Wiki 24:The Situation Room/January 2007 Archives

From Wiki 24

Jump to: navigation, search

This is the Archives of The Situation Room discussions from January 2007. See also the Archives Directory. The last thread started in January is listed here at the top, with the others chronologically following.

Contents

[edit] Category titles

Ugh, it just occurred to me that a whole bunch of our category titles need to be changed to have the capitalization removed. I don't think merely creating a redirect works with categories, so near as I can tell, we're going to have to manually change every page. Any volunteers to help out here? Here's a list of how they should be named:

  • 24: The Game characters ***Done***
  • 24: The Game episodes ***Done***
  • CTU characters ***Done***
  • CTU domestic branches ***Done***
  • CTU Field Operations agents ***Done***
  • CTU intelligence agents ***Done***
  • Day 1 characters ***Done***
  • Day 2 characters ***Done***
  • Day 3 characters ***Done***
  • Day 4 characters ***Done***
  • Day 5 characters ***Done***
  • Day 6 characters ***Done***
  • Featured articles ***Done***
  • Images (characters) ***Done***
  • Images (CTU characters)***Done***
  • Images (Day 1 characters)***Done***
  • Images (Day 2 characters)***Done***
  • Images (Day 3 characters)***Done***
  • Images (Day 4 characters)***Done***
  • Images (Day 5 characters)***Done***
  • Images (Day 6 characters)***Done***
  • Images (deceased characters) ***Done***
  • Images (living characters) ***Done***
  • Incomplete episode guides ***Done***
  • Insufficient information level 1 ***Done***
  • Insufficient information level 2 ***Done***
  • Insufficient information level 3 ***Done***
  • Operation Hell Gate characters ***Done***
  • Silent clock episodes ***Done***
  • Veto Power characters ***Done***

--Proudhug 14:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll finish up tomorrow. -CWY2190 07:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God! You are my personal hero, CWY2190! I couldn't believe it when I came on today to see eight billion recent edits. Thank you immensely for getting all this work done! If I get the chance tonight or if you don't finish it in the next couple days, I'll try to get the last few categories done myself. --Proudhug 23:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

And 3 days and 800 edits later, it's done :) ----CWY2190talkcontribs 04:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler policy, again

I'm moving this to a new thread, because it's really separate from the other issues below.

First of all, so we're all talking about the same thing, when I say "spoilers," I am including everything from TV Guide synopses to studio leaks. However, I don't consider previews or synopses to be spoilers. I understand that there are many people who don't want any information, but could you folks also try to understand that there are many people who do not consider the previews to be spoilers?

That's why, despite the many huge-lettered notices, people just keep on posting unaired information. It would be more constructive to make these people work for the wiki instead of banning them. Good contributors are willing to abide by rules, as long as the rules are reasonable.

That's why I think we should allow preview and TV Guide information - hidden, so you don't see it if you don't want to - and a designated spoiler section for anything more spoilery than that. There are ways to do it. Please don't dimiss the idea out of hand. --StBacchus 20:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think if new people to the site see someone posting a preview, then they might think it's ok to add full blown spoilers.--CWY2190 20:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe most people think of those as different things. That's why TV.com posts cast information months ahead of time, but they do not reveal plot twists. But we would never know unless we try, yes? --StBacchus 21:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
TV.com isn't a wiki, so they have full control over what information appears on their site. We don't. It only takes one person posting a misplaced spoiler to ruin an entire episode or season. I'm sure most here agree with me that it's better to err on the side of caution with this. It's not that people want to dismiss the idea out of hand.
I'm not trying to argue with you here, StBacchus, because in a way I'm on your side, but the fact of the matter is that you are wrong about what's a spoiler. Just because you don't consider TV Guide synopses and promotional information to be spoilers, doesn't make it so. These are spoilers! Joe Vandal might not consider his posting of profanity to be considered vandalism, but, as Nice Guy Eddie says, "that don't necessarily make it fuckin' so!" If you ask around the internet or the real world, you will find you are in the vast minority here. I personally don't have a problem reading TV Guide summaries, watching official trailers/previews, and looking at upcoming promotional photos every once in a while, but whether you or I think as much, these are spoilers. I agree with you that it's on a completely different level than studio leaks, but the truth is that Fox deliberatly releases spoilers to tease the audience and make them tune in. A significantly large portion of people refuse to pay attention to it.
Once again, I don't understand why an external link to a spoiler site isn't sufficient for you. Is making the information easily accessible not good enough? And I'll repeat what I said below. The beautiful thing about about spoilers is that they'll all be included on the site anyway... once they're not spoilers anymore! --Proudhug 00:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I identified a problem: that people continue to post spoilers despite the huge notices and banning. Then I suggested a possible cause: that some people don't consider these things spoilers. Finally, I suggested a solution: to keep spoilers in specially marked sections.
My goal here is to keep people from getting spoiled. Better yet if it's possible to prevent both spoiling and banning. The current ideas aren't working, so why not try some new ones? --StBacchus 12:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you honestly think that adding a hidden spoiler section is going to eradicate all spoilers in non-hidden areas, though? I read nearly every edit to Wiki 24 and there really haven't been that many spoilers posted since we became stringent about it. As I said, it only takes one person to ruin things, but I can't see your suggestion changing anything. There will still be the occasional person adding a spoiler in the wrong spot, be it in good faith or not, so we'll still be in the same situation. If rampant banning is truly your concern, perhaps we can lower the punishment like CWY2190 suggested. --Proudhug 16:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is a spoiler section, that might attract people who would be willing to scan for misplaced spoilers so that no one else has to. Bottom line: it might work, as opposed to the current policies, which don't work. I'm open to suggestions, if anybody has any. --StBacchus 22:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm also like Proudhug in that I read almost every edit. I found out about Curtis and Graham before the show aired. Anyway, if someone were to add spoilers in a hidden section, I doubt we would have anyone...especially a sysop jumping at the bit to read it and make sure that they didnt vandalize and add something inapproprate.--CWY2190 22:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I would do it. She's been gone for a long time, but Kapoli said she loved spoilers. Someone like her would be willing to do it. MediaWiki also allows sysops to flag edits they've looked at, so no one would have to look at anything "unsafe." --StBacchus 23:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New policy proposal

