Talk:Mike Doyle (24 character)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject 24
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.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class.

Contents

[edit] Merger

  • The character is very minor in the grand scheme of the show very little importance is asserted and large chunks appear to be original research. The character needs to be merged.--Lucy-marie 17:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - support merger. I agree this is a minor character, only in part of one season of a 6-season show. No reason at this stage for the character to have a whole page. --lquilter 17:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Based on what? --lquilter 02:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Neeknitsuj, please see WP:JUSTAVOTE. You need to provide solid reasoning for why he should stay. asyndeton talk 01:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep he could return. And he's a major part of the season.--Gonzalo84 22:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
If he returns and is major, then he could be added again. WP:CRYSTAL says we don't predict notability -- we assess it as it is. Someone who was in, what, 6 out of 144 episodes isn't that major. --lquilter 22:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - even though he was only in half the episodes of Season 6, he was definitely one of the major characters that moved the plot along.Chipsnopotatoes 18:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed that he moved the plot along, but only for some of the episodes of one season. Is that really sufficient for the inconvenience of having to go to a separate article to read about the characters? There's very little that can be said about this character even in-universe. And frankly, there's practically nothing that's not original research derived from watching the show. ... BTW, "keep" people, a merge will keep the edit history and also the content in the combined characters page. So the only real question is whether there's enough cited information that it would be unworkable on the minor characters page. --lquilter 13:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I note that this account, "Chipsnopotatoes", is a single purpose account that has only contributed "!votes" to 24 merge discussions. This is a signal characteristic of sockpuppets. --Lquilter (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • merge - the article can be de-merged if he returns for the seventh season, but for now, there's not much we can say about this character. Better off merged to the list of minor characters. mirageinred 21:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This character was of importance in season 6 beginning with storming the consul, torturing Nadia Yassir, helping with tricking Abu Fayed, originally helping Jack meet with Cheng, then getting thrown out of the car, failed raid on the hotel Jack was going to blow, assaulting Bloomfield, returning to CTU to find it under attack, going after Cheng and Josh, betraying Jack by delivering Josh to Philip and then getting a fake sub-circuit board blown up in his face. Also, these mergers have gotten out of control, this is the same person that has had several mergers undone because she does things without consensus. Lan Di (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment The majority of the mergers proposed went ahead with little to no credible opposition. One of the recently split pages had an argument that went as far as to say don't merge because I loved this character. That is hardly substantive reasoning based on policy and facts. full text can be found Here--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
      • One stray emotional comment doesn't singlehandedly prove your point. You failed to note that consensus favored reinstating that article. TunaSushi (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • All of Lan Di's points above can be (and were) summarized as "moved the plot along in a handful of episodes in the sixth season". Needless to say, this does not, alone, meet WP:FICT. We need evidence of real-world notability to do that. --Lquilter (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Not really that important to the plot, not in that many episodes, no major impact and, as of yet, not in multiple seasons. I would be happy for him to be given his own page back if his notability is established after his being merged. asyndeton talk 01:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I say Keep, at least until the new season starts. Then it can be determined what part, if any, his character will have in the upcoming episodes. I will say though, that he has been unremarkable to date.TunaSushi (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Consensus - appears to be in favour of merging. The arguments in favour of merging are supported by policy, guidelines and common sense. Each argument made for keeping has had policy or guidelines bought against showing its pitfalls. The merger seems to be favoured by consensus which is backed by policy and guidelines as this is not a vote or voting.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I count 4 merges and 5 keeps. Yeah, that sounds like consensus to merge. Your argument is spurious, and you're Wikilawyering to prove your point. It won't hurt to keep this one intact until the new season begins. TunaSushi (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
One of the "5 keeps" was a "vote" with no reason, and no response when asked for a reason. One of the other "5 keeps" was a "vote" by a single-purpose account that has made edits only to 3 of the 24 merge discussions; this is a hallmark of sockpuppetry. --Lquilter (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I am simply pointing out the areas upon which serious discussions are based and the policy prohibiting voting. I am also not the only user saying that different policy is not being met by the arguments.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

