Talk:List of minor characters in 24

message: I added Zhou to the list because he shot a major character in the head, which was pretty dramatic. 
Gatty790 23:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Zhou

message: I think that Mark Bishop can now be considered a minor character because he was only in a few episodes.  Gatty790 23:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't he be in the antagonist section? The guy was a bona fide traitor: he was selling American secrets to Russians, and he literally strangled the woman he was stealing them from when he realized he might get caught. And besides, a "lobbyist" is definitely not a government official, despite the fact that he deals with government officials. Mike H. 18:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mark Bishop

message: Hey, what would everyone think, about replacing those 39 lines of merge proposals with this:
Even at my screen resolution of 1280 x 1024, that line of proposals puts the actual article below the fold... Some consolidation might not be such a bad thing... SQL(Query Me!) 09:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SQL(Query Me!) 12:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Massive merge proposals

message: This article is extremely long, it's nothing but a long list of short entries that could be split at least by season.--Gonzalo84 03:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea, we must to do this before we merge others characters --Strike07 12:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There has been very little establishment of notability as it, which makes one question whether this is a notable topic at all, so lets merge, see how much it can be built up in terms of notability, and then think about possible splitting. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: Yes, we need to split this article because he is too long. I think we create an article for season 1 (For example: Minor characters in 24/Season 1), an article for season 2 (For example: Minor characters in 24/Season 2), an article for season 3 (For example: Minor characters in 24/Season 3), an article for season 4 (For example: Minor characters in 24/Season 4), an article for season 5 (For example: Minor characters in 24/Season 5) and an article for the last season at the moment, season 6 (For example: Minor characters in 24/Season 6) --Strike07 12:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea, we must to do this before we merge others characters --Strike07 12:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There has been very little establishment of notability as it, which makes one question whether this is a notable topic at all, so lets merge, see how much it can be built up in terms of notability, and then think about possible splitting. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality

message: He wasn't one. The character may have been an ex-terrorist, but as far as 24 (season 6), he was a good guy. A similar character is Ryan Chappelle; despite being a CTU agent, he was very much an antagonist in seasons two and three, one who kept or tried to keep the main characters from reaching their goals. Tromboneguy0186 20:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assad: An Antagonist-Disputed 

message: Why is john keeler under minor characters? He was a president for the first half of day 4, wasn't he? He was also the candidate who ran against David Palmer in day 3. He played a major role in both days.
:He wasn't the president for very long and he didn't do anything notable in that time. asyndeton talk 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Keeler 

message: Why is Abu Fayed here? He clearly wasn't a minor character, as 1: He has killed more people than any other antagonist in the history of 24, 2: he dramatically influenced Day 6 for more than half the season, and 3: after Hamri Al-Assad "betrayed" him and his cell, Fayed became the leader of the violence-oriented sector of the jihad they were working for. However, I am happy to listen to reasoning from the people who decided to have him placed in this category.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.68.108 (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that he's not exactly a "minor" character; he's a major character in season 6. But, he doesn't have very much "real world notability" (see notability and WP:FICT).  It would probably be a better idea to have individual character profiles of characters who are "major" in a season in those season articles. --Lquilter (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abu Fayed 

message: A number of these have significant OR & plot summary content. In general, they need to be shortened to one to two summary paragraphs. I began with Marie Warner & will do some others shortly. -- Lquilter (talk • contribs) 20:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Toddst1, can you please explain why you reverted without explanation the significant cleaning up I've been doing on Minor characters in 24?  Those character sections are greatly laden with WP:OR, WP:PLOT, and WP:TRIVIA; I posted about this on Talk:Minor characters in 24, so discussion is probably more appropriate there, and I'm cross-posting this there. --Lquilter (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Never mind; it was all an error & Toddst1 unreverted. --Lquilter (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:OR

message: If you type John Keeler into the search bar right now, it should give John Keeler's section of Minor characters in 24. The link for that redirect is Minor characters in 24#John Keeler. BUT for some reason it give Koo Yin, a different character
This is either a hack, or some kind of glitch. Upon searching John Keeler, wikipedia does the redirect, and at the top the website says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Keeler#John_Keeler
Now... that gives Koo Yin, and strangely enough if you go up to the address bar and just press enter, as if you just typed in the exact same address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Keeler#John_Keeler. it will properly go to John Keeler's section. But the first time it goes to Koo Yin???? What is going on!
Someone must have hacked it or written something I cannot find.
Please investigate and fix the problem - otherwise I am going to just redirect John Keeler to Minor characters in 24.
BUT PLEASE DON'T JUST DO THIS TO FIX THE PROBLEM. THERE IS IN FACT A PROBLEM HERE AND IT MUST BE ADDRESSED TO PREVENT OTHER SIMILAR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS ON WIKIPEDIA.
Actually..... strangely enough if you click this website I just gave, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Keeler#John_Keeler, it goes straight to proper John Keeler section!
So.... I dunno, this may be a wikipedia problem, not an article problem.
Thank you much,
~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something is wrong with the article "John Keeler" 