Many would-be editors are concerned with the policy of no-questions-asked deletion, as well as the limitations in scope imposed by the site. Aside from the deleting/reverting, the issues of spoilers and real-life information have already come up several times. In the interest of working with the community and not against it, I propose the following:

[edit] Deletions should be a last resort

Deleting and reverting are destructive acts, unless in response to clear vandalism. Moving, rewriting, and reformatting should all be considered first. If something must be removed entirely, an explanation in the summary box is required. Again, this applies to good-faith edits, not vandalism.

[edit] Real-life information should be allowed

People want it. Supposedly, this is a community-driven resource. It can be separated from information that is strictly from the show.

[edit] Spoilers should be allowed

Again, this is something that people clearly want. They are always adding in stuff from the previews, Fox website, trailers, etc. If you're constantly banning people from your "anyone can edit" wiki because they won't stop adding content, the problem is the rule, not the people.

Plenty of other sites have spoilers in marked - and hidden - sections. It's not hard to do. I suggest allowing preview and trailer information in the general encyclopedia, and hiding it. Studio leaks and rumors could go on their own page if there's demand for that.

[edit] Other recently kiboshed good ideas

  • Portals for other countries
Why not have a different front page for other countries? Like everything else, it would either be updated or not. If anyone is feeling really clench-butted about it, we can get Angela to create a "Portal" namespace.
  • Music
How about on the soundtrack pages? Wikia supports OGG format music files. They wouldn't play instantly, but would be available to sample Sean Callery's wonderful music.
  • Videos
Wikia now allows embedding YouTube videos directly. Presumably, they wouldn't have taken the time to add a feature they didn't want anyone to use. YouTube takes care of its own copyright issues, we don't need to haggle over them.

I would also like to see more different types of articles, such as deleted scenes, fan fiction, analysis, parodies, and other unofficial works. In general, I'd like to see a more open environment for new ideas. It can only make the site better when people feel they can speak their minds and have their ideas considered fairly. --StBacchus 23:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for everything on that list EXCEPT the spoilers part. I still think we need to keep a no spoiler policy. However, it probably wouldn't hurt to lower the punishment. It you add one comment your banned for ever.----CWY2190TC 00:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
CWY2190, I will take that one step further and not only say that I'm for everything on the list, aside from spoilers, but build upon what I was saying below that, with the exception of the spoiler thing, all of these policies are already in effect. There is nothing "new" there. I didn't realize you'd been away so long StBaccus, but I was pretty sure these things were already true when you were here before. Perhaps not. Either way, deletions and reversions are always explained, even if it's for vandalism or violation of style and policy. The real-world stuff I already clarified below. And, to the best of my knowledge, no one has "kiboshed" anyone's expansion ideas, with the exception of proposals for spoiler inclusion.
My stance on spoilers is two-parted. Firstly, it's dangerous. If someone reads a spoiler who doesn't want to be spoiled, their enjoyment of the show (as well as Wiki 24) is ruined. If someone doesn't read a spoiler, but wants to know what happens, the level of annoyance doesn't even compare. Especially if they merely have to click on an external link. The beautiful thing about about spoilers is that they'll all be included on the site anyway... once they're not spoilers anymore!  :D
And secondly, since previews and trailers are designed to tease, and often manipulate the audience, any information derived from them is never anything more than speculation. Why speculate when we'll know in a week or several weeks anyway? See below for my earlier expanation of this. Much like with the real-world information thing, I don't see why a (spoiler-warning-marked) link to an external spoiler site isn't sufficient.
And lastly, in regards to "more different types of articles," some of that stuff is already permissible. Deleted scenes are included on the DVD and therefore, information from them should be included, much like it is on Habib Marwan's page. It's not canon, but it is still information about 24. People have tried to write objective analysis articles in the past, however they've all unfortunately sucked. I doubt anyone is opposed to people writing this stuff, since it's fun to read, however we've simply never had anyone do it.
Fan fiction and parodies are different. Parodies might have some place on the site (I have no idea where), but the only place that fan fiction or links to fan fiction would be permissible would be on individual user pages, I'd think.
And I have no idea what "other unofficial works" you refer to. We've got three unofficial episode guide books. Do you mean stuff like that? --Proudhug 01:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I like some of the idea but NO SPOILERS THOUGH, AT ALL. i think some information should be allowed, not just info mentioned in the show. i really like the idea of no arbitrary deletions as well. EVILjbf 02:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Haha, you people talk like someone's going around deleting random things for no reason at all. Near as I can tell, we've been blocking all vandals.

