuff at the top of the articles as IU, and other content next as EU". Isn't that pretty much what we do with the "EU" icons that are now going above novel, comic and game pages? Or do you mean a greater change than that? --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 10:16, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand what this "highly subjective series of judgments" is. And don't we already have separate headings for EU items, anyway? All IU articles have headings for the "Day" the information comes from. I think that the "Chaos Theory" heading on Kim Bauer's page pretty much gives away that it's EU. How is it that you feel more distinction is necessary?

And by the way, I'm really against the idea of labeling IU against EU. They are not mutually exclusive terms. EU is still IU, for the sake of this encyclopedia. The opposite of IU is OOU, not EU. I don't think it helps anything to confuse people about our useage of "IU". --proudhug 13:44, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Simon (& Proudhug) the change I am mentioning is over at this revision of the sandbox. It's simply a structural change that follows the appearances template.

After looking that over, you'll see no information is lost. We're just prioritizing the show and showrunner-made content over the other content about which the showrunners and actors most likely know nothing.

Also Proudhug the subjective judgments I'm talking about is, for example, the current placement of "Cat's Claw" directly above "Day 1" for Kim. Who are we to assume that the far-out events of the novels occurred in the lives of the episode characters, when the whole gist of Day 1 indicates the Kim and Teri were absolutely never in any danger before that point? The games and novels and everything else are all appendicized stuff. So I recommend we reflect this reality and appendicize the content in the articles. In this manner we won't be making any judgments like we currently are, and we'll let our visitors decide. And I definitely agree with Pyramidhead about two things: people are coming here for show information perhaps at least 90% of the time, and the Firstseen/Lastseen should be TV episodes. We need to avoid making subjective judgments that will confuse most visitors. Imagine if Memory Alpha just started pasting all the Memory Beta content where that material is supposed to be in their chronologies. It's what we do, and it's an unwarranted mess! Blue Rook talk contribs 14:30, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Rook, I think that Kim Bauer page looks fine. I don't have any problems with the way you've done that. The only other thing I think should be changed is that the stuff is put in in the order it was released. I know this will cause some issues as to the fact that some things will obviously be out of order just because of this, but also its easier because that way we aren't judging what order we think they should be in. You guys keep talking about Memory Alpha and Memory Beta but I'm not familiar with what you're talking about. Could you explain what you mean by it; all I know is that its the Star Trek Wiki (is that right?? haha). --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 21:26, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the arrangement, I hope Pyramidhead does too (being the originator of this discussion), and that Proudhug can as well, of course.

Regarding the chronological order vs. order of release, I think the most logical is a combination of them both. For example, anything that was obviously intended to be Before Day 1 be placed as such, and if it isn't clear which novel came first, we simply defer to publishing date like you say. Then we put Stories as After Day 2/Before Day 3. Anytime we have to guess about the IU order of EU content, we refuse to guess and simply defer to publication date order.

With the Memory Alpha and Memory Beta, the first is a website that contains content from the TV series almost exclusively. Memory Beta contains all the content about licensed works like novels, games, etc. See here. (Although unrelated to our discussion, it is funny to note that Star Trek is so huge, there is a third wiki (Star Trek Expanded Universe) which contains only fanfics, and even a fourth wiki (Memory Gamma) that exists apparently for the writing of fanfics. There are two more on top of that as well.) Since 24 is a small shop, everything must be on this one wiki. But I want to create a dividing line on pages that indicates when you're looking at "24 Alpha" and then "24 Beta", so to speak. Blue Rook talk contribs 20:44, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Jesus! Six Wikis seems a bit much! What the hell do they need a Wiki for fanfic, and for that matter for writing fanfic!? That's ridiculous. Anyway, I see your point. So when you say a "dividing line" can you be more specific as to what you mean? Or do you simply mean the line that you put in on Kim's page? --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 09:11, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Hah I know! Their cosmos is just so much more expansive. And the dividing line is precisely the one over on that Sandbox revision for Kim. That's all this is really about. I don't know if you or Pyramidhead agree with me on the following point, but this change won't imply anything about canonicity or the quality of the material we're including. Blue Rook talk contribs 16:09, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you around, proudhug! Wow, a lot to take in. I also like the Kim example - I was initially wary of having it all at the end, since it seems weird to end the content part with that rather than Day 8, but it does separate the two. And I don't mind that it's not "decanonized," I just wanted to make it clear which was which. I'd be fine with that setup. --Pyramidhead 20:19, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

I have a question: wouldn't this require moving Rick Allen and Dan Mounts back to "Rick" and "Dan," since their last names are established nowhere other than Findings? --Pyramidhead 03:39, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed that it was also in the card game. But on that subject, what evidence is there that the names we got from there are official? I think we should move them back, then add a note in an "Expanded universe" section that the card listed their name as so-and-so. --Pyramidhead 03:45, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

But that doesnt contradict anything given in the show and I thought the point now was to include EU stuff as part of IU (as EU and IU are not opposites) unless it was contradictory. --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 16:23, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

No, what we're doing is separating the two, presenting all of it, and making no assumptions about what might and might not be true in the reality of the TV series. Assuming that the Rick of Season 1 has a last name at all crosses that line. Again, it's fine to note it in the "Expanded universe" section along with everything else Findings told us. What you're describing is the current system, and it makes no sense - if one part of a book is flat-out wrong, it doesn't make any sense that all the rest of it is correct. --Pyramidhead 21:25, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

I say Pyramidhead has hit the nail right on the head about it. Yes it would feel like we were traveling in a time machine to remove last names from those two characters, but it's actually the safer bet when it comes to the information. Blue Rook talk contribs 04:56, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Actually I missed that bit about the Card Game. That particular game seems to have used information from the scripts and writers and I've always considered it to be equivalent to the Co-starring credits list: definitely OOU but still a valid source for names. Sorting out these kinds of details definitely promises to be a long but important process. Blue Rook talk contribs 04:59, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

But is there any concrete evidence that they actually consulted some authority on the names? For all we know, they got the guys' names from Findings, then made up some of their own. Until there's proof either way, I think we should err on the side of caution. --Pyramidhead 07:53, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the creators of the Card Game got a lot of their information from Wiki 24 itself. I know because I'd been in contact with them. It was quite an exciting time because it meant that Wiki 24 was playing an integral part in fostering and maintaining the consistency of the 24 universe. Unfortunately, due to these new changes, that's no longer possible.

So I take it that this is all decided then? This is a sad, sad day indeed, as one of the major reasons for this website's genesis has now been destroyed. My original intentions with Wiki 24 were to, first and foremost, record all officially released information about the show, IU and OOU, and secondly, to create a virtual map of how all of the various stories over various media were integrated into the larger mythology. The second part is actually what excited me the most. However, now this integration is gone and therefore so is my excitement for this project.

I see now that my biggest confusion above was that I didn't realize you were making a more detrimental decision than I thought you were. I'd assumed that the plan was to merely move and segregate the information into arbitrarily decided "canon" and "non-canon" sections, which I saw as a pointless endevour. However I now see that the decision is to actually flat-out dismiss all (arbitrarily-decided) "non-canon" information from the site and only include it in a thinly veiled "background information and notes" section of each page.

what we're doing is separating the two, presenting all of it, and making no assumptions about what might and might not be true in the reality of the TV series.'

