Talk:List of minor government agents in 24

In-universe tag

I disagree with the inclusion of this tag. While it is true that the page is a summary of characters and their involvement in the 24 universe, there isn't any point in linking these very brief summaries to the real world. Lucy-marie, this is a clear case to me where this guideline (note that it's not policy) needn't be applied. Do you really think a rewrite from a real world perspective will improve anything? Could you please make an effort to ensure your responses (if any) are easily comprehended? It's been very difficult to translate your entries and intent in past talk pages. Anyone else have an opinion on the tag? TunaSushi (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh good grief, not this crap again. I swear to God, some people just need to get a life in the worst way.....Angelriver (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the tag still needs to be there, because this is an encyclopedia and real world notability must be ensured for the page to meet notability criteria. The in-universe tag is a comment on how it is written, it says the article is written poorly and is written like the t.v universe is reality which must be avoided. Also coment on content not the user, comment to users on talk pages not artilce dicussions.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Lucy Marie, why don't you rewrite one of the character articles (sans typos, please) according to the "guidelines" to show us how it's done? Angelriver (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, you didn't address my points or answer my questions. To address yours though, the article is not written poorly anymore - I rewrote it for exactly that reason. However, it is a brief synopsis of fictional characters, so I can understand your concern about in-universe prose. The introductory paragraph clearly states the intent of this list, so I don't think that the tag applies (remember "guideline", not "policy"). As far as the proper place for comment, you re-added the tag to this article, so the place to discuss it is here. Since I knew you would refute any change (thus the article and the user become inextricably linked), I requested that you take some care to make more sense than usual. Not unreasonable.TunaSushi (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I wasn't answering you I was stating why the tag shouild still be there.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

So the avoidance of scrutiny was deliberate? TunaSushi (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

And aren't all talk page entries comments? TunaSushi (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never avoided scrutiuny. I just refuse to allow someone to swear at me on my talk page and expect me to respond.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Lucy Marie, TunaSushi didn't swear at you on your talk page. Why are you avoiding her questions? Angelriver (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone else did and the comment on my talk page was aimed at the person who swore at me and tuna posted a comment on my talk page, but i can see how you could interpret it that way. Sorry for the misunderstanding.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I was pointing out that you avoided the issue. The swearing (that I was not part of) was uncalled for, but the basic fact is that you didn't address his concerns. Plus, he didn't swear at you, he was swearing at the revisions you made. You have little regard for dissenting opinion. TunaSushi (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It makes discussion difficult. Luvy-marie never replied in instances in which I found her in violation of Wikipedia policies or just plain wrong either. TunaSushi (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why this tag can't be removed. The introductory paragraph clearly states that the characters and series are fictional. I don't see how this list differs substantially from Characters_of_Final_Fantasy_VIII, where that one is cited as an exemplary example employing a consistent real world perspective. Does anyone else have an opinion? TunaSushi (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but getting back to the subject of the In-Universe tag, I have a simple question for you. If this issue is so important to you that you felt it needed tagging, then why, when this page was being rewritten, did you not speak up then? You knew that Tuna was rewriting the page. The three of us even posted different versions of the Lynn McGill article. Your version was not written according to the standards you are now attempting to hold up as the only acceptable way. None of them were. Why has this just now become an issue with you? And, as I suggested above, why don't you rewrite one of the articles using these In-Universe standards or provide an example of an article that does so that we can get a clearer idea of what's expected?Angelriver (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty much the same issue I brought up in a previous post. There is an example listed as an exemplary article that is structured the same way as this one. I think Lucy-marie's flat-out wrong here. TunaSushi (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else want to comment? Wikipedia is built by consensus, so I'd like to settle this amicably here before moving for a third opinion. TunaSushi (talk) 03:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, since it appears that Lucy doesn't seem to be interested in clarifying her point or providing a version of how "she" thinks it should read, I'm in favor of doing what needs to be done here. Angelriver (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of Major Characters