It you lower the standards of the no spoiler rule, you'll have more people posting stuff like Jack will shoot Curtis in next weeks episode and "It is speculated that Graham is Jack's brother".----CWY2190TC 02:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am personally of the opinion that the music idea would be bloody brilliant (pardon me). The rest I couldn't care less about, except for spoilers: keep this site crud-free and spoiler-clear. Leave the spoilers to the spolier sites, from the excellent TWoP, to the so-so Official Forums(?). --Conspiracy Unit 03:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with most of the ideas and reckon we should put them into effect. I especially like the music idea because I absolutely love the music Sean Callery creates. Plus overall I'd like to see a wider range of articles being written here. --Lord ALexo 04:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Proudhug, you can't just say those are the policies. You actually have to follow them. I didn't write all that because I enjoy wasting my time complaining about nothing. I'd much rather be writing articles than scrapping about policies, but here I am digging up diffs.

Here is some reverting/deleting with no reason given:

Here are people trying to add real-life information:

Here's some hostility to new ideas:

This has got to stop. People don't edit a free resource for money, they do it because it's fun. If it isn't fun, they won't do it. If they feel their time is being wasted, they won't do it. That's why I left. I have no problem leaving again, but I wanted to try one last time to patch things up here. --StBacchus 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you sure you don't like wasting your time? Haha, I literallly just finished telling a friend that you were going to do this. I never said I haven't made mistakes in the past. I'm fully aware of that. The point is that we all strive to follow the rules. I'm not some child who needs to be scolded and shown the error of my ways. No one's perfect and I totally agree with your "new" policies. Always have. I've apologized for being lazy in the past, and I'll continue to apologize for it in the future, I'm sure. If I wasn't so lazy, I could easily go back and create a list of all of the personal attacks that you've made about me, which I'd think are as equally off-putting to new editors (not to mention myself), if not more so. But what's the point? We all know what needs to be done at Wiki 24 and we all strive to do that. It's unfortunate that my own personal actions don't consistently live up to your standards, but if people aren't forgiving of others' mistakes, why even have communities? --Proudhug 23:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Off Topic: Haha, I just checked out some of your examples. A couple of them are just laziness, as I said, but other made me chuckle.
  • The Graham Bauer ones are me reverting spoilers, as per our current policy. Sure I forgot to make a note, but sometimes my laziness tells me it's obvious. Fair enough, though.
  • The real-life information examples are completely pointless. Everyone knows I try to trim down RW info. No one denied this, so I don't understand why you hunted down over a half-dozen examples. Not sure what you were trying to illustrate there.
  • As for your "hostility" list, I'm curious where you got hostility from. Do you consider differing opinions to be hostile? Or discussion in general?
    • The Welcome template was me stating an opinion. Your comment was hostile, not mine.
    • Youtube was me removing what I believed to be a copyright violation. How is that hostile? I even explained the removal. Jeez.
    • Requested Pages: I know you didn't deliberately link directly to it, but Every Episode Characters was merely an explanation of what was wrong with the page. And it's on a discussion page. Where people discuss. As in, I state my opinion, then you state yours. Once again, it can't be denied that you are the one being hostile here. A personal attack, followed by me moving the argument to a more appropriate location.
    • The first link to Previously on 24 also has no hosility. The second one did, but it was not geared towards the concept of the page, but rather the attitude and comments of other editors. Once again, I was stating my opinion. Others are free to present theirs, and they did. I'm not sure how communities work in your world. Would I have spent an entire freakin' day hunting down five-year-old VHS tapes and compiling an annotated list of all S1 previouslies, if I was hostile towards the idea? I assume you probably would, as you made this list, but I don't need to remind you of my biggest character flaw.
    • Portals was me again pointing out the problems with a new idea. I wasn't hostile and I never said "We're not going to do that!"
    • The Bauer-Almeida Connection is once again a discussion of what's wrong with the article. Not sure where there's hostility, either. Ironically, your complaining about me suggesting to remove an article instead of deleting it outright. Just can't win sometimes. --Proudhug 00:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
How were your actions during what I euphemistically call the "Previously Scrap" not hostile, Proudhug? You continually attacked the idea of including it as being 'unencyclopedic' and 'useless' becuase 'nobody would use it'. Maybe the last one is true, but how is a list of things related to one of the most unique parts of 24 unencyclopedic on a 24 encyclopedia? And its not useless; if someone wants to know about the names included in the Previously on 24 segment, they can just go there, and find out. Face it, you are hostile of new ideas; and yes, you mainly criticise the form the new idea takes, but that's all you do, you never suggest new ways to make it better. --Conspiracy Unit 00:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Jeez, no need to get hostile! We've already discussed the issue, so there's no need to rehash it here. Bottom line: You proposed a page. I couldn't see how it would have a place here or be usefull, so I asked as much, even going to far as to spend an entire day doing my own legwork. I couldn't come to any positive conclusions on my own, so I pleaded for someone else to (no one had to do this, it was merely a request). StBacchus did as much. I was more than satisfied. We all lived happily ever after. Seriously, you need to stop seeing the negative in everything. Or at least everything Proudhug. Never once did I say not to create that page or that I didn't want it created. My methods of criticism are my methods. Yours are yours. There's room enough for everyone at Wiki 24. I love you guys. --Proudhug 00:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Very clever with the hostile line, Proudhug. Seriously, I respect you, and the stuff that you do here, but you are kind of a Nazi, and no offence, but if I'm ever kidnapped by terrorists, God forbid, I want StBacchus doing the hostage negotiations. And I'm not anti-Proudhug. I'm just pro-me. And we, Proudhug, never really seem to be able to see eye to eye. --Conspiracy Unit 00:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hell, I wouldn't want myself doing negotiations for myself! --Proudhug 00:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Proudhug, a pattern of behavior is not a mistake. All I've asked you to do is show some respect to the contributors by treating them less harshly and deleting as a last option instead of the first. It's not difficult.