No, you're quite clearly making assumptions about what is true and what isn't. By omitting certain stories from the main narrative of the IU encyclopedia, it's blatantly saying "these stories aren't official." Otherwise, why exclude them? This is only an expanded version of what Memory Alpha does with non-canon information. However, your comparison of Memory Alpha's canon policy with Wiki 24's is inaccurate. Star Trek has a definitive canon as laid out by it's creator; that being only the televised episodes and theatrical movies. Wiki 24 has always been more akin to the Wookieepedia in it's desire to include all officially released information. One of the main reasons for that is because there isn't a clear way of determining what's "canon" 24 and what isn't. Any ruling on that would have to be subjective, which is a terrible thing to base policy on, but is happening none-the-less.

In the end, I see absolutely zero purpose or value to this entire venture. Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact. Words cannot express how saddened I am that the site I helped create and nurture has degraded into something that is significantly less useful to me. I don't plan on leaving Wiki 24 or to stop editing and helping out, but I can no longer in good faith promote the IU encyclopedia's value. --proudhug 19:18, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you Proudhug. The point of this Wiki is to present everything that has been released that is to do with 24. Who are we to decide what stories are part of these characters lives? I don't see how it benefits the Wiki at all to disregard the information given in expanded universe media. --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 22:34, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have upset you, but as it stands there is no way to neatly tie together the show and every single book, comic, or what have you to date. Each one directly contradicts the series in some way. The key difference between this site and Wookiepedia, which you compared it to, is that the "official" output of that universe were three films. The EU media that followed them limited itself to those boundaries, and over time there was enough of it that the next official output - the prequel trilogy - was careful to adhere to the continuity of the franchise as a whole. 24 was an eight-year TV series, and all of the EU media to date was written during its airing - of course there were going to be contradictions and errors, as the writers came up with new origin stories without consulting the books at all. In that respect, and considering the show's very fluid timeline, the two situations are not at all comparable.

Anyway, this dispute is no longer about canon - I originally brought it up for that reason, but as you've said, any judgment on that issue would have to be a subjective one. All this will do is distinguish between the TV series - which was the source for all of this - and what came after (or more accurately, during it). Take Ryan Chappelle. Following Season 1, Findings at CTU described him as having a wife and two daughters. In Season 3, he claimed he had nobody to contact except a brother. Does this invalidate the book? Maybe. Since there's no way of knowing, we move that information - and the accompanying profile - to the EU section. The key point is that, in the current version of the page, none of the EU information has been removed or otherwise invalidated. If you believe that EU is fully valid, then great - each section describes when it happened in relation to the TV series. If you're a "purist" like me or Blue Rook, then it's a summary of what that character did in the appendicized novels, comics, and so on. Everyone wins. To sum up: this proposed change would not decanonize or remove anything. Basically, it amounts to moving certain sections around on each article - really, that's it. The project will still include information on all 24 media, as it's always aimed to do.

By the way, I hadn't realized the card game makers actually consulted with you. That's pretty cool. --Pyramidhead 01:22, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if novels, comics, episodes and games all contradict each other. Show me one TV show that doesn't contradict itself. Our job is not to say "This story isn't canon because it contradicts the real ones." Our job is to present all of the information unbiasedly and let the reader decide what's true and what isn't.

A couple years ago when The Clone Wars movie came out, it created several enormous irreconcilable continuity errors within the Star Wars mythology. From 2002 through 2005, the Clones Wars era had been given a full, detailed continuity that was beautifully orchestrated among all of the different media and covered everything from Attack of the Clones right up to Revenge of the Sith. However, in The Clone Wars movie, suddenly Anakin Skywalker had become a Jedi four weeks after Attack of the Clones, instead of the previously established two and a half years, he got his scar three months after AOTC rather than just after his knighting, and he suddenly had a Padawan that had never been mentioned before. How does a site like Wookieepedia deal with this problem? The don't. They present all of the given information in an unbiased manner. They don't stick certain stories in their own separate sections. You say these situations aren't comparable to ours, but my point is that these errors shouldn't even be an issue. You see a contradiction, you put all of the information in there and indicate what came from where.

This new idea isn't merely distinguishing between the TV show and "what came after". If that were true, you'd have to agree that merely citing our sources and making note of continuity errors in the BI&N section would be the simpler and more efficient way of doing that. Instead, we're isolating all of these stories, which makes the clear message that we don't consider them "official". That is the definition of canon. You even called it appendicizing! I still haven't been given any reason why this "segregation" is a better solution than merely citing the source of all our information for the reader. The problem, as I understand it, is that sometimes a book will be contradicted by the TV show, right? So rather than present all of the facts in an unbiased manner and state what came from where, you just want to lump all the EU together and shove it to the bottom of the page like as if it's an embarrassing stain on the franchise? All because you consider yourself a 24 "purist"? How can you not see how ridiculous that idea is?

Basically we have the Star Wars and the Star Trek wikis at opposite ends of the spectrum here, as far as what information is permissible. Essentially, Star Wars allows all officially released information from all media to be included, while Star Trek's only allows stuff from the TV shows and movies. So far, Wiki 24 has followed Wookieepedia's method of including all information, but now you want a method that isn't quite either. It's some sort of middle-ground method which serves only to confuse people. Like questioned above, how do you separate this information when some of it is in the article's title, such as Rick and Dan's last names? What about things like Phil Parslow's status of alive rather than dead? Or the time of Ted Paulson's death? The only way to deal with this is to adhere to a set canon and only that canon. If we are to relegate the EU to the back burner like you want, we need to go all the way, not half way. And by that I mean following the Memory Alpha rules; set out a definitive canon of only the televised material. No novels, no comics, no games, no webisodes, no DVD prequels. And also, no articles allowed for EU-only IU items. All of this information is either mentioned in the BI&N section or an "Apocrypha" section, or excluded altogether. This is really no different from what is already being proposed, it just merely calls it like it is instead of pretending we still consider the EU to be canon. This is the only way to remain consistent. I definitely don't want to do this either, but it would at least keep the integrity of Wiki 24 intact. We need to either shit or get off the pot. Either EU information is "real" information or it isn't. This new proposal of going half way with the EU's "officialness" destroys Wiki 24's long-established superior professionalism among all other TV wikis. --proudhug 03:07, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Proudhug some things need to be addressed right off. First, the discussion isn't done and these changes aren't guaranteed to happen. As you can tell, at several points into this I was always wondering what you might say. But you didn't weigh in until recently. All your past two posts are filled with... I don't know what to call it? "Defeatist drama"? Everyone's willing to listen to more discussion, definitely. If there's momentum for something I don't like, I've just ask everyone to wait a bit. So let's do that now and sort out what you're thinking.

There's always a compromise. I have one specifically in mind that might satisfy me and Pyramidhead and keep the project as it was before.

Part of the difficulty is that you left the project for months on end, came back, see a conversation, and start saying basically "it's lost all meaning and significance to you". Forgive me for thinking this but your message by leaving for so long was that you'd stopped thinking about this project already. Can't you see how your exclamations now seem surprising? I've never known you to just accept something you disagree with and that's the end of it.