KEEP I have removed the tag for now. When the new season starts, and his presence, or the lack thereof, is established, then we can revisit the issue. Angelriver (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Tag I have re-added the tag we are discussing this now lets finish the discussion before deciding it is closed. Also the above argument is just a vote WP:CRYSTAL says we assess notability in the here and now and do not predict it.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for notability, try Director of Field Ops. Not too many people have held that post. Don't deny that he wasn't, because he was, and Bill clearly states that fact--Lan Di (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Holding a meaningless title on a TV program does not establish notability. asyndeton talk 21:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Uh, head of field ops is not meaningless. Only 5 in total, 4 onscreen were show. Henderson, Bauer, Lobell, Manning, and Doyle.
The title is meaningless; it does not change the impact they have on the show, how many episodes they are in or how important they are to the storyline. It just helps to make it all seem more real. John Keeler was president but he certainly does not deserve his own page, so don't try saying that titles and positions establish notability. They don't. asyndeton talk 22:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Could not agree more strongly with Asyndeton. WP:FICT makes it completely clear that in universe notability != real-world notability, and the latter is the test. --Lquilter (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I would really like to see someone provide us with some real-world cites about this character. If none exist, then, ipso facto, the character is not notable per WP:N and WP:FICT, and this article needs to be deleted. I strongly suggest someone do that, or merge the content into the list, or this article is looking at an AFD. The cites needed will discuss the character and its importance to the relevant work of fiction. The current cite is the actor talking about the role (and the actor's vision of the character) which would be helpful if there were some other substantive references directly about this character. I'm looking for film criticism or cultural studies, which are the relevant academic fields. Anything? --Lquilter (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That's actually funny, looking for cultural studies of a character in a trashy Fox TV series. TunaSushi (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, there's lots of popular culture discussing all kinds of arcane works. If this minor fictional character hasn't been studied at all -- unlike, say, "Attack of the 50-Foot Woman", the Preacher in Buffy, and a host of other characters and events -- then he is just part of the larger 24 universe, and an individual article is not needed and cannot be maintained. His character information & actions properly belong in a summary page. --Lquilter (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, how about he was only the second character in a season of 24 to be hospitalized at the end of the season, along with Chase Edmunds--Lan Di (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this means? Are you being funny? --Lquilter (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Sarcasm will achieve nothing. asyndeton talk 20:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I actually wasn't being sarcastic ... I truly don't understand what Lan Di's point is here. --Lquilter (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I was talking to Dan since his comment doesn't strike me as serious. Sorry for the confusion. asyndeton talk 19:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah! So easy to be confused, here on Wikipedia. cheers to you, Lquilter (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - This character was a major part of season 6, Head of Field Ops, the torture of Nadia, and it is still not known if Doyle will return for Season 7. And as this tag issue has not been re-addressed for some time, I have removed the tag for now. Steve Crossin (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge- After thinking about it, and reviewing some policies and guidelines, I believe that this article should be merged. There is just not enough third-party sources to confirm this pages notability. I've actually searched for sources myself, I haven't been able to find enough, however, the article could be rewritten, and if more sources could be found, then the article, could possibly be kept. However, at the present time, it should not be merged, due to an injunction by ArbCom. Steve Crossin (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Actually, the only reason this has not been officially closed is that it's on hold pending a larger discussion about episodes and characters. And it's been requested that tags, generally, not be added or deleted until the discussion is concluded. However, the issues are still very live. Therefore, I've put the tag back on. (Substantively, not one of your reasons suggest real-world notability, the criteria specified by WP:FICT and WP:N). --Lquilter (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

::Comment - My apologies on previously removing the merge tag. However as I see it, the article is lacking a lot of information, which has been deleted, as I've checked the older versions of this page. I've added an expansion tag to the page, the article could be improved substantially, given some effort Steve Crossin (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there is, frankly, not much independent, reliably sourced information out there about this character. Hence the merge tag. There was a lot of information in there before, but it was all original research, that was not sourced -- it was largely in-universe information about Doyle's character and the Season 6 plot that was generally in violation of WP:FICT. Searching the Internet and various pop culture databases I didn't find any sources that qualified as reliable sources to support the information; just self-published fan guides, like the 24 wikia. So I deleted what wasn't sourced or sourceable, and rewrote it to just have the basic information. Since there isn't much content that can be reliably sourced, it seems the article needs to be merged into the "minor characters" list, until there is more information that can be sourced and added. --Lquilter (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Regarding the merge of this character, this is currently under arbitration, as well as a few other characters. I think that it should not be merged, at least until a decision has come from the Arbitration Committee. Steve Crossin (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, on hold for now. --Lquilter (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Doyle6.jpg