We should continue our debate here since the original discussion was archived. I agree that Milo, George, and Edgar should be restored. I'm a little iffy on Lynn, but I could see it both ways with him. I think the merging of articles have become out of control, and I think we should look at why this has happened and to prevent it from happening again for any place in Wikipedia. Especially since it is claimed that many times there wasn't a community consensus.Lan Di (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggested a standard for what characters get articles in the last discussion. First were characters who were series regulars on the show at some point. Second were characters who weren't regulars but who spanned multiple seasons (Aaron, Novick, Mandy, Chappelle, Keeler, Cheng, Cummings, etc.). Third, I thought that a few characters who were very significant players in a season (i.e. Habib Marwan) could be looked at on a case-by-case basis. I thought it was a fair balance between two or three-episode characters getting articles and series regulars being lumped in with "minor" characters. --T smitts (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The split tag indicates the characters destined to reinhabit their own pages. No one's disagreed, so I'll read up on the procedure and try to implement it over the holiday. I'm not sure where to find the content of the old articles, but I'll poke around. TunaSushi (talk) 03:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I found the old articles. I'll restore and revise them at some point over the next couple of days. TunaSushi (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Restoration complete. I added main article links to the summaries on this page. I'll see if I can find time to clean up the main articles a bit. Some of the pictures are gone - I'm guessing that may have happened because when the articles were merged, the original stills were orphaned.

Does anyone think small headshots would be nice on this page? TunaSushi (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to thank you, Tuna, for taking the time to restore these pages. I'm sure it required a fair amount of time and work on your part, and I'm sure that everyone appreciates it. In answer to your question, yes, I think small headshots would be very nice. The pictures really add something to the pages in my opinion. How does Wiki decide though what pictures are fair use? Where can we get these pictures and be sure that the bots don't delete them? Angelriver (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Some materials directly from Fox can be considered for fair use. As long as the guidelines at WP:NFURG are followed, it should be okay. Existing photos may already be uploaded and available, but I haven't had a chance to look yet. TunaSushi (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Tuna, first I'd like to say thank you. Second, while I was looking over Milo and Edgar's pages, I couldn't help but notice that some of their non-plot related info was missing. Would it be possible for you to find and restore this information to thier pages? Thanks. MoChan (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what was there before, but the articles I restored were the ones that were most recent right before the merge. If other information existed, you might be able to retrieve it by going through the history of the articles. Certain editors are known to apply a heavy hand of their interpretation of WP:NPOV, so that may explain some of it. TunaSushi (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In the newly created split articles, I noticed that their talk pages are referring to this page instead of the original talk that existed before the merge. I don't know why that happened, but I'll see what I can do to fix it. TunaSushi (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive

Lucy-marie, your decision to archive this talk page should have been posted here before you took action. Please refer to archive guidelines at Help:Archiving_a_talk_page.

“ The choice about when to archive, or what is the optimal length for talk pages, is made according to the Wikipedia policy of consensus among the editors on each particular talk page.
If possible it is better to archive talk pages during a lull in the discussion, as it is best to avoid archiving in the midst of an active discussion so that the full context of the discussion is together. ”

There are unresolved open discussions in the talk page, and you didn't say boo to any of us. TunaSushi (talk) 03:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems par for the course to me. Lucy does everything without discussion or consensus. Angelriver (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Morris O'Brian and Nadia Yassir don't belong in this list until their involvement in the coming season is determined. Morris was much more than a bit player last year, so I don't think he belongs here at all. If Nadia's role is significantly reduced or eliminated, then I can see her ending up on this list at some point.

Karen Hayes wasn't a CTU agent, so I removed her from the proposal. TunaSushi (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Re Merging Already

Since Lucy-marie has failed to get consensus on merging all of the pages, she's calling for "neutral" users to come help her. Just thought if anyone is interested, that's where this discussion is taking place. It's at the bottom of the Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) page. Angelriver (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In Use

This article is in use, could edits please be waited on for a moment? Steve Crossin (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been staring at this thing for a few hours now... I don't like the article's redesign by season. It makes it more difficult to reference a character if the season is unknown or forgotten by the reader. The summary for each actor was brief before, and now it's not any better. Plus, I think the summaries should be in past tense, as they are past events. TunaSushi (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up of the article

• I'd like to point out that this article has been cleaned up heavily by миражinred سَراب ٭. It just shows what spending some time on an article can do, for example, the article on Nadia Yassir has now been improved to a state that it now is notable, see WP:FICT. The cleaning up of articles is something I'd like to learn how to do, yet with this article, I am unsure of which bits to delete, which bits to keep. Can anyone point out a page that helps with this, for example, the pages on how to properly write a first article, is there a similar page for cleaning up of articles? Apologies if what I'm saying is not very clear. Steve Crossin (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I only began passionately watching 24 since the sixth season. Before that, I only watched tidbits of the show so I had no clue about these characters. Although I only watched one season, I think what's the most important for these minor character are 1. their job and 2. how they die. Usually information about their death is also information about how they advance the plot of 24. The first thing you should get rid of first is probably trivia and OR. миражinred سَراب ٭ (speak, my child...) 07:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