On a side note, I'm also surprised you'd call the approach to the 24-verse of a purist a "ridiculous" idea. It's wholly respectable per se. But if you think that it's not a good way to run the project then say so. I say we put this proposed changes on hold. Simon and you already don't want them. Proudhug are you willing (and have the time for) addressing my questions and no doubt Pyramidhead's at this point? It's what we'd normally do. Blue Rook talk contribs 05:39, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Rook, I'm interested to see what this idea is that you have that could satisfy you and Pyramidhead? --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 09:14, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if my tone came across as dramatic, Rook. I've never lost interest in this project. My recent lack of participation was largely out of my control, but I do apologize for that, too. It's just that it was horrifying to be all excited about coming back "home" and then finding such a dramatic change being proposed, which would severely diminish a huge portion of the site's usefulness. The reason I've come across as "defeatist" is because it seems the proposed changes have already gotten underway, despite it appearing to me to be a very flawed proposal.

Of course I'm fully willing to discuss this further and try to reach a compromise. Curiously, the compromise I suggested several times above about citations has never been addressed. For now, I'm here to stay and discuss and help out, albeit without participation in S8 material until I've gotten caught up. --proudhug 15:38, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Simon my compromise idea might only work for me, Pyramidhead of course I didn't presume to speak for you! It "might" satisfy him. Basically, the idea is that we more clearly spell out retcons, where they appear, with a special new subsection of the BG/Notes instead of just tossing them in there randomly. And we be more faithful to the canon policy! That means Chappelle had no kids or family, regardless whatever Findings said, because it was clearly implied in the series. Ryan Victor Chappelle, Jr. and the others would then be corrected to be non-canon characters.

Proudhug, earlier you were supportive of a compromise whereby we tag everything with citations. The difficulty with that is we'd had to pretty much re-verify every sentence and paragraph, and I thought it would be unnecessary load when moving all the information to a new spot would be a trillion times quicker and clearer. Now, it's clear you don't support the change, but is it really such a huge thing? No information would be lost. All the non-show content would have its own spot, "Rick Allen" would redirect to "Rick (Day 1)#Extended universe" subsection, and everything would continue as normal otherwise. There'd be new categories and no need for retconning anything! Each source would be treated individually and there'd be no need to mash it all together, which is really the only point Pyramidhead and I brought this up. I'm quite certainly available to compromise but I want to pick Proudhug's brain a bit more on some points.

Also on something of a lighter note, Proudhug, I know coming back to the project and reading this definitely stunk for you, but imagine how bad it would have been if it already had been implemented! I'd probably get forwarded an email with a scanned news clipping of the obituary for a young Canadian guy who died of severe hemorrhage at his desk following his evacuation of—literally—a brick. Blue Rook talk contribs 01:00, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly your compromise is - is it the same plan as before, but with a new Retcons section? --Pyramidhead 20:27, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little wary of creating a retcons section because then it makes sense to open it up for all types errors to be listed and I'm not sure we want all our articles cluttered with a ton of goofs. I know Memory Alpha frowns upon it, but I guess I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to the idea if it satisfies people. A positive thing about it is that it doesn't center out the EU, since we can also include retcons from within the show, too.

As for citations, I don't think it would be nearly as complicated as you suggest. Citations wouldn't have to come after every sentence, just at the end of each paragraph. I honestly don't see a lot of this "mashing" you're referring to; 24 is very linear, so there aren't a lot of situations where there's information in a section from more than one source. It's for this reason that citations have never really been necessary in the past. Basically, the headings are the citations. Regardless, I think your compromise idea is a better solution for the problem (not that I actually see it as much of a problem) than moving more than half of all the encyclopedia's content to the bottom of every article!

moving all the information to a new spot would be a trillion times quicker and clearer.

But the proposal wasn't to move contradictory information to a different section, it was to move all EU information to a different section. This doesn't solve the problem as I understand it, it just moves it to a different spot, along with a bunch of other valid information. It instead de-canonizes all of the EU. There's no correlation of the solution to the problem. It's like a boy and a girl in the same class don't get along, so we're making all the boys sit out in the hallway during class for the rest of the school year.

It's funny you bring up the Chappelle thing because I've never once thought of it as a retcon. As a matter of fact, knowing that Chappelle has children makes his denial of having anyone to call an extremely powerful moment. It says a lot about his character if he doesn't want to burden his children with his immanent death, and it beautifully contrasts with George and John Mason the season prior. Or perhaps Chappelle was estranged from his wife and kids and knew that he couldn't contact them, despite desperately wanting to. Or perhaps they died at some point during the 4.5 years between Day 1 and Day 3 and that's why he succumbed to the terrorist demands, knowing his bureaucratic life wasn't worth living anymore. So many awesome dramatic possibilities that I'm sure some fanfic writer could flesh out! --proudhug 03:50, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

After thinking a lot about this, I have to say that I'm leaning more towards Proudhug's approach of citing every piece of information rather than separating it. Mainly because of articles like Africa and other places that play a role in both the show and the novels. Under our current proposal, we'd have the first two paragraphs in the main body and then we'd have to relegate the final offhand mention to the "Expanded universe" section, when it would be so much simpler to just cite the episode and novel, respectively. On the Edgar Stiles page I tried citing both the show and Trojan Horse, despite the apparent inconsistency in how Edgar started at CTU. I think as long as we acknowledge those errors when they occur - like in the background sections, as Blue Rook suggested - and cite everything (and I mean everything), there's no reason we can't "mush" different sources together. One thing I don't want to see, though, is "Before" and "After" headings for EU material, like "Before Trojan Horse." For one thing, it's virtually impossible to judge the shows' timeline in relation to any one novel, and for another, those titles are out-of-universe. I would limit the main headings to "Before Day X", "Day X," "After Day X," and so on, and then describe novel events using IU descriptions, like "Tracking down Zapata," similar to the subsections I've added on Renee Walker and Omar Hassan.

That said: I still agree that 90% of users visit the site to learn about the show, not the EU. So for characters like Jack or Tony who have literally volumes of accumulated history before Day 1, I think we should create separate pages detailing what they did in the various novels, kind of like what Jack has right now. It would prevent readers from having to slog through ten books' worth of info on Tony to get to the Season 1 summary.--Pyramidhead 04:39, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Okay Pyramidhead, this has to stop. I hate to threaten such a valuable editor with a ban, but we simply can't have you continually taking it upon yourself to go outside our manuals and policies without first waiting for a consensus among the editors.

Firstly, I said that I'd concede to citations if the community feels it necessary, but I didn't say I want them. Just because I put the idea out there as a compromise, doesn't give you the go-ahead to start doing it. Even if/when we reach that agreement, we'll still need to decide the rules and structure for implementing it. Secondly, our precedent for years has been to allow only "Before Day X," "Day X" and "After Day X" headings for IU event descriptions, with a few rare exceptions. This includes substituting "Day X" for the title of a novel, game, comic, etc. The argument that they're OOU titles doesn't work because "Day 1" is an OOU title also, yet we use it in the main body of articles to simplify things. And Thirdly, despite Blue Rook's trepidation about changing our image policy, you've gone ahead and added more non-24 images to the site. I don't know if you're deliberately ignoring what people say, genuinely ignorant, or just trying to push the limits here, but either way it's unacceptable.

To recap, presenting your side of the argument is not sufficient grounds to make a change to Wiki 24's style and procedural rules. The community must first unanimously agree on the rules and how they're going to be implemented. If this behavior continues further, I will consider your actions in violation of our rules and be forced to take action. --proudhug 22:05, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'd just like to clarify that I'm not necessarily saying I'm against any of these changes. It's just that none of them have reached enough of an agreement among the community where they can start to take effect. --proudhug 22:31, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, I just have a bad habit of wanting/needing to test things out on the actual site to see what works and what doesn't, even when it hasn't necessarily been agreed on. I'll try to restrain myself in the future.