message: Guys, I think that there is a VERY wrong tendency down here. More and more characters are merged with the "Minor characters" article. I mean, shouldn't we be going the exact opposite way? Shouldn't we make more and more articles about characters that don't have their own article yet and therefore widen the "24" part of Wikipedia? Instead, however, you guys squeeze everything by putting EVERYONE (even characters that played a really big role, like Chris Henderson, Stephen Saunders (the main villain of season 3 and also one of the most fascinating villains in the whole series), Paul Raines (WTH?!)) in this one article. Think it through. Let's make this part of Wikipedia as big as possible!  
Gallez --89.79.112.157 (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't find it "sad" that policies prevent us making "this part of Wikipedia as big as possible".  We could make it even bigger simply by including full transcripts of every single character's every word, and all the stage directions, and lots and lots of detailed descriptions of their wardrobe, positioning, gestures, and hair style. The encyclopedia would not be improved. Gallez, an IP editor with two contributions who encourages editors to "think it through", has likely not read core policies like "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not". It would be nice if more experienced editors could help inform new editors about the policies, rationales, and the existence of a reasonable debate between editors at an encyclopedia, rather than inflaming issues by describing them as a "war", and using utterly bad faith language to describe fellow editors.  --Lquilter (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point is that some people do not want fiction related articles on Wikipedia.  If you want to talk about “bad faith,” try this.  A person runs to the admins and then to mediation because she can’t have her way.  The people she had dragged into it try to come to a solution to the problem, but when the mediator does not rule in her favor, she just rejects it and goes off trying to merge articles again.  That is bad faith.  Never once did I or anyone else say every character on any TV show should have its own page.  (I challenge you to find where I have supported such a position.)  However, some pages should not or should never have been merged, but certain editors have done end runs around everyone else to get their way. --MiB-24 (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever my opinions -- and your opinions -- are about other editors and other disputes, there really doesn't seem to be any reason to bring them up here, in this discussion, with this anonymous editor, who in good faith posed a question. Let's agree that, in future, we will all try to use calm, neutral language to describe the various content disputes that occur on Wikipedia. We will agree to try to de-escalate conflicts, and avoid incendiary language. Gallez needs to understand core policies like Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, as well as guidelines for implementing those policies like WP:Notability.  With a better understanding of those policies & guidelines, Gallez will be better equipped to contribute usefully to talk page discussions. --Lquilter (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Are you kidding?!

message: It doesn't make sense that Jamey Farrell redirects here but she doesn't even have a section. Please write one ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi GoldenGoose100. Indeed, Jamey Farrell should have an entry. You're welcome to start one, too, and I might try to do it sometime soon. --Lquilter (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Jamey Farrell section is located on the minor agents page.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes... later that day I redirected all Jamey Farrells to the appropriate spot on minor CTU agents page. It's good that someone reformatted all of the sections of this page. Maybe the search will work well now. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why doesn't Jamey Farrell, the mole from season 1, have at least a section? 

message: I believe this article is much too long, due to the fact that an extremely large amount of characters have been merged into this one. One character, Reed Pollock, had his own article yesterday, yet it has now been merged into this one. Who was responsible for this, and was there consensus on it?
Also, this section on Walt Cummings: 
Shortly afterwards Cummings is found hanged in an apparent suicide, but it is later revealed that Logan ordered Cummings' execution[original research?].
Wiki24 also has this version of events, in the Walt Cummings article. However, it points out that it was most likely Graem Bauer's suggestion. 
If I could add references to this article, I would, but I am unsure on which sources to use, other than the television show. Steve Crossin (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag added: Article is too long 

message: I've been watching this article for some time now, and it is in desperate need of attention. The article is close to unreadable at the moment, and it really needs restructuring. I propose a short term solution, at least to make the article more readable. It would be to further divide the sections up into seasons, the season when the character first appeared. It's not the best possible suggestion, but I think it's better than the current layout, for now. I'll begin the sectioning now, it can easily be reversed, and I believe it's in accordance with WP:AGF, I'm trying to help the article, not hurt it. Could you please discuss your opinions here before you revert all my edits, I think that it is only fair. I'm trying to improve the article, please respect that. Steve Crossin (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag added: Multiple Issues 