You say that you agree with those policies, but somehow, you can't uphold them. Well, upholding the policies is an administrator's job. If you were a regular user, you would be warned, then banned, for repeated rules violations.

Which is where we find ourselves. I talked to the Wikia staff, and they suggest I gather community support to remove your sysop status. That's one possibility. However, I don't think that would solve the underlying problem. So, I'm just going to lay it out: If nothing changes here, this site is unusable to me. In that case, I will create another wiki, starting from the current Wiki 24 content as allowed me by the GNU FDL. I'll leave it up to everyone to decide how they'd like to proceed. If nobody comments, I'll go ahead with the fork. --StBacchus 23:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats going to far. Lets face it, without Proudhug, this site wouldnt be anywhere near where it is now. Even though User:24 Administration and User:StBacchus occasionally edited since the end of Season 5, Proudhug has been on here every single day.--CWY2190 01:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with CW. I don't think anyone, myself or anyone else, wants to see a schism in what is truly a wonderful site. I agree that sometimes it seems WikiProudhug, not Wiki24, but we all need to stick together. StBacchus, you have been nothing but kind and welcoming since the day I arrived, and Proudhug, you are pretty much the shining torch of a leader that this wiki, that any wiki, needs. You are both, pretty much, opposite sides of the same coin; exactly the same, yet opposed on every point.
To be honest, I want nobody to leave, I don't want to see a breakaway faction go off and start a new wiki, when the one we have is perfectly fine, even if two of its main administrator's are archenemies. We all need to work together, but maybe the two of you should take a cool-down break. --Conspiracy Unit 08:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "I just found out there's no such thing as the real world..."

Hey, everyone. I just thought I'd take the time to clarify this issue, as I know it's been a bone of contention in the past, and I'd hate for that trend to continue into the future.

Previous editors have commented on my Nazi-esque monitoring of what real world information is included on the site, so allow me to explain. Wiki 24 is an encyclopedia about the TV show 24. As such, there needs to be a distinction between the information that comes directly from the show and any additional information that editors decide might be useful. Since we strive to be useful to as many people as possible, we need to remember to keep that window open for those who only want to know what information the show has given us.

For example, two different people could look up the article on the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for two different reasons:

  • One is curious to know all of the times the FBI has been seen or mentioned on the show and what information the show has provided about the organizagion.
  • One heard the term "FBI" mentioned on the show and wants to know more about what it is, beyond what 24 has said.

If the page is filled with non-24 real world information, such as the history of the Bureau, who's in charge, how it operates, etc., then the page is absolutely useless to the first reader, as it's impossible to sort out what's "real" and what's not. In order to cater to both situations, any extra real world information needs to fall under either "Background information and notes" or "External links." More often than not, a link to Wikipedia or an official website will suffice to provide a reader with any wanted additional information.

To clarify, real world information is not and never has been prohibited on Wiki 24, as long as it's clearly marked, relevant to the topic, and not easily found on other websites.

I feel awful when people's hard work has to be reverted, deleted or moved, but hopefully people understand the reasons for doing so. Also, keep in mind that any information that is deleted can always be easily brought back, and the issue of rules and procedure are always up for discussion.