Anyway, I've been working on the citation template, which now allows multiple sources in a single instance and has a bunch of other add-ons. Even if this isn't what we decide on with regard to canon/whatnot, I think it would be great to have something like this to ensure our articles are as accurate as possible. I mean, I just now noticed some crap on James Prescott's page that has zero basis in the show or anywhere else, but which was apparently left up for two months (!) without anyone noticing. If nothing else, citing sources would prevent that kind of vandalism, and hopefully improve our overall thoroughness. Here's the documentation: Template:Ep/doc Template:Cite/doc --Pyramidhead 23:15, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I notice this editor, as well as another anonymous editor added numerous amounts of bogus information on president pages. I'm unable to verify if all the information has been properly removed, as I'm trying to avoid S8 spoilers. Can someone go through all of their contributions and make sure the information has been removed?

Your apology is greatly appreciated, Pyramidhead. I do like your ideas for citations, but we just need to make sure that everyone agrees they're necessary and valuable. --proudhug 23:44, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

I've always liked the idea of citations, in fact I suggested it a long time ago on Cordilla virus sting operation. The only problem is it will be a hell of a job to go through the Wiki and insert it everywhere. That being said I definitely think that should be done rather than doing it in certain instances, because that would make it look messy and inconsistent. --SignorSimon _{(talk/contribs/email)} 23:59, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

I agree if we do it, it has to be across the board. I always liked the idea of citations, too, but just never felt it was necessary. If everyone agrees that they now are, and that they'll add a level of integrity to the site, not to mention resolve the problem for which this massive thread was created, I'm totally in favor of them. Yes, it'll be a lot of work to populate the entire wiki with them, but I think we'd be delighted to find out how much questionable information has gotten past the radar. --proudhug 00:15, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

I know I am weighing in on this debate quite late, and may not have any say in it, but it is an interesting read. I too am what people are calling a purist for the show, but I agree there isn't a hard and fast solution to the mixing of data. I'm not fully satisfied with the little 'eu' icon in the corner of an article. In response to the points about Rick Allen and Dan Mounts - long before wiki 24 ever started I made some lists of day 1 characters (right after the series aired in england). I had Rick's name down as Allen, and I've never read any books, so I think that might be from the show somewhere - however I also had penticoff's name down as 'stephen' (I think some info may have been got from Radio Times, the british TV guide).

Dan Mounts however is a sore topic for me. The show states that he is Frank Allard's brother (not half brother, not changed his name or any of that) so to me Dan Allard contradicts the book. I don't know for certain but I don't think Graem Bauer's surname is ever explicitly stated, so imagine if a passing comment in chapter 23 of a comic said his name was Graem Baldyhead, would we really change the article name (having to settle for 'he probably changed his name at some point)?

I'd also like to bring up Scott Baylor's son. Scott Baylor mentions his kids, but that would never warrant an article without the book, so to me the article should be a purely EU one. If a book made a list of all Jack Bauer's friends, would they be associated with every series that Jack has talked about friends in?

I know these are very specific examples on a general topic. I see that there are now citations on paragraphs, which works well, but I still feel a little bit of mashing up the show with the expanded universe but as of yet don't see a solution. --Acer4666 12:52, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

The Graem hypothetical is funny, but thankfully we wouldn't be obligated to change something like that in such an instance ;)

Now, given the Baylor kids situation, we know that the names from Findings retroactively apply to the otherwise-unnamed kids he was talking about onscreen. Since Findings limits this number specifically to two—and he put his "kids/children" on a plane—we know they are one and the same group. Now, if Jack Bauer was chatting about "friends", we would not be able to link them to anyone specific unless it was a case like Baylor's, where the details are unmistakeable. For this reason I am comfortable with those kids being Day 1 and EU mentions. Blue Rook talk contribs 07:10, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Ah fair enough, I should probably stop with my ridiculous comparisons. I dunno why these things bother me so, I should probably stop being so pedantic, I guess I just feel annoyed that all the day 1 articles are sort of 'tainted' by info from findings at CTU. Not that I'm being smug about 'purism', it's just sometimes hard to work out where info has come from esp in day 1 articles, but i can't think of a decent solution just yet--Acer4666 10:23, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Questions

A couple of things:

Episode scripts, closed captioning, and episode credits are not canonical sources of info, but they can be used to cull names so long as there's no contradiction with the canonical stuff. Can we extend that to the non-canonical deleted scenes? I see no reason not to, and I'm thinking of Mr Marr and Maria Canosa (there may be others).

I understand that deleted scenes can't be included into the canon wholesale, as many are in fact "alternate takes", so contradict each other or the show. In fact, on the DVD menus they are always listed as "deleted scenes and alternate takes". But I would suggest that these are two separate entities, and it shouldn't be too hard to objectively differentiate between the two (ie, those that create contradictions and those that don't). Then, I'd say we list them at position 2 along with the prequels (in fact, on the R2 series 4 dvd the prequel is in the list of deleted scenes, there is no distinction). But, there may be reasons not to do this that I haven't thought of, I'm just sticking it out there to see what comes back.

I've never played the 24 playstation game, so I don't know how interactive it is. But I'd say there's something inherently wrong about classing an interactive computer game as a canonical source of information - surely lots of different things can happen? Do we only count the cut-scenes? It seems most of the articles skim over the interactive parts ("Tony then shot loads of terrorists on his way to the next cut-scene" sort of thing).--Acer4666 18:05, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I stand on this. I'd actually probably lean more towards only using scripts and deleted scenes as sources of name spellings rather than the names themselves.

I'm staunchly opposed to including deleted scenes into the canon. There's no way for us to consistently determine why a scene was deleted, even if it doesn't contradiction the rest of the show. Perhaps the creators decided that someone went out-of-character or that a scene was too silly or awkward. Deleted scenes are deleted scenes for one reason or another and as awesome as it is to have access to them, it might be considered somewhat disrespectful of the creators to assume their finished product isn't complete.

The events of The Game are extremely linear. The only real relevant variety you have is in how many bad guys you kill during gunfights and such. The plot comes pretty much exclusively from dialogue either in cut scenes or during actual gameplay. --proudhug 19:46, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

I take the point on the deleted scenes - after I posted that, I noticed the scene where Nina and Max have cocktails together on their yacht, and remembered they aren't always cut for time reasons and don't always just expand upon the storyline, they sometimes warp it. It's just I couldn't find a discussion for their non-canonicity, but it's here now.

As for the culling names from OOU sources - I just think the unnamed characters pages should be as small as we can get them. If we get a whiff of a name from an official source, I'd be tempted to run with it, but I dunno if you're unhappy with this. But we should definitely be consistent - if the Davenport bloke doesn't get his own article, Larry Rogow is gonna have to be demoted to unnamed civilians--Acer4666 19:57, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

But like I said, Rogow was also mentioned on Fox.com, an official source, so that's not a good example, otherwise I would agree. I'm willing to listen to other people's arguments for or against including names like Davenport, as I haven't entirely made up my mind one way or another. --proudhug 20:08, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Well atm fox.com episode guides are not mentioned anywhere on the canon - only "character profiles". The episode guides are OOU so are the same as credits, deleted scenes, etc....aren't they? (I've never been on the website before it got pulled down)--Acer4666 20:11, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the credits are also OOU and we include them as an official source of names, so I'd put them on the same reliability. The difference between credits/fox.com and deleted scenes/scripts is that the former were finished products meant for official release to the public, while the latter are transitory parts of the creative process and therefore unreliable. --proudhug 20:20, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorry if I got confused it's just that's not how the policy is written at the moment. We seem to need a policy change. Looks like we need to extend the "episode credits and closed captioning" to also include information from the fox website to get character names. I agree with leaving scripts out, I dunno where script information comes from anyway or how reliable it is. But I think for episode credits on deleted scenes (ie. Mr Marr Cabal) - if someone has written out credits on the dvd menu, that is a finished product for someone to read before watching the scenes. A dvd menu is a product being sold, designed and finished to completion before it hits the shelves. As for the grant street elementary principle giving her name - the writers wrote it, the actor said it, so they edited it out, it gives us one less awkward "unnamed character". That's my view anyway.