message: I've compared the section in this article on Lynne Kresge, and the Wiki24 article on her, and they are extremely similar in content, some of the sections have been copied, word for word, from Wiki24, so I've added a duplication tag until this is fixed. Steve Crossin (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I Removed your copypaste tag, since copypaste is for copyright issues and wikia's license is compatible with Wikipedia. The article is waaaay too long though. -- lucasbfr talk 11:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag added: Duplication (Lynne Kresge) 

message: Please note that
:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2#Temporary injunction. Thanks -- lucasbfr talk 13:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary editing restriction on this subject 

message: I am here to make a proposal, that the page be split into pages sorted by season. This would be sorted by season where the character first appeared, if they appeared in subsequent seasons, an anchor could be made linking to the first section. I'm proposing this based on a few reasons:
1. Splitting the section further increases the readability, and structure of the page- As pointed out by quite a few people, the pages length, and layout, at the moment, adversely affects this pages readability, I've showed a few people this article, and they agreed it is far too long.
2. Sorting by season creates more organisation- Chronologically sorting characters in order of appearance also can improve navigation and readability of the article
3. Few, if any, adverse effects- Splitting the artice into several pages, sorted by seasons, addresses, if only for the short term, the major readability issue of this article, and, the benefits of splitting the page outweigh the disadvantages, which can all be resolved, with redirection anchors. Each character that appeared in subsequent seasons could have a section on each page, for example, Walt Cummings was mainly in Season Five, yet first appeared in Season Four, so his section would be in something like- Minor Characters in 24:Government_and_Politcal:Season_Four#Walt Cummings, and there could be a redirection link on the Season 5 category page. 
::In summary, this proposal attempts to resolve the issues caused by all the articles merged into one page, increases the readability of the page, make it more organised. Wikipedia is a place of consensus, so of course, I will ask for opinions on this, if you object to this change, please explain clearly why. And saying that we should wait till all the articles have been merged before splitting the page up is detrimental. I suggest you read WP:SPLIT and WP:LENGTH, this article surely meets the requirements for splitting up.
And also take note of the current editing restriction on this topic, i've verified, splitting of this article has been permitted, further merging for now has been temporarialy halted. The comment was left by an admin on my talk page.
So what is the opinions of others? Steve Crossin (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not 100% sure on what you are suggesting, however my current point of view is, that anything that improves this articles organisation, I would most likely be in support of. I believe it should be split into certain sections. How it is done, or what the sections are, I am not overly concerned about, as long as it is simple to navigate, and not confusing. Steve Crossin (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Proposal: Splitting of Page 

message: Should he really be under villains? He's a former villain and "political figure" may suit him better. миражinred سَراب ٭  (speak, my child...) 17:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamri Al-Assad 

message: Someone had listed Keeler as a Republican. So far as I know, this is pure speculation; 24 has never mentioned particular parties. (And as far as speculation goes, there's contradictory evidence, anyway.) I've taken it out unless it can be sourced. --Lquilter (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't one of the Palmers a Democrat? Oh well, this is why we need a source. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭  (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Keeler, Republican?

message: Daniels wasnt a minor character. He almost started a war with the middle east and he took over as president. He made many decisions and was basically president for half of day 6 and made many decisions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.163.63 (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noah Daniels 

message: I think he should get his own page. He was the mastermind behind the events of season 3. He is definitely not a minor character. Comp25 (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stephen Saunders

message: From WP:RM:
Minor characters in 24 → Recurring and minor characters in 24 — Solves many problems and ends many editor disputes. See pre-existing discussion. I have posted this note here to prevent people from removing the Move Proposal Template from the Talk Page.
The preceding was unsigned, but that's not all that important. The only question really is, do we have consensus for this move? See Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves. Andrewa (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides me (the proposer), Lucy agrees with the proposal. I would call her the most involved contributor concerning this page and this topic. Of course I'd like more feedback from others, but if no one says anything, I'll assume that silence implies consensus from everyone else and make the move. Blue Danube (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Please follow the procedures when closing the move request. If you don't feel like doing this, then please let someone else close the move request for you. They will, although it may take a few days. Andrewa (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Someone placed a tag in Minor CTU agents in 24 suggesting the article to be merged in here but I didn't find the discussion. Well, I strongly support this merging because right now it seems we have duplicated information. Moreover, many (almost all?) descriptions of minor characters in here are lacking the actor's name, which we should add. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor CTU agents in 24 -> Recurring and minor characters in 24 

message: Should Redemption characters be added to the list? While it is true that the film has its own page, the characters and events are all still a part of the same continuity. While many will carry over into Season 7, presently we're not there yet. - Kanten (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think they should be included here. I would do it, but I find editing at the 24 wiki is better for me personally. I think I've seen you there, Kanten.. hi again! Blue Danube (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redemption 

