Talk:Minor CTU agents in 24/Archive 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 → |
Contents[hide] |
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)
-
-
-
-
-
- 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)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 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)
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)