Template talk:24 (TV series)

message: Any reason some characters are listed only by the first name, while others have first and last? In my opinion, using the first name only seems too familiar. It'd be better to switch to first+last for all characters for consistency's and formality's sake. — BrianSmithson 04:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really necessary to list all of these characters? Jtrost (T | C | #) 19:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template setup

message: I VASTLY improved the templete. Who likes the new look?
Note: I didn't include the Silent clock article because it needs VAST improvement.
Good to include the new categories, but I'm not too favorable about how the names are ordered now.  Previously, it was placed in chronological order of the characters' appearance.  Now it looks like it's in order of speculated importance to the series, which seems rather POV.  I'm gonna personally revert the frequency of the < br > line spacing between the names to how it originally was, however.
Deege515 23:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Templete 

message: The template doesn't look so good. Please see this image of what it looks like on my computer. Yes, if I change my fonts (AKA text zoom) I can see it the way you meant it, but I left my fonts at the default when mozilla was installed. (Basically the hard breaks mess things up since each browser can render it different. I suggest you forget the breaks all together, and let the browser do it. (See if you can wrap each individual name in a nobreak tag.) 71.199.123.24 07:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this into it's own heading, hopefully someone will actually see it now. Please look at the linked image!! 71.199.123.24 18:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hard Breaks

message: I'd like to say to the people who've been creating articles for one-time characters such as Scott Baylor and Harry Swinton, that the character table is getting quite large and there are far more prominent characters who still don't have articles, such as Carrie Turner, Rick, Bob Warner, Reza Naiyeer, Yusuf Auda, Julia Miliken, Omar, Gary Matheson, Eric Rayburn, Claudia, Kyle Singer, Anne Packard, Yuri Suvarov, and Paul Raines --T smitts 17:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor characters

message: Why do we have characters such as Dan Mounts, Eli Stram, Scott Baylor, Ted Paulson, and Teddy Hanlin on the template? I know they're 24 characters, but the articles are poorly written and we have a list a list on characters in 24.--Jasonflare 11:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should talk to JonathanSrules about it then (someone should also go through the articles and check the links and so forth, I think I've covered most of them, but I can't be sure). I would, but I feel it's not really my place since I've never worked on 24 articles before (unless you ask me real nice :D). Just explain that the template is for the main characters and List of characters in 24 is for the complete list. BTW, that template would be HUGE! Oskar 12:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: According to WP:FICT, about 3/4 of the characters on this template should be merged into a Characters of 24 page. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know JonathanSrules says that he spent lots of time and effort in creating these individual pages, but still, I agree that these extremely minor characters have no place in the template.  Many of these extra characters are small plot devices that received an episode or less of air time, and nothing more.  They should only be accessible through the List of Characters page. --Deege515
Yeah, but I think we can do away with most of the Other Characters.
Janet York | Martin Belkin | Lauren Proctor | Erica Vasquez | Dr. Phil Parslow | Frank Allard | Maureen Kingsley | Dr. George Ferragamo are all minor.
I agree.  As I was saying, the character table is getting a little large.  I tried explaining this to JonathanSrules but he seemed insistent on adding EVERY character from season one, however minor.--T smitts 21:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So what? We slap a 24 Character Category bar on it, and take it off the template? User:Jasonflare
Sometime in the future, I will be merging those articles into the list of 24 characters. That way, we compress the information and remove the individual names from the list. — Deckiller 03:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good.  I assume you mean something like this? --T smitts 15:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah; just like that. The question is how to format it, since many minor characters are listed on that list that don't have articles and/or don't need text blurbs. — Deckiller 21:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Works for me.  --T smitts 04:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOO Many Characters 

message: It was much easier to read before, when the text wasn't as big and the categories were placed vertically so the reader could distinguish. — Deckiller 03:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why was the format of the template changed?