message: It has been suggested that Mike Doyle be split and have a seperate article.
I strongly disagree with this on the grounds that the charter is not notable and appeared in so few shows that having a separate article would be a pointless exercise in information disparity. The previous page was shot and contain few real world references, failing notability. If sufficient real world notability establishing sources can be found then the separate  article could be warranted. Until then a separate article would fail notability criteria.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mike Doyle 

message: why does Adam Kaufman (24 character) link here, but theres nothing about him on this article? IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirects 

message: So her article was redirected to this article. What happened to her entry? Barkeep Chat | $ 17:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but there is an imbecile and idiot who hasn't bothered to clean up their own mess yet. (I'll fix the redirects soon, sorry.) Steve Crossin  Talk/Help us mediate! 05:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erin Driscoll 

message: It has been suggested that this character be separated out and have a separate article.
I disagree on the grounds that Mason was purely a recurring character and fits nicely intot he scope of this article. The character did not appear regularly throughout the first seasons, until towards the end and only appeared regularly after that until his death half way tough the second season. While the character may have done something major in one season (season 2 nuke crash event) the character does not have continuing nobility throughout the rest of the seasons. The contrasts to Teri Bauer who only appeared in season 1 but is still mentioned in season 7.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Mason 

message: I'm proposing a split as, while I disagree somewhat with the new page title, I'm willing to compromise. But one or two sentences about some of these characters, who were quite major in their respective seasons, isn't enough. I'd suggest these splits, so each character's entry can be expanded. However, having all of that on this page would make the page size far too long. In line with this, I propose a split, which should mean that encyclopedic information is not lost, while characters who may not warrant an article could be merged to the respective article. Steve Crossin  Talk/24 21:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps three articles: one for government workers, one for antagonists, and another for miscellaneous characters? This is a show with a ton of sources out there, so I'm sure there's enough real-world content to justify three character cast articles instead of one. Characters of Final Fantasy VIII is a good template. — Deckiller 22:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what I was thinking. And that sort of strucutre, too. I might wait a little while for some more input, though. :) Steve Crossin  Talk/24 22:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed: I've been out of the loop for a while, so who knows what other perspectives have surfaced regarding character lists. — Deckiller 22:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I would be fine with a split into 2 or 3 pages. Ice (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

text: OK, this has been up for ages. Just thinking how it would go:
*Government section -> Minor Government Characters in 24
*Antagonists section -> Minor Antagonists in 24
However, where would the Other characters go? Perhaps Other minor characters in 24? This page should become a disambiguation page, I think. Steve Crossin  Talk/Help us mediate! 09:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split 

message: Sarah Gavin is being redirected in this page even though she is not being mentioned here. Either delete the redirection or put a character profile for Sarah. Thanks 119.95.143.107 (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarah Gavin 

message: I've moved the article back to it's original title. The scope of this article, originally, was for minor characters only, who only needed two or three sentences about them in each season. The fact that this page has become the "final resting place" for some articles of characters that were major in their respective season means that this article, at it's present name, won't achieve what it should achieve. It's really only an article name, and most of the redirects for the respective articles target back to the "Minor characters in 24" page, so I'm changing the article title back. I'm happy to further discuss my reasoning, it's basically that expanding the scope of the article to "recurring and minor characters" includes almost everyone except the main cast, which, if encyclopedic information were to be saved, would blow out this article's size to a ridiculous one. Please post here, or on my talk page, if you have further enquiries. Steve Crossin   The clock is ticking.... 06:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: There was a request to split this page into two or more pages. As this list deals with minor characters, and the length of this page is due to excess information written without citing appropriate sources and in a manner contrary to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) guideline, the first aim of editors here would be to reduce this list into a managable page for the common reader, and to source all information. It is possible that the bulk of the material on this page is more suited to a specialist publication, such as 24.wikia.com, than a general interest encyclopedia. The split tag has been removed. SilkTork *YES! 23:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Split request tag removed

message: In Yusuf Auda's description, it is stated that he is from an "unnamed Arab country", when this is not true. Upon review of the second season, it is not said that he is from an "Arab" country, but rather from a middle-eastern country. The middle-east is comprised of more than simply Arabs and to state that it is simply Arabs would be biased.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.55.195 (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yusuf Auda - Not from an unnamed "Arab" country. 

message: Please be sure that all additions to the article are verifiable.  Any new items added to the article should have inline citations for each claim made.  As a courtesy to editors who may have added claims previously, before Wikipedia citation policy is what it is today, some of the existing unsourced claims have been tagged  to allow some time for sources to be added. N2e (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations and sources are needed