I hope this clears things up for people and we can all have fun making this the best encyclopedia for the best show on TV. Cheers! --Proudhug 14:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, nobody has ever complained because there's too much real-life information. I don't even know why anyone would want what you're describing above. On the other hand, people are constantly trying to add real-life information, having their work deleted, and leaving. People have been doing that for all the ten months I've been here.

Clearly, there is substantial interest in having some amount of real-life context. How about we just mark it as such? Memory Alpha and other wikis insert notes all the time, like this:

Audrey says that she recognized the man from a Heritage Foundation fundraiser.

The Heritage Foundation is a real-life think-tank that promotes conservative causes.

There is a huge difference between moving or reformatting someone's work and deleting it outright. Editing is what wikis are all about. Deleting is not. But don't take my word on it. --StBacchus 22:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, I've complained because there's too much real-life information. As you've said yourself in the past, if one person has a certain use for the site, chances are others do, too. If I live in Utah and decide to look up my state on Wiki 24 in order to see when it's been mentioned on the show, only to discover an entire paragraph paraphrased from Wikipedia about the state flower, it's year of inception, etc., the page is completely useless for what I wanted to know. Is this entirely out of the realm of possibility, in your mind? Am I the only one in the world who does stuff like this? Are potential others with this interest merely freakish outcasts who don't deserve to use wikis for TV shows? --Proudhug 01:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Proudhug that we cannot allow our articles to become bogged down by real life information, but that real life information is equally as, or almost important as, the information shown on the show; imagine someone like me, living in Australia, but without an idea what the FBI is (to use your example, and believe me there are people, twenty-year-olds that I know, who have no idea who Bill Clinton is, let alone what the hell a 'Utah' is, to use another example), and they are looking for information on it.
We don't need to know much about it in real life, such as who is currently in charge, we don't need to know about its history, eg. J Edgar Hoover. But we do need to have some sort of context for it, if we are to understand its role in the show.
Why are those agents hounding Sandra Palmer? Why did they arrest Walid? What id the point of all that? These are questions that cannot be answered simply by including information from the show. As far as I know the show has never delved into what the FBI actually does, and I've seen 121 episodes (Yes, I know there have been 125, but my local video shop is missing Disc 5 from Season 1, and when they aired over here in 2001 I was in America). To properly answer the questions I listed above, we need some information on what the FBI is, what they do, and while we can expect some level of intelligence from our readers, we can't expect the level of knowledge of American government and law enforcement that is displayed by the regular contributors to this site.
In conclusion to what has become a rambling essay of opinion, I believe that we should inculde at least a moderate level of real world information in relevant topics and articles, as well as external links to Wikipedia, which for an information starved Australian is like the light at the end of a very long, very dark tunnel, and to official websites, such as the LAPD site, or the FBI site.
Thanks for reading, your committed servant --Conspiracy Unit 03:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. So ideally, the main body of the article includes what we know about the FBI from the show, and a note at the end includes a brief description of what else an oblivious reader might need to know about the organization, followed by a link to Wikipedia and FBI.gov. --Proudhug 03:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely what I mean, but something more than a brief note, I think. --Conspiracy Unit 03:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would it need to be more than brief if there are multiple external links? This is Wiki 24, not Wikipedia. Do we really want to clutter the site up with tons of irrelevant, non-24 information? --Proudhug 03:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
As Conspiracy Unit clearly illustrated, it is relevant to understanding the show, especially for people outside the U.S. Also, as I said before, it's difficult - if not impossible - to prevent people from adding content they find relevant and useful.
I have offered a reasonable compromise in keeping the real-life information separate. It can be done any number of ways; the above Heritage Foundation example is just one that seems to work for other wikis. Footnotes are another way. Tooltips would also work. Separate articles are another idea. We could even mark the information that came from the show, which would solve the citation problems we have occasionally.
The key, however, is that if people violate the style guideline, their work should simply be reworked, not destroyed. Deleting a person's efforts (even with a note explaining why) is the fastest way to drive them away forever, short of banning them. --StBacchus 20:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
How about on those articles, we just put wikipedia link in? Like this.

--CWY2190 21:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea, and I think we should do that more consistently (it's already being done on a lot of pages). However, that won't stop people from adding in real-life information that they find relevant or useful. --StBacchus 21:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps my posts got lost in the shuffle here, but yeah, I suggested above that we include a Wikipedia link. I also pointed out that some people might come to the site to look for an explanation of an unfamiliar topic such as the FBI. I commented that, in order to cater to those readers, as well a different type I described, we should include all of the information the show has given us, and if it's not enough for clarification, make a brief note about what it is, followed by an external link or two, which will provide all of the wonderful non-24 information they might be craving. Sorry for hiding these comments earlier. :S --Proudhug 00:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jennings

There are pages for a Jennings (Day 5) and a Jennings (Day 6) and I believe they are the same character, since they are played by the same actor. I'm not sure what to do exactly. How do you combine to pages? I tried changing the name of one to Jennings, but that's being used for the disambiguation page. 19:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You were correct, and I took care of it. Good eye.---CWY2190TC 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fr.24