message: Since there's been absolutely no negative replies to any comments I have made, I have decided to come in and clean things up. Characters that have been merged into the Minor characters in 24 will be removed from this template. A link will be provided to the list. This is the first step toward making a fictional section of wikipedia into an encyclopedic series, although we're going to be doing away with many minor characters within a few months, especially with the new notability guidelines.  But for now, the merge is complete. 23:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'll notice, I kept most of the information during the merge process, except for bio details and the infoboxes. Links to Wiki 24, which is a detailed 24 wikipedia, will be provided (including page histories if text is copied). Essensially, our goal is to create a succinct, comprehensive, and notable-events-only database as a general interest encyclopedia, guided by Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). I've dealt with plenty of merges in the past, so you can trust me that this is the first step in the right direction. Most of the information is excellent, it just needs some trimming. Characters so minor that they only appear in half an episode or so can be integrated into summaries. This is a ramble, I know, so if anyone is actually listening, just respond and I'll lay it out in simple english. — Deckiller 00:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Okay

message: How about just making a big villain article on the whole known Salazar family? Hector and Ramon articles are short enough anyway.--Jasonflare 03:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Salazars 

message: I'm re-instating the position of Vice-President, because at this point we're just looking into the crystal ball... something we aren't supposed to do with Wikipedia. Until the producers have mentioned it or an official press release, or the season premire has arrived, it should remain as VP as per WP:WWIN. Radagast83 04:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it'd probably be easier to discuss this on the Talk:Hal Gardner page, thanks. Radagast83 04:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hal Garner 

message: Would someone care to tell me why EVERY single article pertaining to 24, has a disclaimer saying the factual accuracy of this article is disputed.  Even the entry for this template? --T smitts 14:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put noinclude tags around the disputed template.  I have no idea why we would want that on every page.  In fact why's it on this page? Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual accuracy disputed???

message: We already have a list of minor characters article, which is great and got rid of a lot of the little characters, but this template is still too big.  I'd like to propose a couple guidelines for adding characters to this templates:
*The character must appear in more than one season of the show.
*The character must have star billing during the opening credits
*The character must have significantly impacted the events that occurred during that character's run.
I think this will help get rid of some of the smaller characters that, in the grand scheme of 24, don't really matter.   Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a fansite.  We should concentrate of having accurate, encyclopedic information, not the most information and the largest amount of fancruft. Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I resepectfully disagree with some of the criterea for being featured in in the template.  Teri Bauer, for instance, only appeared in the first season, yet few fans would consider her a minor character.  Also characters like Mike Novick, Aaron Pierce, Ryan Chappelle, and Mandy were never technically regular cast members but I would absolutely consider them significant enough to be worthy of inclusion.--T smitts 16:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This criteria would also make it impossible to have any villains/adversaries other than Nina on the template, since most didn't survive more than one season.--T smitts 16:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's precisely the idea. This template should not be a duplicate of :Category:24 (TV series) characters. Jtrost (T | C | #) 18:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I meant to say I think the template is addmittedly somewhat large but not excessively so.  I do think the Palmer kids should be merged with the minor characters article since they haven't appears in years and weren't terribly memorable.--T smitts 22:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template needs cleaned up 

message: I'm an outsider here with no stake in this template, so take this with a grain of salt...but this template is way out of control.  It is so big, it is no longer helpful or useful.  Someone should consider a sleeker template with the names of the main characters only, perhaps the names of the MAJOR villains only, and then meta links to lists of other prominent characters, other minor characters, other villains, etc.  Just a thought.Transcendentalstate 17:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrifying Template

message: The template now looks rediculous on a "normal" resolution screen. I think that when a change is wanted to be made then it should be discussed first. This is because changing the template for one section of the wikipedia users may be detremntal to other users.--Lucy-marie 11:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new template width 

message: A lot of these pages seem irrelivent. Here's who should be on there:
* Jack Bauer - obvious reasons
* David Palmer - one of the most popular and important characters on the show.
* Tony Almeida - one of the most popular characters, more episodes than anyone else.
* Michelle Dessler = Also in a ton of episodes and popular among fans.
* Chloe O'Brian - major character, to be on the main cast in 2007.
* Bill Buchanan - See above.
* Teri Bauer and Kim Bauer - important roles in Season 1, define the series.
* Nina Myers - one of the most referenced and imporant characters in 24 lore.
* Charles Logan - While a new character, clearly an interesting one that fans are going to want to know about, and is scheduled to return in 2007 sometime.
* Audrey Raines, active storyline, will likely be referenced heavly in 2007.
Those 11 characters MUST be on any 24 template, period. If anyone disagrees, state way.
Other characters that should be considered, in order of importance: Aaron Pierce, Martha Logan, Wayne Palmer, Mike Novick, Graham, Curtis Manning, Chase Edmunds, Milo Pressman, Mandy, Morris O'Brian. Some of these will become more important during Season 6.
I'm sure we all have characters that we'd like to see on there, but clearly the current one is wrong in several ways. Lets get this fixed ASAP. :-D WhoIsWillo 20:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the current characters? 

