Talk:Unnamed characters from The Rookie

From Wiki 24

[edit] Deletion

Any minor characters without names can be fit into their respective Unnamed characters pages. --Proudhug 03:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Can this page be added to the Unnamed characters page? It is a list of all the characters in the Rookie which are unnamed. SignorSimon 12:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We already have pages for various unnamed characters, such as Unnamed civilians, Unnamed security guards and Unnamed law enforcement officers. The characters on this page need to be moved to their corresponding Unnamed characters" page and this page can be deleted. --Proudhug 14:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That makes the most sense. Can an argument be made for keeping these characters together, though? I only ask because I think that mixing unnamed spin-off characters with the TV-series-unnamed ultimately, though practical, chops up the tiny spin-off into smaller bits and then dilutes pre-existing the pages. (I'm not arguing that The Rookie unnamed characters are lower canonicity, just that they might be best on their own page.) We could do this very simply:

1) Rename this page to Unnamed characters from Rookie

2) Link the renamed page on Unnamed characters

3) Go through the pre-existing Unnamed pages and type at the top These are unnamed police/security/CTU/etc. from the television series

I recommend this because there is an argument somewhere (I just suck at making it) that spin-off material like this might be best collected in one place, instead of spread out, because spin-offs are just such small 24 microcosms that dividing their data this much does them injustice. – Blue Rook 15:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)_talkcontribs

I'm really not understanding your reasoning. First off, I haven't seen The Rookie in quite a while, but several of these characters probably won't be transferred anyway, since they probably didn't have any dialogue, and I doubt we want to set a precedent making pages for non-recurring extras. Secondly, what's wrong with splitting the unnamed spin-off characters up onto the different pages? We already do this with the regular TV show characters. Unless someone plans to create cross-referencing pages such as "Unnamed Day 1 characters," this argument doesn't make any sense to me. I don't see a problem with adding spin-off stuff to regular unnamed characters pages, just like it's another Day. And lastly, one of the characters on here deos have a name, so they're not all unnamed anyway. --Proudhug 18:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Meh, it was just a thought. The idea is, after those characters with dialogue who actually don't have names are isolated, they get their own page together. The TV series is divided up because its part of one continuous whole, whereas spin-off material, though being in the same universe, is out of place with the rest of the TV unnamed characters because it's different actors, apparently different creators, different events, almost totally unconnected story arc, and self-sufficient unto itself.. so dividing up its unnamed characters onto the pages where the Main series unnamed characters go is – despite its convenience and practicality – totally artificial.

I might do it if someone ever makes "Unnamed Day 1 characters" like you mentioned, but there are bigger things on the plate now, namely the main page banner. - Blue Rook 18:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC) _talkcontribs

I agree with Blue Rook. Its easier to keep it this way, plus it might cause confusion as within the Rookie there is "Day 1" and "Day 2", but these are different days to those in the TV series. SignorSimon 20:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow your "one continuous whole" arguement, Blue Rook. Either it's all one continuous whole or it's not, right? The Tuptas waiter and the valet attendant are part of the same day, but they have nothing to do with each other; different actors, different writer, different director, different events, unconnected story arc, etc. How is adding a bank teller from The Rookie to the page any more disruptive?

This page can stay if it's revamped to conform to the style of the other pages, is renamed, all of the extras are removed, and the same characters are repeated on the regular unnamed characters pages, such as Unnamed security guards, etc. But that does mean creating "Unnamed Day X characters" pages, in order to remain consistent. No one's going to be confused and think that "Day 1" refers to "Coffee Run." The DVD Board Game also has a "Day 1," "Day 2" and "Day 3," but their not the Day 1, Day 2 and Day 3, obviously. --Proudhug 21:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What SignorSimon and I are getting at is this: think of a Venn diagram. There is one giant circle, and inside it is the 24 macrocosm. Inside it are 6 smaller interior circles, and these six overlap. Each represents a Season. Somewhere else inside the giant 24 circle is another really tiny one, which represents the Rookie microcosm. This Rookie-circle is not overlapping with any of the season-circles because: it's a definite spin-off (not a sequel/prequel/new season), none of the regular actors carry over, it has altogether different writers, the events are entirely unconnected to the TV series, and it has its own self-sufficient story arc.

