Wiki 24:The Situation Room/May 2006 Archives

From Wiki 24

This is the Archives of The Situation Room discussions from May 2006. See also the Archives Directory. Unlike the main Situation Room page and its main archive, this page sorts threads chronologically, as opposed to reverse chronologically.

Contents 1 Upcoming episodes 2 Policy on Dates 3 Logo 4 Unnecessary Articles? 5 Category alphabetization 6 Character Status 7 Production Crew 8 24 on iTunes 9 Verb Tense 10 Vandalism 11 Policy on Dates, part 2 12 Similar Episode Guides 13 Multiple writers 14 Assuming Information 15 Fancy tables 16 Linking 17 Sub-headings on Character Pages 18 New policy on speculation and unknown information

[edit] Upcoming episodes

I vote that the preview summaries for upcoming episodes be removed. First off, they contain spoilers, even if vague ones. Secondly, the text is taken from other sites and not written by our editors. I have no problem creating place-holder articles for upcoming episodes, but including summaries violates our no-spoiler policy, as well as possible copyright rules. --Proudhug 17:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Someone seems to put up new episodes almost immdeitally after the newest one airs anyway. What is the point of posting possible spoiler information on our site if there is nothing to put there except an image we don't want to use in the end, and things taken from other websites? - Xtreme680 17:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I say clear 'em out. Didn't we have this discussion once before? I was on the other side of the fence initially, but now I think that we should just avoid posting summaries (especially those lifted directly from Yahoo! or other sites) completely. Willo or someone else usually has an episode guide up from the latest episode within a few hours, and I don't think we need to go beyond that. -Kapoli 21:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy on Dates

Guys, we need to make a decision about dates. There are now a fair number of pages that include dates that have been extrapolated from some imaginary starting year for Day 1. I've argued on the other side about assuming geography and history, but I think that unless a date was seen or heard on the show/book/etc., it should not be included on any page except the Timeline page (which can discuss the different possible timelines, as there are several). What do you all think? -StBacchus 11:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I 100% agree with you, StBacchus. We can't have it both ways. We can either make assumptions based on what is true in the real world, or not, but it has to be consistent across the board. I hear alot of arguments for 2000 or 2004 being the starting year because those are years of actual Presidential elections, but just because that's the way it's done in real life doesn't mean that's the way they do it in 24. Until someone on the show (or some information from a screen capture) can lead us to a definite starting date, we shouldn't include the information anywhere except the Timeline page. -Kapoli 14:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the major project I've been working on for quite a while now. Placing the first year in 2002 makes nearly every date reference from the show and its ancilliary material fit nicely into a consistent timeline. Once I'm completely finished with the timeline, I'll be posting it for everyone to analyze. Barring any major criticisms, I'd planned to begin incorporating those dates into Wiki 24 afterwards. This is the reason I've ignored most of the timeline information that's already here, since I'd planned to change most of it once I'm ready. --Proudhug 15:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking forward to seeing your timeline, actually. But I have a really big problem with including conjectural dates into the Wiki at large. Your timeline is different and separate from the dates that have actually been given in the show, and people reading shouldn't have to wonder - as I have been - which ones were given and which were made up. -StBacchus 21:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I have no idea where we're getting birthyears, nor do I know how this timeline project works. If there is some source that gives out birthdates, why don't we cite that on the character pages? - Xtreme680 00:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

The hell happened to our logo? --Proudhug 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I sorted that out yesterday. Quite funny in retrospect. I banned the guy though. --24 Administration 20:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorted what out? I don't know what happened. Why is our logo back to the old squished version? --Proudhug 20:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There was some kind of vandalism yesterday, but it's still not right. Count me in for sorting it back to the way it was a week ago. --StBacchus 21:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone changed it to a communism sign with "Wikipedia is commie" written on it or something to that effect. I wasn't sure about how to change it back so I put that one up. --24 Administration 16:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

How about uploading as a new version the one uploaded by Angela on 11-04-2005? That would probably do it. -StBacchus 17:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how I managed to do it, but I fixed it. Actually, I know HOW I DID it, but I just don't know why it wouldn't let me do it before. But it's fixed now and that's all that matters. :-) --Proudhug 17:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, it looks good again! Thanks! -StBacchus 18:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecessary Articles?