And just to check - you seem to wanna remove closed captioning as a source for character names i think? Closed captioning is a finished product, same as credits and fox.com, to me. I know we give a lot of stick to poor blokes sat in a room typing out what they think they hear for the subtitles, but I'd say they're no less reliable sources than the guys typing out episode guides for the website.--Acer4666 22:38, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what others have to say about this, but I personally think scripts and deleted scenes should only be used to get the spellings of names, but not the names themselves. Episode credits are fine to get both, provided there's no IU contradiction. This also goes for mid-episode subtitles (see Talk:McLennen-Forster), which aren't mentioned here, but probably should be. Fox.com synopses did include some errors at times, but they provided an official Fox-approved source of information with names. Closed captions however... I'm sorry, but I wouldn't even give them time of day. I just personally hate them with a passion, so I'd put them at the bottom of the barrel. They're good for a hearty laugh, but that's about it, as far as I'm concerned. There are just so many horrible mistakes in them that they're completely unreliable. I do understand that by being included on the DVDs, they're an officially released, sort of IU, product, but man are they unreliable. I mean, we have Alan Hayes being called "Hanks", we have Kimberly being called "Kimmy", we have Carl Webb being called "Paul" and Jenny Dodge being called "Janet." Now, if they misheard a name that wasn't there, would we include it? God, I hope not! --proudhug 23:13, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

First, I'd like to point out what might be an immediate discrepancy, then I'll get to the smaller details. The discrepancy I think may be happening is: I'm sure we already agreed to use scripts for finding new names. This is how we got Ted Graham, Kohler, and at least a few others (don't recall where the original talk was, but one of the subsequent discussions can be found here). Proudhug I'm not sure if you forgot this, or were simply a hiatus when this happened. We should settle that issue first. Frankly I will stand by the argument that the scripts are extremely helpful (& awesome), and when we get our hands on them, I vote we use em for names whenever pertinent and whenever it's certain (not ambiguous). Sure, some parts may be different, but if a character is the same, why assume the name has changed?

Regarding CCs and subtitles, I'm with proudhug on how embarrassing those can be. And deleted scenes are never acceptable for canonical events, even if we all sat through the writers' reasons for rejection in the Deleted Commentaries. The thing is, CC and Deleted Scenes names came from a real point in the show's creative process. I'd vote that strictly names (not events) are acceptable from those. Mr Marr in the Cabal of the deleted scenes is the same character as on the final version. And, what's the point of rejecting Davenport as a name if it is not contradicted? Blue Rook talk contribs 00:28, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

I do still lean towards keeping it more strict, but I don't really have any valid arguments aside from what I've already stated. Ultimately, I'm willing to acquiesce if you guys think it's a good idea to include names (and only names) from deleted scenes and scripts. I don't however like the idea of including anything from CC that can't be correlated anywhere else. At all. --proudhug 00:51, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

Okay crap I take part of that back. Proudhug's right, here's another good reason why. Remember that Azara Nasir is actually seen for a few brief moments in the aired episodes, way in the background. With the logic I was using to justify getting the name "Marr", then we'd have to restructure the Azara page as a canonical character and then convert all her major stuff to BGIN. Now, an operation like this makes no sense. As much as it may suck, unless another argument comes along I'm going to stand by the point that deleted scenes are no good. Scripts are a different story however, we should use those. Blue Rook talk contribs 04:42, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

A few different things to discuss!

Closed captioning: I could give a similar list of laughable mistakes in, say, Findings at CTU (Ted Paulson and Frank Castalano spring to mind), but it doesn't mean we can't use the sources at all because we cover ourselves with the "as long as it doesn't contradict anything else". I haven't checked the fox.com guides, but like I said I feel their creation is similar - just pay some bloke to type out what they think they see/hear. I think the dvd releases (CC and all) are much more "official" releases than something like the novels or the card game.
And for deleted scenes - if indeed Azara Nasir was seen, well then we have the name of a background CTU staffer, and I'd be excited to be on the spot for her just like Robin Powers or Agent Berkin etc. Yes, the story of how her name came about is a long one, but I don't think the look of the article would change - atm we have a short introduction followed by a heading then lots of text, all the operation to change it would be to change the name of the heading. I just think a scene where Maria Canosa gives her name is much more grounds to call the character that than say, Robert Joseph - proudhug haven't you seen first hand how arbitrary the trading card names are, for all I know that could be your real name! Whereas we have a scene that the 24 writers wrote and the actor performed, where the character gives her name, and I think that is much more compelling evidence to include that in the encyclopedia. Yes the Azara Nasir situation is awkward, but one example like that shouldn't be enough to derail a policy that otherwise makes sense.
As for scripts - I'm completely in the dark as to where this information comes from. How reliable are the scripts? Where do they come from? I'm sure I could find somewhere on the internet a script telling me the Day 6 Ambassador was called Bobby McBobbles. And because they are constantly re-drafted, even if we get a genuine one we have no idea how serious it was going to be taken (think of the april fools day script draft when george woke up in the mojave aving parachuted out of the plane). Having said that, I am of the opinion that any name sources that we can get for unnamed characters are good, so if they're in the least bit verified I don't mind keeping them.--Acer4666 07:30, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to the Azara Nasir situation as well - I actually think that supports my idea to make deleted scenes a source for names. Look at her appearances template - it says she appeared in 1-2am, but in deleted scenes only. Now that is not true. If we change it, then we acknowledge that she appeared in the series, so is an IU character. But then our IU rules say she can't have an article! It's a contradiction - she's not a fully-deleted character, but by one set of inclusion criteria she can have an article, yet by another she can't. I say it makes sense to change to what I'm proposing, then her IU appearances can be properly included on the website. Look at it this way - I didn't know she appeared in the main series until you told me so, the reason for that is the information has nowhere to go under the current canon policy!--Acer4666 15:54, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

I think that the difference between the CC and any other 24 source on this page is that they are an entirely interpreted source of no new information. The scripts exist pre-series, so they're an original piece of story material. The episodes themselves will differ from the scripts since the creative process continues during filming (and deleted scenes are a part of this, of course). Subtitles and credits are similarly part of the post-production creative process (as is the editing). The fox.com synopses are an original piece of prose, even though there's technically not supposed to be any new information being created. But the captions however are meant to contain no new information or even repackaging of existing information. Anything that comes from the CC either exists in the dialogue itself (which we can already hear anyway), comes from the script or website (such as "ROCCO:"), or is just plain wrong. Unlike every other source of information, which have at least some room for creativity, the CC has none. Any deviation is by definition incorrect.