Hello, I am Elitius, I am administrator of fr.24.wikia.com. I will wish to obtain your skin to help me. Can you send it to me? Sorry for my english =P Thanks. Elitius 17:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Elitius! All you need to do is copy our MediaWiki:Monobook.css page into your own wiki (and Image:Wiki.png if you want to use the same logo). I'd do it for you, but only an administrator can edit it. If you have any problems or questions just ask. Good luck with your project! It's always exciting to see Wiki 24 in other languages! --Proudhug 17:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, but to modify the skin, how one makes ? ^^ Elitius 09:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
If the change isn't showing up, do a hard refresh. Press CTRL-F5. --Proudhug 09:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Can you help me to copy the pages of 24.wikia.com to fr.24.wikia.com so that I can translate more quickly? Elitius 12:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Yikes, that's a lot of work. I don't even get as much work done on at the english version as I'd like, so I doubt I'll have time to divide up between the two.
On a side note, it's pissing me off to no end that the main page link to fr:Accueil won't work. What the hell am I doing wrong? --Proudhug 03:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know =/
how to add your logo to my wiki? Elitius 10:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
You already did. Perhaps you need to refresh again? Sometimes things just take a while to happen. I've noticed MediaWiki can be funny that way. --Proudhug 15:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New category: Families

I was thinking of making new categories for individual families. The Palmers and much more recently, the Bauers are very complex now and contain heros as well as villians. many main characters have had families as well: chloe and morris, tony and michelle and michelles brother, the Salazars, The Araz family etc I am fairly new to this type of editing and to be honest I don't know how to go about making a new category. Would anybody please like to give me a heads up? thanks. EVILjbf 06:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Is Characters by groups not enough?---CWY2190TC 13:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I suppose so, just trying to be overly organized amybe EVILjbf 02:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
All you have to do to make a new category is add it at the bottom of a page like any other category, [[Category:Bauer family]] or like that. Salazars already have a category (you can also change the name if you want, but you have to change it on every article in the category). there are lots of families with just two members, maybe it would be best to draw a line somewhere? 3 or 4 before they get a category?

[edit] Tense Maintenace?

As I read through this encyclopedia, it is very apparent that there is no standard on tenses. Some are written in the present tense, some in the past. Is there anyway we could (or even should) use some sort of standard on the tense format, past tense perhaps? Just a thought. --EVILjbf January 17, 2007

All in-universe articles are supposed to be written in past tense. Use Wiki 24:Manual of Style if you have questions. --User:CWY2190

Thanks, i've been fixing tense problems when I come across them. EVILjbf 06:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CTU: The Rookie

I wanna write this, but I'm wondering what the procedure would be. Would the new characters have their own pages, or will it all be on the one page under CTU: The Rookie? Will FOX let us? --Conspiracy Unit 07:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I would think they get their own pages. EVILjbf 08:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the episodes are so short and they do not relate to the actual show, it would be best to keep all the episode guides in one page. It is ok to make user pages for the characters though.--CWY2190 16:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] .GIF Images

I am in posession of a few .GIF images from this season (Curtis being shot and Jack's vampire-like neck bite). I suspect that they are not usable on this site but I would like confirmation on that. --EVILjbf January 17, 2007

[edit] ATTN: Suitcase Nuke

I screwed up the other night when I wrote that article. I wanted the article to be entitled "Suitcase Nuclear Device." Proudhug, would you please alter the article to say as such? thanks. --EVILjbf January 17, 2007

Hi, i'm not Proudhug, but I decided to do it myself, to get it done faster, and to save Proudhug a bit of work hope that's ok. --Ivan69 15:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks, I appreciate it. EVILjbf 18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 24 renewed beyond season 6?

Hey I was just wondering if there was any news on whether or not 24 was renewed for season 7. Thanks, --12.201.27.234 04:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Day 6 10:00am-11:00am

Just a note to remind everyone that since the first 12 minutes of Day 6 10:00am-11:00am have been released on DVD today, it's fair game to include this information on Wiki 24. But keep in mind that only information from the first 12 minutes is permitted. Any other information is considered spoiler and the usual spoiler rules still apply. --Proudhug 00:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The problem with Gillian/Jillian Wallace

Megan Gallagher is playing the part of the mother of the Wallace family. For some reason, the spelling of her first name has been first in the Wiki Gillian. But I checked the official episode 24 Fox website and her first name is actually everywhere in their episode guide Jillian. --Twentyfour Lille 21:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

TiredAlex claims that "[a]ccording to the information released with the screeners, [Gillian] is how her name was spelled." I don't know what these screeners are, but they were never officially released to the public, I presume. As Fox.com is an official source and the only one of the two sources appearing on our Canon Heirarchy, not to mention the only publicly available source, we should with "Jillian" until proven otherwise in canon. --Proudhug 21:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I originally named her as "Gillian" becuase that is how my sister spells her name. :-). Sorry. I have to say 'hear, hear', Proudhug. Change the article and all references to Gillian Wallace to Jillian Wallace. --Conspiracy Unit 03:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the information I was referring to was the info that comes with press screeners- the type of stuff that tells reviewers what they can and can't talk about in an article before the episode airs. But I agree that since nothing official spelled it with a G, and the FOX website used the J, it should be Jillian. (Also, I suppose changes can happen between whenever the screeners are made and the release... in the screener, Kiefer was uncredited for 6.1. He wasn't on airdate.) TiredAlex 20:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Much like with Closed Captioning and DVD subtitles, I'm sure the people who type the screener info have nothing to do with the show. --Proudhug 15:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character Article Standards: Background Information