Looking on the wanted pages list, I saw links to articles I don't think we realy need to be or should be writing. For example, "Pentagon", or "Secretary of Agriculture". These are real live entities with wikipedia articles. I don't see why the 24 wiki should also have articles about them. Now something like "President" I can understand, since the article goes through the succession of Presidents through the history of the show. But if "Secretary of Agriculture" or "Secretary of Treasury" are positions held by people we see once, do we really need to write articles about them? The same thing goes for terms like "terrorism". --Wydok 05:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Our goal is to include an article for every person, place and thing shown or mentioned on the show. In the case of real life things like those you've mentioned above, it needs to be explained how these things were portrayed on the show. If little or no information is available then an external link to something like Wikipedia is recommended. --Proudhug 08:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category alphabetization

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

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

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

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

[edit] Character Status

I think I've had this conversation with someone before, but I can't find where we discussed it... what should we be using for a character's status? Mostly I've seen "alive", "deceased" and "unknown" and I think that those three should be the only ones we use. I'm asking because I've seen a couple characters with "Retired", "Inactive", "Active on a provisional basis", "Presumed dead", "Missing", etc. Do we want to be that specific? There are a million different things that we could put from week to week - "Driving", "Unconscious", "Detained", blah blah blah. I'm looking for some feedback on what everyone thinks.... --Kapoli 04:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think "Incapacitated" or "presumed dead" are also valid statuses (stati?) There are characters who we may think are dead, but have no proof as such. Or, in the case of President Keeler. as far as we know he isn't dead, he's just not capable of servicing in office. --Wydok 05:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Keeler is a great example. We don't know what's up with him right now, so I think that we should identify him as "Unknown". We don't know if he's incapacitated, dead, comatose, paralyzed, unconscious, etc. For most people, he is presumed dead. I actually think he's alive, but unable to return to office, but I don't know if that's because of a coma or if he's in a permanent vegetative state or what. We have a sub-category for "Deceased characters" and one for "Characters of Unknown status"... are we going to include every possibility and create a category for it? --Kapoli 06:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Driving," heh! I agree with Kapoli that Unknown pretty much covers it. Hopefully the article text goes into more detail, so there's no need to explain why it's unknown in the sidebar. IMO, the sidebar layout should be as simple and consistent as possible, so it's easy just to glance at it and see what you want to know. --StBacchus 10:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this up because it's really been bugging me. I can see why people might find this category useful to quickly check if a season 5 character, or a recurring character from past seasons is still alive or not, but 99% of the time it's a useless heading. Or at least an unnecessarily presumptuous one. Technically, any character that we didn't see at the very end of the last episode has the status of "Unknown." Erin Driscoll is really "Unknown", and so is Diane Huxley. The longer we don't see a character, the greater the chances are that they've died. Especially if they're a "bad guy". Do you think Rocco is still alive? Given his lifestyle, there's a good chance he's not. Same with Jonathan. The more time that passes, the more probable it is they've died. Even characters like Milo Pressman and Alberta Green could very well have died. Technically, they're "Unknown." Deciding whether or not someone's status is "Alive" or "Unknown" is often a subjective decision, which isn't a good thing for an encyclopedia. Eventually, when the show has ended, the Status marker will be pretty much obsolete, since all it's really useful for is tracking the status of current main cast members. --Proudhug 15:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

For characters like Drisscol and Rocco, could we put something like "Last seen alive" or something? -CWY2190 16:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the status should reflect how the character was when they were last seen. So Driscoll, for example, would be alive but Tony would be dead. Unknown would be suitable for President Keeler. --24 Administration 16:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

But Keeler was last seen alive. So were Evelyn and Amy Martin. My point is that determining "Unknown" or "Alive" for these people is subjective. --Proudhug 16:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that we should have three choices: Alive, Deceased, and Unknown. Yes, Driscoll could have been hit by a car and killed after season 4, but we don't know. We would put she is alive.-CWY2190 19:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we're splitting hairs really. Yes, Keeler was last seen alive but he was also mentioned later on as being in a critical condition. It didn't say he was dead OR alive, so I think in that instance it would be unknown.

It should be obvious for most anyway. If not, it can be discussed on the talk page for that character. --24 Administration 19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's silly for us to think that characters like Rocco and Erin Driscoll aren't alive. Unless they're mentioned as dying, we should assume they're alive if they left the show alive. If a character was put in extraordinary peril in their last appearance, we can put it as unknown. But if they left reasonably, I think we can put them as alive. I think once the show ends the category will still be useful to see who died during the show, who survived the show, and who was never explained fully. - Xtreme680 22:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Xtreme680. Certainly it's useless to list every character who isn't definitely dead as "Unknown", but I don't think we should do that. Having "Unknown" as an alternative to "Dead" and "Alive" communicates clearly that the character was in peril when they were last seen. But just to be 100% clear, maybe we could change the template to read Last Known Status instead? Even though "Last Known Status: Unknown" might sound silly, it's still important.