Image:Doyle6.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] content

Given that the merger discussion appears to be pending other dispute resolution issues, let's talk about the actual content on this article. It is largely original research, written in in-universe style at the moment. This needs to be largely deleted, but I'm raising it here to get some consensus first, given the ongoing related arguments over process. Whether merged or retained, the original research has to go, and ideally be replaced by real-world content. So I propose a rewrite that says this:

Mike Doyle is a fictional character played by Ricky Schroder, on the FOX television show 24. The character was introduced mid-Season 6 to serve as the new Director of Field Operations in the Los Angeles Counter Terrorist Unit after the death of Curtis Manning.
Character
The character is portrayed as ruthless, but also competent. Ricky Schroder has said that Mike Doyle is "consumed" by his job and protecting the country. "Everything else in (his) life has been put on hold. He has no personal life. He's ruthless. It doesn't matter who he hurts. It's just a means to an end."[1] Initially introduced [IN EPISODE X] as confrontational and arguably abusive, the character becomes more likeable throughout the season. In particular, his willingness to bend the rules is shown as a positive trait in later episodes. For instance, the character is portrayed as willing to defy orders in order to "do the right thing", secretly releasing Jack Bauer from custody so that Bauer could save Audrey Raines from ill-advised medical procedures. Similarly, the character is shown advising Nadia Yassir, a novice supervisor to stand up to bureaucracy.
At the end of Day 6, some romantic attraction was hinted at between Nadia Yassir and Mike Doyle. The character was seriously wounded in the final episode of the season, however, and it is unclear whether he will be returning in Day 7.

To be honest, the second paragraph, starting with "Initially", is basically a more concise rewrite of the existing original research, and still suffers from original research problems. I imagine, however, that if any real-world character synopses can be located, they would source this information. If we put them in, we should probably tag them {{cn}} and go looking for relevant cites, and strike them if none are available. Alternatively, I'm happy to strike them from the draft, as well, but right now I'm just trying for a compromise version that will appeal to the various factions on this page. Thoughts?

Lquilter (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Having received no response to the above proposal, I am now proposing this version, which should be suitable for an easy merge, and includes a minimum of WP:OR:

Mike Doyle is a fictional character played by Ricky Schroder, on the FOX television show 24. The character was introduced mid-Season 6 to serve as the new Director of Field Operations in the Los Angeles Counter Terrorist Unit after the death of Curtis Manning.
Character
The character is portrayed as ruthless, but also competent. Ricky Schroder has said that Mike Doyle is "consumed" by his job and protecting the country. "Everything else in (his) life has been put on hold. He has no personal life. He's ruthless. It doesn't matter who he hurts. It's just a means to an end."[1]
At the end of Day 6, some romantic attraction was hinted at between Nadia Yassir and Mike Doyle. The character was seriously wounded in the final episode of the season, however, and it is unclear whether he will be returning in Day 7.

--Lquilter (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Okay, I have put in the above text and taken off the "in-universe" tag. Notability concerns still remain, but this article could be merged to Minor characters in 24 without too much effort now. --Lquilter (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] category: fictional agnostics

I removed the category "Fictional agnostics". Categories are supposed to be placed only where they are defining attributes; see WP:CAT. It is not clear from the show that he was an agnostic. The material previously cited (and removed because it was WP:PLOT) talked about him reading a variety of religious texts; that alone is not sufficient to deem someone an "agnostic" (and even if it were it's not a "defining" characteristic of the character). --Lquilter (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I note that even the editor that added it (diff) used the edit summary "(His conversation with Nadia seemed to infer this.)". Setting aside from the confusion between inferring and implying, material "inferred" from a work (or "implied" by a work) is precisely what WP:OR prohibits. --Lquilter (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)