When I added the three new characters in Day 6 (Sandra, Thomas, and Nadia), I enterred background information (experience, education, etc.) in paragraph format instead of in a resume style. Other characters have background information in a resume format (bullets, etc.). Is there a standard for how this information should be displayed on character pages? If we don't have one yet, what is the general consensus? I see merits in both styles, and I currently don't have a favorite. --Wydok 00:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally like paragraph format, as it's usually more interesting to read. However, I understand sometimes it can be a tedious and boring read when converted from bullet form. But 99% of the time I think I prefer paragraph. --Proudhug 00:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm on your side, guys. Paragraph is best. --Conspiracy Unit 00:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fox.com profiles

The Fox.com character profiles for Season 6 have been updated. We can play this two ways. Since it's already on the official site, we can consider the information fit for inclusion on Wiki 24. Or, if some still consider these spoilers, we can wait to post the information after the premiere airs. Thoughts? --Proudhug 03:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I say just add them to the Season 6 article as main characters. Don't change the indiviudal articles until the episode.--CWY2190 03:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about the more specific information, now who the main cast is. Like, a certain couple being married, what school certain people went to, where they were previously employed. Even the name of the new VPOTUS is in there. --Proudhug 03:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Thats great about Bill and Karen. Where is the name of the new VPOTUS? And wouldn't that be a spoiler since we made a big deal about Wyane's page being updated?--CWY2190 03:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
This is what I'm asking. Since this is an official release of an original piece of IU information, not a preview or a trailer, would people have a problem including the information right now, or should we wait until Sunday night? I don't really see why it's not fine now, but I figured I'd ask first.
And the name of the new VPOTUS can be found under Lennox's profile. He worked on the campaign for two presidents. --Proudhug 04:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I can add the main cast right now. Yes or no? I got it typed up, just give me the word.--CWY2190 04:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's not what I'm talking about. The main cast can't be determined from the list of characters on the site. Someone listed on the profiles page could mean they're a Main Character or it could mean they're a Guest Character. It could mean they're on board for all 24 episodes, or it could mean they'll get written off after two or three. We won't know the main cast until the show airs. What I'm talking about is not the list itself, but rather the information in the list. --Proudhug 04:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, you answer a minute after I post. :) --CWY2190 04:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
If it is decided to go ahead and add articles from the Fox.com profiles, I can get articles started for three new characters which I had been preparing in advance. --Wydok 16:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's the day before and no one's objected. --Proudhug 20:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Then it's away I go. :) --Wydok 21:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New admin nomination

I've made a nomination for adminship. With season 6 coming up and undoubtedly drawing in new readers and editors, it would be a good idea to have another admin. Head on over to Wiki 24:Requests for adminship and vote for CWY2190! --StBacchus 22:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the nomination.--CWY2190 04:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presumed CTU branches

I vote we delete the pages for CTU Seattle, CTU Denver, CTU Phoenix and CTU Las Vegas. I don't like the idea of having articles for things we don't even know for sure exist. They've never been mentioned by name, so we don't need articles for them. I think it's sufficient to mention their possible existence on the pages for their respectives cities, as well as a similar note on the main CTU branch page. --Proudhug 04:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that and a few days ago, I went to those pages and said that they probably exist. I agree in deletion, though. --69.133.24.51 03:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
CTU Seattle and CTU Phoenix were both referenced in either the novels or comics. The information is on the CTU Seattle and CTU Phoenix pages. A crazy place to put it, I know, but what are you gonna do? --StBacchus 22:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
On Milo's profile on the FOX Site, it mentions the he worked for CTU Denver, so i guess that ones ok.
Morris's profile on the FOX Site mentions that he worked for CTU Seatle. I think Bill and Michelle may also have worked there. --Wydok 00:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Bill and Michelle definitely met at CTU Seatle.
As say in the article, these are very large cities, and is presumed that they have a domestic unit. (Sorry my poor english, I think I've commited errors...) 200.193.110.95 04:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about episode credits

Is it too soon to post on-screen credits information for the first 4 episodes of season 6? I've never felt this is spoilery, but some do. Some guidance before I post and risk getting kicked out would be appreciated.--Telly1138 23:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Crew credits are probably fine (unless someone else opposes), but cast credits are definitely spoilers. If I saw that Mandy or Kate are going to appear in the next episode, I'd be spoiled. --Proudhug 02:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Insufficient Information