Also, please please please don't do away with the Deceased Charcters category! That's the whole reason I came here in the first place. It's very useful to know whether characters were left alive or dead, honest. --StBacchus 01:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

(See also: Talk:Aaron Pierce) --Proudhug 04:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Production Crew

On the character pages, we list all of the episode appearances for that character. I was wondering if we should do something similar for the writers and directors on their pages. I've been going through and making sure that each episode page has the new sidebar with photo, and I've seen Evan Katz, Howard Gordon, Robert Cochran, Joel Surnow, Michael Loceff, Jon Cassar, etc. listed several times.

Now, I know that some of these guys are also Executive Producers for the entire series, so I'm not suggesting adding an "Executive Producer" section on their pages, just sections listing the episodes that they wrote or directed. Yes? No? Maybe so? What do you all think? --Kapoli 22:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

First, only a few the writers and producers have articles. So, maybe we should work on making articles for people who have wrote/directed an episode.-CWY2190 22:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, definitely. I mean, at some point, we need to have a page for everyone, right? But as I go through and start to make pages for Bryan Spicer, Bryan Grazer, Tim Iacofano, etc., should I list the episodes they wrote or directed? --Kapoli 22:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to add the writers/directors categories. If the page doesn't exist, I will put "To be written".

I think it's a great idea to have a section like appearances for the crew. But the headings on these pages should be consistent. Is it "24-Related Apperances" or "24 Related Appearances" or "Other 24 Work" or what? Also, is it necessary to list writers and directors in both the Writer and Crew categories? I like the Writer and Director categories, so I vote to keep them and reserve the generic Crew category for others. --StBacchus 01:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking a little blip at the top with bio information, including what they do on 24, what they've done on other shows, etc. Then we could put a sub-heading for the "Episodes Directed" or "Episodes Written", and then another sub-heading for "Other 24-Related Work", which would include commentary on the DVDs, appearances on 24Inside, podcasts, Pure 24, etc. I'd like to hear what others think, though, especially CWY2190, since he went through and created a page for everyone. And about the categories... we've got "Characters" and a sub-category of "Deceased characters", so maybe "Writers" and "Directors" can just be a sub-category of "Crew"? --Kapoli 01:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That all sounds good to me. Anyone else? --StBacchus 09:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 24 on iTunes

Today is offically the greatest day of my life. Well, almost. Season 5 is on iTunes as of Tuesday 5/9/06... well, the US version... and they've got the first 21 episodes of the season. I think that we should mention that on the Season 5 page somewhere, right? It's just like the season going to DVD. I think it's important information to include, but I'll leave it up for discussion about how we include it. Does it get a separate page, like the DVDs or do we include it on the Season 5 page? What does everyone think? -Kapoli 07:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. I say put it on the page, and we can have a section and paragraph on it if there is enough information to include. The only other shows that I know to be on itunes as well are Desperate Housewives and Lost, and I haven't even seen a mention of their availability on a wikia or wikipedia, much less an entire page. There's really not enough information to warrant a page. Seacrest out. - Xtreme680 12:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know what iTunes is. Is it actually anything new, or is it just episodes of the show. If it's just the episodes, I don't see how it would need a separate page. But if it's got extra stuff like the DVDs, then for sure. --Proudhug 13:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

For those of you who don't know, iTunes is Apple's online download shop for music and TV episodes etc. They have put Season 5 of 24 up to download now. I have put it on the news section of the main page like we would with DVD's. This should be put on the Season 5 page much like the DVDs are on that page. --24 Administration 18:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

So iTunes is just a store? Why would we need information about a store that sells episodes? Wouldn't that be like creating an article for Wal-Mart or Amazon.com? --Proudhug 20:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

iTunes is an online store only that is supposed to help cut down on illegal downloading. People use it to buy songs or television shows that they load onto their iPods (personal mp3/video players). I uploaded a screenshot of iTunes so you can look at it (ITunes.jpg), but you're welcome to erase it. Basically, each episode of the show is available for $1.99 each or you can buy the season as a whole. Once you buy them, the episodes download onto your computer and you can load them onto your video iPod. The reason that Season 5 going on sale is a big deal is because every show on ABC - Lost, Grey's Anatomy, Alias, etc. has been on iTunes all season. After a new episode airs, iTunes begins selling it. People have been waiting for Fox to make a deal with Apple to get their shows on iTunes, but nothing ever happened until recently. As of right now, just Season 5 is available, but I'm sure that Seasons 1-4 and the prequels will go on sale, too. Apple's website (www.apple.com) probably has a better explanation that I could give. --Kapoli 21:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verb Tense

