Talk:Kate Warner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	24 Portal This page is part of 24 WikiProject, an attempt to expand and create articles that relate to 24. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.

[edit] Fixed a small ambiguity

changed from: learns that her sister is in collusion with terrorists (indeed, murders her totally innocent fiancé) to: learns that her sister is in collusion with terrorists (Marie murders her totally innocent fiancé)

TehNomad 20:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Character is one of the many Jack Bauer love interests and appears in only one season as a whole and one episode of the next season. Should be merged as the character is not overall notable in the 24 universe or beyond.--Lucy-marie 15:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole page is a plot summary. Merge. asyndeton 17:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep it. Season two would not have been the same without her. She was part of the main cast and a very important character in nearly every episode of that season. Phoenixfan 20:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Was an extremely prominent player in season 2. Notable in the 24 universe. --T smitts 03:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What importance does she have in tne current 24 universe?--Lucy-marie 16:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

She not only appeared in every episode of Season 2, but she also appeared in the Video Game as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.4.138.188 (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep she could always return. Plus her importance is that she allowed Jack to start moving on in his life following Teri's death--Gonzalo84 22:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment she could always not return. asyndeton 18:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep She was a major character in Season 2.Chipsnopotatoes 18:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This editor has made only edits to 3 "merge" discussions; a single-purpose account participating only in editing discussions is a hallmarket of sockpuppetry. --Lquilter (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

comment she only appeared in season 2 and this is not a crystal ball.--Lucy-marie 00:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A trend I've been noticing in all these merger proposals is that if a character only appears in one season they are automatically not notable. If that's true, Teri Bauer and Chase Edmunds should also be tagged. Kate is very notable in the 24 universe. As per above she helped Jack move on and was an extremely prominent character in every episode of season 2. She definetly deserves her own article.--Phoenixfan 20:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Chase edmunds has been merged.--Lucy-marie 19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Sarah Wynter as Kate Warner was second billed in the credits during Season 2 as one of the "series regulars" right behind Kiefer Sutherland. She appeared in every episode that season. Everybody agrees she was the leading lady that season. By these standards alone she should NOT be considered a minor character.--TurtleBayNYC 23:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TurtleBayNYC (talk • contribs)

This editor has made only 1 edit to this "merge" discussions; a single-purpose account participating only in editing discussions is a hallmarket of sockpuppetry. --Lquilter (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not policy and the character is not highly notable in the wider 24 universe.--Lucy-marie 19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Explain what is not policy and why she is not highly notable. We have all given reasons why she is notable, give reasons why she isn't. And at the time I made the comment about Chase, there was not a tag on his article and was not for several days.--Phoenixfan 16:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenixfan (talk • contribs)

The notability in the wider 24 world cannot be attained so is not notable with the wider 24 universe, also doing so would violate WP:CRYSTAL. The character is not knows outside of the world of 24, so is not notablie outside the world of 24. There are no indiepndant sources for this page. Indipendant does not include imdb or any other related or unrelated fan site.The page is put thier by fans of the show only and is not put thier idipendantly of the show. These are just some of the reaosns why policy on notability is violated. If you want a page on every character go tro 24 wikia no wikipedia. The same is also true for virtuially every other character tagged for merging--Lucy-marie 12:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little sick of hearing about the 24 wiki. Frankly, their ridiculous "no spoilers" policy severely limits its usefulness. And I'm not advocating an entry for every single character who's ever appeared on the show. I do think that series regulars or ones who appeared frequently enough (i.e. over multiple seasons) are notable enough. --T smitts (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Surley no spoilers is a good things. This is not a 24 fan site and shouild never be allowed to develop into one. The sheer volume of article on absolute nobodies is redeiculous. One season characters there are far too many articles on them as well (and befor you say it appearing in a game and one episode of another season does not increase dramatically anything to do with any caharcter). This is an encyclopedia and not an indiscriminate collection of information. For that you do need the fan site 24 wikia and you can have all the spoiler sites in the world for the spoliers, just keep all of the cruft like that off this encyclopedia.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No spoilers is not necessarily a good thing, certainly not if you want your wiki to be as complete as possible (I'm not opposed to spoiler warnings like the ones we used to have here, but I'm not bothered without them either). I'm willing to concede the number of characters with their own articles being scaled back (In the past, I've even merged some myself and admittedly, a few, like Mitch Anderson could probably be merged). I maintain that you're leaning too far in the other direction though, I think people's reaction on the discussion page for Sherry Palmer supports my opinion.