In regards to Azara Nasir, I completely agree with all you've said, Acer. Provided we decide to take names from deleted scenes you're absolutely right about this and I see nothing wrong with doing what you've proposed. But even if we don't go with this policy, we do still have the name of an actress who appeared in IU scenes, not just deleted ones, no different from all the stuntmen and extras we've been adding of late.

As for scripts, I'm unsure what exactly you're asking. We're not talking about fan-made transcripts, but rather the actual teleplays penned by the authors of the show. Copies of them have turned up on fox.com or eBay or other sites where people sell these things. They're early glimpses at the creative process, since even the final draft of a script almost never winds up being exactly what airs. Sometimes character names will be changed when filming, but the proposal here (which, for the record, I'm not necessarily for) is that any non-contradictory name coming from a script should be included as canon. --proudhug 22:55, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

As for the first paragraph, I have disagree with the fox.com summaries being described as an "original piece of prose", as opposed to the CC being descirbed as "an original piece of screenwriting". I'm really having a tough time distinguishing between the two, as both are just people summarising the episodes in a different form surely?

I concede on the point about Azara Nasir, there is no contadiction in an OOU article about an IU character. But I still agree with deleted scenes as a source of names, as you say is a reasonable argument. Other than the presence of Azara Nasir, there have been no arguments against this so far, and as ~I say one awkward customer shouldn;t be the death of a sensible policy.

As for scripts, if people buy them off ebay, I can't wait to set up my account and start selling off scripts for 24 that I produce! I know they're not fan transcripts, but for all we know they could be if we just buy them off eBay. My point is, there's no accepted official script, and if we rely on what people claim to have read off the script they bought on eBay, then we're nowhere. If something been's published on fox.com, then ok, but I'm instantly dubious of something that we saw on something that someone once bought off eBay making its way onto the encyclopedia--Acer4666 23:24, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

A CC transcript (ideally) takes the exact spoken words on the screen and converts them to visual text. Nothing is changed, nothing is removed, nothing is added. Otherwise, it's inaccurate. The website summaries however take the events and dialogue and put them into different words.

And I've never heard of anyone successfully passing off their own fan scripts as the real deal, and there there's a pretty obvious difference between an actual script and something someone just transcribed themselves. TV and movie scripts are pretty easy to find, and pretty obvious when fake. here's a pdf of the second season premiere, for instance. Excitingly, I just checked ebay to see if any are there right now and found a signed copy of Day 6: 6:00am-7:00am. There are photos of the cover and character list, which gives Stan's full name as "Stan Miller"! --proudhug 00:17, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

Proudhug: I love it! I absolutely love it. How much is that thing?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the atmosphere is more open now than ever before for Deleted scenes as a source for names (assuming no contradictions of course). I suppose this is good with me despite the Azara issue, because, overall, I'm with Acer on the idea that gleaning names from sources which the writers had their hands in should be a priority for an encyclopedia. This is why it's confusing to me that you don't approve of the handful of available scripts that are out there, Acer: who on earth could forge these things? and, why? They don't sell for that much and there is practically no market for them. (The way you put it, kind of make it seem like it's a counterfeiting currency scheme heheh!) The consensus that's in place currently gave us those examples I mentioned earlier (Kohler, etc.). Would you be proposing that we remove such names? Blue Rook talk contribs 00:56, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't resist but put a bid in. I'm currently the high bidder at $20.50, but the reserve hasn't been met yet. I'm also now high bidder for another auction that includes every season 2 script and a Kiefer screen-worn t-shirt (not that I really care about the latter item). Damn, I guess this means I'm gonna have to start collecting every episode script now! But I think these'll be invaluable resources.

... if only we can find the damn Day 1: 6:00pm-7:00pm script and settle this Mariah Pasos thing once and for all! --proudhug 01:06, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. So scripts are still okay for names, yes? It's hard to say no when you find something like Stan Miller, isn't it :)

Proudhug, has your position on CCs changed at all since your September 5, 2010 post way at the top under "Scripts" heading? It reads almost like you were okay with getting names from them but I'm unsure. Blue Rook talk contribs 01:57, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

Funny, I just read that, haha. Yeah, I don't agree with what I wrote at the time. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure I meant to only refer to credits for the inclusion part, but got lazy with what I wrote. --proudhug 02:05, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

Ah don't get me wrong I am in favour of scripts for source of names, it's just I have no experience of what's in them. Because they're never officially published and only pop up now and then on ebay, then essentially whoever has a copy (or claims to) can act as dictator as to what to call people, and no-one can question it until the exact same script pops up on ebay again (if it ever does). In theory I'm in favour, as any (official) source of names is good in my opinion, I just think including something like this in the canon policy brings up all sorts of practicality issues. But still Im in favour :)

On the CC issue, I'm still on my original position. There is, in fact, something very crucial added to CCs (even ideal ones that transcribe everything perfectly): identifiers on who is talking. As I said I think these are just as official as the fox website summaries. If these identifiers are new names, I say fair game to include them. Blue Rook are you still in favour of this (like on the Davenport issue)?--Acer4666 07:22, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

Err, in spirit: yes, I want names from CCs too. However what if there is a discrepancy between regions? What if US DVDs call someone Joe and the UK DVDs call the same guy Jim? The funny thing is, this has already happened. I'm the person who created the page for Sayid Kolobe, but using a drastically different spelling. The original spelling—Siad Calabi—actually appears twice in my US DVDs (simultaneously in the subtitles and the closed captions, if I turn them both on). But I went with Simon's spelling by neglecting to move the page, and he presumably was using the UK DVDs. What about this sort of business? Blue Rook talk contribs 12:12, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

I'd say region 1 takes precedence, for the same reason we use american spelling in articles. But the Sayid Kolobe issue is not about the culling of names, it's about using the CC for spelling of names, which I think everyone agrees is acceptable, no?--Acer4666 12:16, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

Currently, it is okay to take spellings from CCs. Proudhug, anyone else, do you concur that we'd have to move it back to "Siad Calabi" because that's the Region 1 spelling? This question deserves an answer anyway since it needs to be cleared up regardless of whatever we decide from grabbing new names from CCs.

Another issue that just comes up is IMDB character names. The interrogator in the Season 6 Prequel is Wu San in the IMDB credits (see this discussion that I'm also currently having, with William). So is Nikolai (and I don't think he's in the CCs). I know IMDB often sucks, but it has been the sole source for several Guest Star character names over the years on this wiki. Did we "officially" permit those too? I don't see any reason why not, strictly of course if there is no contradictions. We should put a stipulation that a note is required to explain where such names come from, but other than that, they're good. Blue Rook talk contribs 05:20, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

No, I meant region 1 takes precedence in the Jim/John hypothetical, if we allow names to be taken from the CC and have a conflict. However in the case of using CC for spelling issues, then I think the spelling that sounds most like the words spoken should take precedence. And what Jack says is definitely not "Siad", it sounds much more like "Sayid". The surname could be either Calabi or Kolobe, so I say it should stay at "Sayid Kolobe". There have been a few other cases like this, and I think we've gone with what it actually sounds like regardless of the region of the subtitles.

I think I'd be against IMDB character names that can't be sourced from anywhere else. I mean, that literally is a free-for-all, and if we wanted to rid ourselves of the unnamed character pages could just go along and edit names into IMDB.