What's the plan for verb tense with character pages? Actor pages? All pages? I know that episode guides should be written in present progressive tense. I think that actor pages can be written in past or present... depending on whether or not the actor is still active on the show. Some character pages are in present tense, some are in past... according to a couple different websites, we should be doing them all in present tense. What's the policy going to be? -Kapoli 19:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I did a complete overhaul of the Manual of Style which includes a section on tense. --Proudhug 22:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Policy on Dates, part 2

I've noticed people adding birthyears and ages to characters and I was wondering if there should be some kind of policy about citing where the ages are coming from. If we didn't learn from the show that Ira Gaines was 34, then should we cite where we did learn that? StBacchus and I found a screencap of Kyle Singer's ID that lends a lot of perspective to the timeline of the show... and she had some other IDs and dossiers that helped as well. I know that Proudhug is working extensively on a timeline, but as of right now, the timeline at the bottom of the main page is completely off and that's where it seems many of these dates are coming from. -Kapoli 01:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we agreed that we don't want to clutter up the site with citations and that a simple list at the bottom would suffice. If someone needs to know where specific information came from and there are too many Sources to go through, they can ask on the Talk page and someone will probably be able to provide the information they seek. Proudhug 15:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similar Episode Guides

Earlier today I headed through and deleted the exact copies. However after further inspection there are numerous episode guide that aren't copies but have VERY similar wording and sometimes if a a scene is short enough, it's copied word by word from the guide. How similar should these guides get until they're too similar? -WarthogDemon 07:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you link to an example? I don't really like the idea of any portion of the episode guides being copied and pasted. I suppose if it's one sentence that the author can't figure out better wording for, then it's not a huge problem, but I don't like the idea of us getting the exact content of our articles from other places. -Kapoli 07:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have something to add... looking around, I do see a few episode guides that have some similarities or word-for-word copying from episode guides from Fox. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure that for the first couple of guides I did a few months ago, I used the Fox guide as a skeleton and added/removed information as necessary, added times, and expanded the guide. I was new to Wiki24 and didn't realize that using the Fox guides was a no-no. We didn't have the "Lockdown" template frowning upon the Fox guides that we have now. I think that if there is a guide with an occasional identical portion, then we should just edit the sentence/paragraph. If we delete the entire guide because 5% of it is lifted right from the Fox page, then we're going to have to go to alot more work to re-write an entire guide rather than a few sentences. --Kapoli 07:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that's best. I just wasn't sure on how separate we wanted them to be from Fox's guide. I know it'd be hard to make them completely different as they're obviously talking about the same things.

The closest ones I could find were Day 1 1:00am-2:00am and Day 2 10:00pm-11:00pm. Though as per your suggestion maybe Day 2 10:00pm-11:00pm should be restored as I deleted it yesterday for being too similar. It had the biggest similarities so that'd be the best example. Restoring it would be the best idea though.

In my opinion, episode guides should be written from scratch. Obviously it's a tough judgement call, but anything too similar should just be deleted and written from scratch. Proudhug 15:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The episode in day 2 was way too similar though the other instances don't seem too bad. I suppose at least a second person should check up on Day 2 10:00pm-11:00pm to see if my call was warranted. -WarthogDemon 15:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC) (That was me last time too.)

[edit] Multiple writers

I've fixed all of the episode pages with multiple writers. I didn't bother updating the last few templates because I got lazy, however. Keep in mind that the ampersand (&) is actually important in the credits, as it denotes that the writers collaborated, as opposed to (and) which denotes independant rewrites. --Proudhug 17:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assuming Information

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

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

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

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

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

• Assuming timeline information is okay, though.

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

• No putting in negative information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Fancy tables

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• |colspan="5" style="background: #999999;"| <!-- Putting in a nice space between episodes -->

to this:

• |colspan="5" style="background: #999999; height: 10px;"| <!-- Space bar -->

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

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

[edit] Linking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Sub-headings on Character Pages

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] New policy on speculation and unknown information

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

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

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