message: As I mentioned above, templates for characters in specific groups seems like a reasonable way to resovle this: one for CTU characters, one for government characters, one for villains, and one for other characters that don't quite fit into any other catergory.  I think it would work for people who don't want to see characters left out and for those who feel the template has become too large (plus it will allow it room to grow when new characters are invariably added in the upcoming season).  One person proposed the same thing and one other voiced approval when I suggested it (see above).  
Here's an idea of what I had in mind for each.  If no one objects (and gives a reasonable explanation why) in the next day or so, I'll get to work setting it in motion.--T smitts 03:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Group-specific templates

message: If we are going to keep the current template with all of the characters, the antagonists need to be added. --theDemonHog 04:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Villains 

message: It's currently almost invisible since it's wikilinked and hence blue or purple. Does someone know how to force the font to be gold ?  Cenarium Talk 02:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  24 should be in gold 

message: Sherry Palmer should be classified under "Antagonists" not under "Other characters". She was involved in the nuclear threat in Day 2. Comp25 (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sherry was definitely an antagonist in Season 2, and a colossally important one at that. And I doubt her behavior with David in Day 1, and her actions that precipitated the death of Alan Milliken and an attempted-coverup in Day 3, make her any less of an antagonist. Blue Danube (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sherry Palmer 

message: What an odd selection. Why is Kingsley on there but not Marwan or Saunders? Wasn't Victor the chief antagonist of Season 1? PenguinJockey (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That definitely needs work. I'll add some, feel free to edit away too. Blue Danube (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that merged characters should not be included or else there is an argument for including all characters in the template.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

text: But such an argument would never fly, of course, past neither you nor me. PenguinJockey and I were only considering the chief/major masterminds that were missing, certainly not all of the villains. To include them all would be patent madness, I agree! Blue Danube (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your candour, but can you provide a cast iron definition of who does and who does not go into the template so we can have something definitive to work from.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The definition I believe is safe to work from is: majorly influential masterminds with multiple appearances who had a significant impact on the plot of their season. This leaves just a handful of people who could be added to what's there now, like Bierko, Logan, and Abu Fayed (perhaps Gredenko and Graem? but I'm not adding any more personally). No throwaway terrorists, goons, guards, and the like. Thoughts? Blue Danube (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is the people currently listed is enough and Graem and Logan could be catagorised somewhere else. Gradenko is a no in my opinion as I compare him to characters such as Gaines and Ali who in my opinion do not deserve to go in the template.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good. Blue Danube (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

text: If the character doesn't have their own page, then they shouldn't be on the template. If you want the character on the template, then unmerge their page. Comp25 (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why? There is no rule that states "only characters with individual articles are allowed on the 24 template". Blue Danube (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antagonists 

message: Should we add a new catagory for the new FBI agents, or should we ammend "CTU Agents" to something like "Government Agents" or just "Agents" to include them in that catagory? J52y (talk) 07:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we add a new catagory? 

message: We should really try to be consistent with all the other templates in :Category:Drama television navigational boxes, rather than overstyling this one.  In addition, the image-based title is pretty horrible, in my opinion.  I have reverted it back to the default for further discussion.  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, I agree. Frietjes (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I absolutely 100% DISAGREE some parts of an article need to stand out co-ordinating with the TV Show I think this and the infobox should both obtain colour (ok maybe get rid of the 24 image at the top) but I think every TV show template should have the colour of the TV Show for these reasons 
*It looks much better than the standard blue-ish ugly colour.
*It is easier to get a grasp of the TV Show.
*It is easier to read.
*It is easier to get information from wikipedia is an encyclopedia which is a source of information and us as editors should supply an easy way to receive that information.
As you can probably tell from my User page I love to colour in wikipedia and think every article should have colour simply because it is easy to distinguish. 
Thank You,
JohnGormleyJG (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

text: I see no consensus here for anything other than the default. Frietjes (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template format 

message: The 24 (TV series) portal was recently deleted. I've removed the red link from the template. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to deleted portal removed