I also think that a note on the source of the name should ideally be required on all names that don't come from the show. I've seen discussions about this and similar things to this, and I don't like the "just ask on the talk page if you're curious" argument. There are many issues of information in articles that I have asked about on the talk page and am still waiting for a reply because whoever put it there has gone. I think this encyclopedia should be able to stand up on its own should all the editors leave, and currently we're citing all information in the body of the article, but where can a citation go for the name of the article? I think, in the BGIN--Acer4666 09:21, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

How is IMDB a "free-for-all" or any less useful than the co-star list as a legit oou source for simply culling names. Co-star lists have mistakes, but are only discarded when they are contradicted outright by IU content (such as Heather being listed as "Linda"). The IMDB lists came from the 24 crew, just like the co-star lists. We've been using them for years. I don't see how you can "edit names into IMDB". Blue Rook talk contribs 06:30, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I thought anyone could edit imdb. Who says that the information definitely comes from the 24 crew? It is possible for just anyone to submit changes, I don't know how viligant the checkers are. A ciuple of years ago all the 24 episodes had random pictures on imdb, like teletubbies and John McClane as tgheir main picture, and I assumed it was just people having a laugh making the pages--Acer4666 07:49, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Here we are: this doesn't fill me with confidence about the site's reliability. "While we actively gather information from and verify items with studios and filmmakers, the bulk of our information is submitted by people in the industry and visitors like you."--Acer4666 09:24, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, what?! When the heck did we start accepting names from IMDb?? IMDb is user submitted and definitely not an acceptable source of IU information. I had no idea this was happening. I seem to remember the issue coming up early in Wiki 24's history it being agreed upon that it wasn't acceptable. --proudhug 12:36, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then the wiki is pretty humped, and in a very bad way. Dozens of full or partial names were taken from IMDB when the episode guides were being created. I think everyone needs to step back and think for a moment. Almost all (or perhaps all) of the names were posted directly onto IMDB when the seasons were first added there — which absolutely must have come from the production studio, not some nonexistent mischievous prankster who was out to derail our canon policy 2 years down the road. Those first, last, and full names were faithfully copied over to the wiki, where they have remained for years without incident. It will take double that time to figure out what parts of whose names came from the FOX website, IMDB, or some forgotten iu source, and even then, we'll be uncertain since much of the FOX content is gone. This is especially true with Guest Star lists. Blue Rook talk contribs 19:26, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we go on a witch hunt to fine everything that came from IMDb, but clearly this was an enormous mistake and the practice shouldn't continue.

No one's suggesting that the IMDb information was provided by pranksters, or even that it wasn't provided by those in the know. It's just the simple fact that it's a user-submitted site that invalidates it as an IU source. Imagine if Wiki 24 was only editable by Administrators. Would that mean the site is perfect and should be trusted? Of course not. Ironically Wikipedia doesn't meet its own standards of reliability. The fact remains that we don't know who's submitted any information to IMDb, nor where the info came from, so it can't be trusted as an official source.

Yikes, I feel really dirty knowing that this has been happening for some time now without my knowledge. Kinda like a stranger has been living in my house for years without me even knowing about it. --proudhug 19:49, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself. The "users" who provided these 24 names were the 24 crew members themselves. I never added Guest Star lists back when the credits list of each new episode was being established (so I never did it until Wu San a few days ago) but I would have taken part in it under the same understanding that those other editors had, namely, that the 24 writers added those names and nobody else. If it's true that you can change IMDB like a wiki, please change Jack Bauer to Slim Jim and take a screenshot before its reverted, because I need to see this to believe it.

And what are we doing in instances like Alexander Trepkos? Apparently his surname has a source, but where'd Alexander come from? Clearly, the same source that provided the surname. It is clear that this is like jumping in a time machine and setting the clock back a few years just because of some claim that IMDB has some user-added content, which doesn't apply to 24 because those names were beyond a doubt added by the 24 crew. Blue Rook talk contribs 22:22, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting that the IMDb names were "beyond a doubt" provided by crew members, but if it's true, I'd be very delighted to see some substantive proof. I'm not able to change Jack Bauer to Slim Jim or anything to anything as I'm not a premium member and such a thing wouldn't get approved if I tried... hence my Wiki-24-only-being-administrators analogy. As for Trepkos, the BGIN clearly states his full name came from Fox.com and The Game, so I'm confused by that comment. --proudhug 02:41, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

No, read the note again, it says "surname" not "full name".

The IMDB names haven't changed since the season close. That's proof enough for me that they are all from the crew. Blue Rook talk contribs 03:22, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to pretend to remember the source for every character name on the show, but since Trepkos was a very early addition to the site, I'm pretty confident it didn't come from IMDb or I would've said something at the time. IMDb has been notoriously unreliable for years (though, like Wikipedia, it's made big strides towards accuracy monitoring).

I don't know what you mean by "what are we doing in instances like this." I'm saying we stop this practice in the future. Or at the very least, put a BGIN about the dubious nature of the source.

And as for your "proof"... I'm sure you're well aware that this very site has had innocent errors go unnoticed for years before being corrected. And I suspect Wiki 24's editors are far more diligent than those of IMDb's 24 episode pages. --proudhug 03:53, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree that anymore stuff from IMDB should be vetted for an IU source as well. The most recent case (and the only one I can think of that I was involved with) is Wu San. That name actually has been on IMDB forever, so, what should we do about it? Blue Rook talk contribs 04:16, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

I vote that we don't allow it, but include it as a BGIN unless someone somehow comes across an official source. But even if we do decide to keep it, the note still needs to be made. --proudhug 04:22, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

I'd also vote for removing imdb-only sourced names that we know of, just cos I don't believe it's definitely the writers of the show providing them--Acer4666 10:02, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't manage to change Jack Bauer to Slim Jim, but check out the Day 6 prequel and you'll see that "Wu San" is now "Wu San Ho" - I can tell you with certainty that I made that extra name up and got it past the imdb checkers.

Just back to CC issue - can I ask, in what context was Davenport mentioned? Was it like Kiefer Sutherland clearly said "pass me that file" and the CC displayed "Davenport, pass me that file". Or was it that the dialogue was off-camera and the CC said:

"Jack:Pass me that file

Davenport:Here you go Jack"

Just so I know what we're talking about! I believe the latter way should be a reasonable way to cull names, given my reasoning above.--Acer4666 20:17, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty clear that the whole "make Jack Slim Jim" was a joke... and that messing around with online sources of information to prove a point is an overall destructive thing to do! If any online source of information is useful to anyone, you would want to correct that misinfo. That name has been there for years like several others and "just cos I don't believe" is, I'm sure you can agree, a poor rationale for making any kind of change regardless of the significance.