The tuptas waiter and the valet attendant were bad examples because they're in the same day of the same season of the TV series. But, even if you chose an unnamed guard from Day 1 and another from Day 6, they're still within the overlapping circles and belong on the same page. I'm not so much trying to convince you anymore as I am trying to be understood. After Townshend gets his own page, and this one is re-styled and renamed, we should leave it up and then eventually compile the "Unnamed Day X characters" pages. – Blue Rook 08:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)_talkcontribs

Shoudl I go and give Townshend their own page now to save the confusion? SignorSimon 10:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

But there is overlap. IU, the TV series and The Rookie both use the CTU LA setting. OOU, they use the same crew members. I understand what you're trying to say, I just totally disagree. Jason Blaine has just as much to do with the Tuptas waiter as the valet attendant does. From an IU perspective, you'd have just as much difficulty connecting the people. --Proudhug 08:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this needs to be sorted out - that red banner across the top of the page is really starting to annoy me. I think the page should stay, because it's the easier way to categorise all the unname characters from the Rookie. The page should be renamed to Unnamed characters from The Rookie, and added as a new section on the Unnamed character pages. Townshend can be removed and given their own page, and then it will just include characters whose names we do not know. There's my argument for the page. SignorSimon 20:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Proudhug said it could logically stay if we create cross-referencing pages for all the TV series Days as well, so... I'm going to go and do this. SignorSimon, I'll need some things from you:

1. Create the Townsend/Townshend page already!
2. Screen through all these characters to make sure that they had lines, and that they didn't have names
3. How come you removed the FBI agents?

– Blue Rook 21:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)_talkcontribs

1. I'll get on it after making seperate pages for each day
2. I've watched each episode of the Rookie at least five times each, including the Day 3 ones, none of them have names
3. As of Day 3x02 they have names, and now their own seperate pages

Are you sure it won't be too much trouble for you to create cross referencing pages for all the TV series days? Thanks a lot for your cooperation. SignorSimon 21:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a trouble at all, it was just a matter of copying and pasting a bunch of stuff. All that's left to do is insert the Rookie Unnamed characters into the appropriate pre-existing pages: Bank teller gets a spot in Unnamed civilians, Bank guard gets a spot in Unnamed security guards, etc. I think The Rookie unnamed characters should get a subheading at the bottom of the pages, because it isn't clear when The Rookie episodes take place in regard to TV series Days and it would be arbitrary to place them in between random Day subheadings. Right? – Blue Rook 01:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)_talkcontribs

I agree, do you want to do that or shall I? SignorSimon 07:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll get on it now. Remember, if you link to any of them, link to their location on the job pages, for consistency, since all the other unnamed characters are linked to on their job/occupation page. I recently just linked to Esteban's thug on the Rookie Unnamed Characters page only temporarily. – Blue Rook 01:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)_talkcontribs

Well, I went through and placed the characters on the pages, but in retrospect the way I used subheadings is extremely ugly. Eventually I'll go back and fix it, if someone doesn't beat me to it (so that the characters are listed directly underneath a single heading like ==The Rookie Day 2: Mistaken Identity == instead of two headings). I should have noted this as I inserted them all, my bad. - Blue Rook 02:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)_talkcontribs

Wow, I didn't realize what a headache this is going to create when I suggested it. As you said, we need to be consistent and only link to the "job" pages, rather than the cross-reference one. This also means that any changes (added facts or fixed typos) need to be done to both pages, and everyone needs to remember (or know) to add new characters to both pages. I'm still not for the existence of these cross-reference pages, but I can't argue any further for their deletion. --Proudhug 23:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well like I mentioned, it wasn't too much of a hassle, since it was just copying and pasting (which has to be the least original form of wiki contribution anyway). I agree 100% with what you say about the need to reflect changes on the other page if one is edited. As a matter of fact, 68.145.116.206 just corrected the time on the Unnamed Terrorists page when the Jeep Driver appeared, so I went and plugged it in over on the Day 1 Unnamed page. This may be repetitive, but I don't mind since these new cross-reference pages are pretty useful for browsing and searching convenience. – Blue Rook 04:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)_talkcontribs