I maintain that series regulars and/or a notable player in multiple seasons merit an article (I'll be willing to find some references for them over then next little while) and concede to most of the others being merged. I don't think this would be too high a number. (I'm inclined to suggest a few of the significant villains such as Habib Marwan, be considered on a case-by-case basis). I also suggest, in the meantime, that you take a look at the staggering number of Highlander characters and do something about that. A hundred articles seems rather excessive. --T smitts (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with all the above. Kate deserves her own article.--Phoenixfan (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.17.210 (talk)

I am afraid I am in no way intersted in Highlander and that has no bearing on the opinions I give here. The number of highlander character should be discussed with relevant people and your opinions on the matter sould be directed towards them. Kate appeared in one phone conversation with Jack in season 3 and has never ben heard or seen since. I admit she was a relativly regular character in season 2 but was not a major person who controlled the plot. If for example a character such as Jack was replaced after season two I would argue against merging. Simple because the character had a lot of air time does not make them major to the plot significantly. Kate was in a way an add-on major character due to her sister but not really a stand alone major character. I also say that due to a lack of external verifiable sources and lack of ongoing in-universe notability the charcter is done for and should be merged.

Also no charcter 'deserves' an article they must earn it by fulfilling wikipedia policy and crtieria --Lucy-marie (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Then go ahead and attempt to merge Kim, Nina, Bill, Audrey, Tony, and Michelle, lucy-marie, as they all have a "lack of external verifiable sources." Also Michelle, Nina, and most likely Kim and Audrey will not again appear on the show for some time, if at all, so they also have a "lack of ongoing in-universe notability." If a character could only have thier own article meeting both those criteria, only Jack would. That is your logic, lucy-marie. But you're not putting tags on those articles because you KNOW that they are extremely notable, even though they (according to you) VIOLATE WIKIPEDIA POLICY. So explain to me why they aren't tagged.--Phoenixfan (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2007

I think a step back is neeed in this debate and the whole picture is needed to be looked at. The reason some characters who ae not having on-going notability in the series is due to thier scope over mulitple seasons. This is characters such as David Palmer and Aaron Pierce. These characters have a notability in the show but are unlikely to return in a major way. The charactes you are talking of merging fulfill other criteria which out-weighs other criteria. Such as in the case of Kim Bauer not having external sources the apperance in seasons 1, 2, 3 and 5 outweighs this criteria. For this article and the others tagged the criteria which is not met is outweighing the criteria which is met.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I sorta get what your saying, but could you tell me where it says certain criteria weighs out other criteria? Since you are very by-the-book (which is not a bad thing) I'd like to know.--Phoenixfan 17:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It dosen't specifically state that anywhere. I am trying to use a rational approach to the intrpretation of diffrent and sometimes conflicting policy. If however we are to be strictly by the book, then the charaters you talk of should be merged as well. I shall now merger tag those characters as well.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if that's a threat, a joke, or you're trying to make a point. But your "rational approach" should hold just as true to other 24 characters. Kate Warner has a notability in the show. Don't ask me why, many reasons have already been given above. But just a warning, if you do go so far as to tag those characters, just know you will NEVER get them merged.--Phoenixfan 16:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention to merge those characters, I have just been simply forcd to add the tags. Also what foundation do you have to say I will "NEVER" get them merged.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. Forced to add the tags? Who is forcing you? Come on, answer the question and stop side stepping the issue. --MiB-24 (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am side-stepping nothing, I am not going to be drawn in to making potentially incriminating or ambiguous comments. I have stated why the tags were added and you just seem to ignore that.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You stated and I quote “I was virtually forced to” as the reason for adding all of these tags. That is not a legitimate reason. Try again. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a job to go to. I can’t sit at my computer for 18 hours and look for way to ruin Wikipedia pages. --MiB-24 13:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You appear not to have read the discussion fully and are still hammering on over a trival point, move and and discuss the mergers and not why the tag was placed there.--Lucy-marie 14:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, this is Wikipedia, a volunteer site. If you were "virtually forced", that sounds like coercion, a personal attack if I ever heard one. That's against Wiki policy. If it was a dispute with a single editor, you should have gone to Wikipedia:Third opinion. If the issue was incivility, you should have gone to Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts. At the very least, you should recognize that you aren't forced to volunteer. TunaSushi 01:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)