New Format

I'm starting a discussion here as I think it needs more discussion, and a clearer consensus. The page was recently changed from this to this. I personally disagree with the change, but as it's my opinion over another's, I think wider discussion is needed. Also, note that with the current table, the old text has remained, so it doesn't look the best, and the links from merged articles, for example Erin Driscoll, which used to link to [1], no longer work. We could split up and re-write the table, but I'm also concerned that newcomers may have difficulty editing a table such as this one. I'll let the project decide on this one, but I personally feel the old version was best, but it's consensus that counts, not one editor's opinion. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Old version better, by far. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

By old version, you mean the version immediately preceding the change to table format? This article has been through several rewrites and format changes.TunaSushi (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Old version of the two Steve listed. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I found it easier to find a character by name, not season. With ever-increasing bizarre plots and storylines, I don't think it will be possible to recall which season introduced which character. The table format will allow for a sort by any of the columns, facilitating easier reference. As far as old text remaining, that's a simple fix to reconstruct sentences. I'm more interested in people's take on the increased functionality.TunaSushi (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Season 2 states

that "Brad Hammond comes to CTU after it suffers from a bombing. He accuses Tony Almeida of helping Jack Bauer against Division orders and helping Stephen Saunders escape.". Stephen Sunders was a part of Season 3 only. Sjurmh (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see this as useful

for all the lists too, especially Minor characters in 24, which is disgustingly unwieldy.TunaSushi (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If the table could be remade, and redesigned, and possibly broken up,

I'd fully support a table format, but as it is at the moment, I'm not so sure. But, doing it for the Minor characters in 24 page, I feel would be an awful idea. It's far too large for such a table. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 22:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Far too large" is exactly why a table is a better option. It gives the reader the ability to sort the information to his preferred order.TunaSushi (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Older format looked much much nicer IMO. The table format doesn't really add anything and only decreases readability since everything is clumped together. I would suggest going back to the old format, but with one change - listing the characters by order of appearance (Richard Walsh would be listed first in season 1 for example). SeanMooney (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the entire reason I prefer the table. Order of appearance is not helpful if you want to look up a character. TunaSushi (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, this is a list of minor characters - they aren't as well know by their name, which is why I think it makes more sense to group by season. I don't really see the need to sort this information, what benefit is there exactly? SeanMooney (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's say I caught a repeat of 24 and saw the actress who used to play one of the daughters on Roseanne. I know her name is Sara Gilbert, and her character's name was Paula something-or-other (because I just watched the show). I have no idea what season the episode came from, but sorting by actor name rapidly leads me to her information summary.TunaSushi (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Older version of the two listed in the original post looks much better. These are bios of 3-5 sentences, not the Magna Carta. Scrolling down to get to the info you want isn't overly tedious, and it makes more sense to me to have them introduced by season. 12.39.2.83 (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I prefer the old version. SignorSimon (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Geroge Mason

For the discussions surrounding George Mason please see here. --Lucy-marie (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Mike Doyle

For the discussions surrounding Mike Doyle please see here. --Lucy-marie (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved old Mike Doyle talk page to an archive attached to this page. Talk:Minor CTU agents in 24/Archive Mike Doyle Oldag07 (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Verb tense

Please watch your verb tense and grammar, people. Works of fiction are always referred to in the present tense. This is almost always the case (except for certain rare exceptions). So please stick to this rule. Thanks. ask123 (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Individual pages for Main Characters

I have a suggestion/thought that all of the Main Characters in each season have their own page. I think a Main Character could be defined as one appearing in the Season photo shot? So this would mean that Cole Ortiz and Arlo Glass would have their own pages, as they are Main Characters in Season 8. There are also a lot of other characters from other seasons that would get the same treatment. If anyone doesn't think we can build a large enough profile for an individual page I'm happy to scrap this idea, but it would be fantastic to see each Main Character have their own page. I would be happy to write the framework/draft or even the whole thing! Scotty733 (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)