I was just wondering what people thought about improving our Insufficient Information system. I was thinking that we could add a feature to it so that editors can add key bullet-points about how the article can be improved in the box. It would be a bit like like Wikipedia's peer review system. Any thoughts? --24 Administration 18:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fussy about how we do it, but I've never liked the current system at all. Of course, I think of nearly every page as needing improvement. --Proudhug 19:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I was looking at some pages today and thinking "this article needs an info-box" or "the grammer in this article is terrible". If we had some way to actually say this in the Insufficient Info box then people would know what's wrong with the article. At the moment I think quite a lot of people must often question why the article has a certain Insufficient Info status. --24 Administration 23:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
There are alot of articles that can be extended, but on the flip side, there are alot of articles that cannot be extended either. --CWY2190 23:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps people could start making a note on the Talk page when they add the notice, explaining what needs to be done. --Proudhug 23:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers

I hope that Curtis spoiler posted isnt true. Anyway, who knows how many spoilers will be posted in the final week. We may need to make the "Do not post spoilers" thing even bigger and say that any spoilers posted will result in a permanent ban. Agree or disagree?--CWY2190 17:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Done. --Proudhug 17:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commercials/Trailers

Should we consider these spoilers? While we have in the past, they have aired in the United States and I think we should put information down as to what we know. This doesn't mean Jon Cassar's interviews or anything like that, simply commercials and trailers put out by FOX. The only problem is if we use this, we stick to WHAT WE KNOW, not what we assume. --BauerJ24 16:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say no.--CWY2190 16:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
There's no question about it, commercials and trailers are spoilers. I realize they're officially released by Fox and so most people probably watch them, but since they spoil events in future episodes, they're considered spoilers. I know a lot of people disagree with this (myself included, to some extent), but it's best to err on the side of caution. I never considered stuff like this to be spoilers in the past, but having frequented many message boards, I've come to realize that most people do, especially on the official Fox.com 24um. Those folks are crazy about the most minor things being spoilers! --Proudhug 18:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
While they spoil events in future episodes, they have aired in the United States, which is our policy. Since they were officially released by FOX and not fan fiction, they are real. The only thing I would want is the trailer online, because then it is based on what we can hear and review as opposed to a passing commercial and what we THINK we hear. I think the trailer released, since it has aired, should be allowed on the basis that our policy allows exceptions, we just have to mark it. This is an exception as to the future of the show and as long as we mark pages with it, we should be okay. I'm not talking about revamping any page like Jack Bauer, just maybe adding a few pages that have been shown and proved in that trailer ONLY that can help us stay up to speed once the show airs. --BauerJ24 20:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Trailers aren't required viewing. If you don't watch a trailer, you're not missing anything, since all of it will eventually air on TV in the manner it was meant to. The episodes are the official release of all clips, so that's the only place information should be extracted. Trailers aren't edited in a manner to tell a story, as episodes are. There's no narrative. They're meant to promote the show by teasing you with exciting clips. Since they're mostly taken out of context, it's never possible to confidently assertain facts from trailers. Sometimes trailers are even meant to mislead us. I mean this is a trailer using official footage, yet it's clearly manipulative. Fox does the same thing, only for a different purpose (and to a decidedly less comedic degree, of course). Like I said, I don't have a problem watching trailers and officially released promotional stuff myself, but the fact remains that they are spoilers. --Proudhug 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portals

I was proposing different portals for different zones ie US and UK portals. We could then create template for 'aired in US' and 'aired in UK' that could be added to the day summary pages when they air. These could then link to a dynamic page list so us poor people in the UK can see only episodes that have aired in UK so we dont get the spoilers. Thanks --Markie 21:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't take any offense from this, but if you dont want spoilers from U.S. episodes, stay off the site. I mean that in the nicest way possible. Will your idea work? I dont know...because I have no clue what a portal is.--CWY2190 21:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
A portal is kind of different areas for different content. Kinda the same as the Day 1, Day 2 etc grouping. I think it would work and i do want to be on here to remeber what happened and check stuff. But during the middle of the series i dont want to be seeing the ending. --Markie 21:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
While I understand it must be frustrating for overseas viewers, there are several problems with this. 24 airs in a lot more places besides the U.K. It would seem ludicrous to cater to the individual schedules of every country, not to mention confusing for readers. Presumably you're referring to only episode guides, so you'd still be unable to read pages for Jack Bauer, CTU, etc. And even information contained in episode pages isn't free of spoilers from later episodes. Background notes such as "This is so-and-so's first appearance before becoming a villain two episodes later" aren't impossible. --Proudhug 22:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I have just looked on our local broadcast times and have now changed it here but we seem to be airing 24 a day before the US so there is actually no need for this. However does this mean i can upload images of the show on the Sunday night/Monday morning as in line with the spoiler policy?? Cheers --Markie 11:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
That has to be a mistake. There is no way that fox will allow any other station to air the show before the U.S.--CWY2190 16:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not the day before. Read it carefully. --Proudhug 18:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah yeah. My mistake!--Markie 19:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://24.wikia.com/wiki/Wiki_24:The_Situation_Room/January_2007_Archives"
Personal tools
.