The fundamental difference between us is: I ask the question "if those names didn't come from the crew, then where did they come from?" and give the answer "nowhere, logic dictates that they were provided by the crew" whereas you ask the question "how can we be sure that the info came from the crew?" without providing any explanation as to who else would have put lies or deception in there. Blue Rook talk contribs 21:13, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

I just think we should use info from imdb as is because Blue Rook's right, why would it be there for any other reason? If it was done by vandals, wouldn't they just do all manner of giving credits to actors not on the show and making up names for everyone? If it's done by the crew it's logical. --ASHPD24 21:33, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was disrupting an outside website to prove a point (the wikipedia page you linked is talking about disrupting wikipedia to prove a point on wikipedia), and I don't think what I have done is destructive - any website that doesn't provide any sources is a clear target for that sort of thing. I was going to submit the reverse change once you had accepted that it was possible to "edit names into imdb"! As for providing an answer to the sorts of people who would make up names on the internet for whatever personal gain - I think you know the answer to that all to well, do you not ;)?--Acer4666 21:38, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

To ASHPD24 - the reason only subtle, non-obvious changes would remain on IMDB is that when a vandal makes a rash of nonsense information, then the obviously wrong stuff (like false credits to actors not on the show) would be picked up on by other editors and reverted, whereas the more subtle stuff would lie unchanged. I believe much the same thing happened on this website with the mischief maker I linked to in my above post--Acer4666 22:06, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

That case isn't the same because everything that was sourceless which that editor added was reverted. This nonexistent hypothetical "vandal rash" you're mentioning would have been rejected down to the byte. Blue Rook talk contribs 22:44, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

The case is the same in that you asked me to provide who might have put in lies in there, and I say Maya11 or someone like her. I will re-phrase my earlier comment about why I am voting against long-standing imdb names - instead of "just cos I don't believe", I mean "just cos there is absolutely no evidence that the 24 crew were anything to do with the imdb info". When you say "nowhere, logic dictates that they were provided by the crew", I don't see how that is logic - replace crew with "a hardcore fan who added cast lists after each episode aired", or "Maya11", or "the flying spaghetti monster" and the sentence still holds. I'm not sure why the names not changing since the season close means the crew definitely provided them.--Acer4666 23:15, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

My point isn't even about vandals. We have no way of knowing if someone unknowingly transposed two letters or two entirely different characters/actors. Someone could accidentally add information into the wrong actor, the wrong episode, the wrong TV show. Even a good-faith crew member could be misremembering or not paying strict attention. The problem is that we can't verify it, so it's not a legitimate source. All sources of information on Wiki 24 need to be verifiable by more than one person. If someone mishears a spoken name from an episode, others can verify it and it can be changed, but if someone misreads or mistypes a name into IMDb, there's no way for us to verify this. That is my point. --proudhug 00:31, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Then let the witch hunt begin! Get out your article title clippers and get ready to have something like half of the characters' first names and surnames put to the test with three hundred disorganized random inquiries on as many character Talk page and as many scattershot redirects all over the project. Let the chaos begin but understand I want no part in this. Blue Rook talk contribs 02:35, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I know it'll be an annoying job but I think having the information sourced will be a positive step for the website.

Are we any further forward on the subtitles debate?

Also, I thought that for the Azara Nasir thing that came up above, and having read through the s2 premiere script, I think it would be good to say "information from deleted scenes, scripts, etc. can be used to source names for characters that would otherwise be eligible for unnamed character entries". The script introduces lots of names which could be arbitrarily matched up to background extras or something, and as you say I think keeping Azara Nasir article as it is would be better than making her an IU character--Acer4666 09:58, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

I never said anything about a witch hunt, Rook. I merely stated that we stop the practice and revert any instances we find. I'm certainly not opposed to a witch hunt, though, since Acer's right about it being a positive step for the website, so I'll certainly participate as much as I can.

As for the subtitles, Acer, I'm willing to concede that we use dialogue-prefaced names such as "BOB:" since they're presumably not cases of misheard speech, but I still think that using actual supposed dialogue itself from CCs is foolish.

And as for Azara Nasir, I think it's okay to include her as an IU named character because this is a case where we're able to concretely match up the name with a specific background character. Obviously this is a rare instance and matching up bg extras to script-only names would normally be impossible, but I think it should be allowed here. I don't see how we can justify accepting dialogue-spoken names for otherwise forbidden characters/extras, and script or deleted scene names for otherwise "Unnamed" characters, but not script or deleted scene names for otherwise forbidden characters/extras. --proudhug 00:14, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Proudhug your first paragraph can be summarized as follows: "I don't like witch hunts. But a witch hunt is good, and I'm ready for one!" :P

Not to spend much time on Azara, but, how can we know the woman in the background is supposed to be the personage that was deleted? Perhaps that was merely a Muslim witness or someone being interviewed in the Turkish community for information. Overall, making Azara's page IU in any manner is outright weird. She was quite definitely and wholly deleted from the show. Nothing is verifiable about that woman who appeared for 0.00006 nanoseconds in the background.

On the main topic. If the consensus is to go ahead with this, then I'm just farting in the squall if I keep protesting, so I'll shut up. But to simplify this matter, I want to propose everyone follows an organized and careful process for vetting these dastardly, menacing "IMDB-only names". No reverts, no moves, no deletions, not even Main namespace edits of any kind... yet. Instead, someone creates a project page of questionable content and anyone may simply list and describe the instances they think they have spotted one of these insidious IMDB names. In this manner, there is 1 central place where all this mess can be worked on, and we'll never have to deal with dozens of scattered BGINs and disparate Talk Page annoyances. Do you guys agree this is good: proudhug, Acer especially (and also ASHPD24 and anybody else who has input on this)?

(I'm sure everyone can see that while I strongly dislike any plan of deleting existing character names on this basis, my request is constructive in nature and only seeks to organize the effort.) Blue Rook talk contribs 01:51, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with looking for every single imdb-sourced name, but your idea is a good one Blue Rook. A project page will help centralize and mainstream everything for simplicity's sake. --ASHPD24 02:06, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

To re-summarize my first paragraph, "Although it wasn't what I was suggesting, a witch hunt would be very good for the site. And since I understand the colossal effort required here and the headaches that would follow, I'm willing to help out where possible, but not press the issue to get done. Regardless, we need to discontinue acquiring names this way."

I've made my argument about Azara, but I see your side of it, too, Rook. I'm fine with whatever way the consensus goes, but I still lean towards it being okay.

Your idea of a centralized project page is a good one if you're saying there are tons of these cases. I was assuming there were only a handful of cases here where names were taken exclusively from IMDb. I'm even more horrified than ever if there are enough to warrant an entire project page for it, but if it's indeed true, then yes I support your idea. --proudhug 03:19, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

No don't be horrified, there probably aren't as many as it seems I unintentionally led you to believe. What I'm worried about is the influx of challenges (in other words, someone might challenge the "Steve" of Steve Simmons, and it would be nice if all those conversations pointing out forgotten IU sources could happen in one place.) I merely want to minimize crap appearing all over the project. Blue Rook talk contribs 06:01, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:19, 4 May 2011 (edit) Proudhug (talk \| contribs) No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 06:01, 4 May 2011 (edit) (undo) Blue Rook (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 496:		Line 496:

	Your idea of a centralized project page is a good one if you're saying there are tons of these cases. I was assuming there were only a handful of cases here where names were taken exclusively from IMDb. I'm even more horrified than ever if there are enough to warrant an entire project page for it, but if it's indeed true, then yes I support your idea. --[[User:Proudhug\|proudhug]] 03:19, May 4, 2011 (UTC)		Your idea of a centralized project page is a good one if you're saying there are tons of these cases. I was assuming there were only a handful of cases here where names were taken exclusively from IMDb. I'm even more horrified than ever if there are enough to warrant an entire project page for it, but if it's indeed true, then yes I support your idea. --[[User:Proudhug\|proudhug]] 03:19, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	: No don't be horrified, there probably aren't as many as it seems I unintentionally led you to believe. What I'm worried about is the influx of ''challenges'' (in other words, someone might challenge the "Steve" of [[Steve Simmons]], and it would be nice if all those conversations pointing out forgotten IU sources could happen in one place.) I merely want to minimize crap appearing all over the project. {{User:Blue Rook/Sig}} 06:01, May 4, 2011 (UTC)