Template talk:24 (TV series)

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: 24 This template is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. For how to use this banner template, see its documentation.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles This template is supported by the 24 task force.

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 October 10. The result of the discussion was "keep".

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)[reply]

I changed it to first and last. However, I think it was done because it was too long, but it still works out. I also added Mandy because I figured her story could be confusing to the casual viewer. - Puppet125 07:04 PM, 14 February 2006

Is it really necessary to list all of these characters? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 19:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just the main ones. And I like the new look, more organized.- Puppet125

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)[reply]

I like the old way better, also, I think Nina should be under CTU because she was at one time part of the staff, after all, and Marie should be a villain because...she's a bad guy.

Marie should be a villain, and so should Nina. She was convicted TWICE. She ain't a vilain?--Jasonflare 03:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! We really don't need Carrie Bendis or Harry Swinton on there, seriously, you can keep their pages up but not on the template.

Alright, we got Walsh here. Whoa, whoa. There's a 24 wiki for that. And we have Myers and Logan in two spots. While it's debatable, whereever Logan should be in Villains, Nina belongs in villians.

(Updated June 12) This is what I think it should be: 1st plot villain- Gaines, Ali, Ramon and Hector, Omar, Erwich----------2nd plot villain- Andre, Marie, Amador, Navi, Bierko----------main villain- Victor, Kingsley, Saunders, Marwan, Logan-----------final villain- Nina, Max, Rabens, Mandy, Graham----------1st plot henchman- Mandy, Wald, no one really, Kalil Hasan, Beresch-----------2nd plot henchman- Alexis, Omar, Alvers, Mitch, Collete-------------3rd plot henchman- Jovan Myovic, Ronnie Stark, no one I guess, Mandy, and for the 5th I guess you could put Henderson or else Scott Evans the pilot or Joseph Malina.- Puppet 125

I wouldn't count the Chinese as enemies, because really, I think any 1st world country would've done the same thing. User:Jasonflare

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry, can we have a different coulour?

It looks WAY WAY better then the last template. But what can we change it to, black? User:Jasonflare

Yes Black~

I'd like to say to the people who've been creating articles for one-time characters such as

]

Right now my project is to make a page for every article, so right now i am working on season 1, when i get to the characters that you have requested, I will include them in the 24 template. But for now, there is now reason y these characters are should not have there own pages. I will do these pages as fast as i can but please do not delete the new ones with minor characters because I have worked very hard on them. --jonathanSrules 14:04, 11 June 2006

We're NOT deleting them. We're taking them off the list, because really, Switon and Scott are on the list? EVEN Maureen Kingsley for crying out loud. Just include them in list of characters in 24. User:Jasonflare

I appreciate you making pages for everyone but I think we should take off the minor people, even Dan and Janet, put them on the "list of 24 characters' page and instead keep Rick but on the Others since he really wasn't bad after all and add Paul, Bob and Reza and maybe Claudia unless it gets too big. Might also wanna take off Rabens but you can keep him in the succession box.

What color should be the template? User:Jasonflare

Not the color it is now. It's an assault on the eyes. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. What was wrong with the old simple blue on white color? --T smitts 22:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the style back to the older version. The guy comes from the 24 wiki over on wikicities, and they have that style all over. Oskar 22:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just saved my eyes Oskar, though black is just an ouchy on the page. Should I suggest the simple blue one? User:Jasonflare

Sure, I just thought that gold on black was suitable since thats the show title. But hey, I've never edited a 24 article on wikipedia before yesterday, so it's you guys' call. Oskar 12:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You should talk to

List of characters in 24 is for the complete list. BTW, that template would be HUGE! Oskar 12:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

I know

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sounds good. I assume you mean

something like this? --T smitts 15:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

I think a solid solution is this:

• We have the list of 24 characters that just lists who they are (like the one we already have; this also calls for merging stuff like the politicians list).

• We then have a "list of minor 24 characters" which will be the merged mini-articles and stubs.

— Deckiller 21:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. --T smitts 04:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah I like the old way better too.- Puppet125 June 13, 10:35 PM

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

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)

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)[reply]

I just have one question. Why Diane Huxley not a 24 minor character and Gael Ortega is? Gael was very important to season 3 while Diane was only in season 5 for about 4 and a half episodes. jonathanSrules09:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you better change that, Deck. I'll be taking off Second Wave from the list, and making that more encyclopedia-like. Hardly any infomation in that article. I'll be doing the same with Silent Clock. --Jasonflare 18:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

]

Oh, it'd probably be easier to discuss this on the Talk:Hal Gardner page, thanks. Radagast83 04:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made all the characters pictures have each 200 px in each character page. Jack Bauer has 210 px because...well...he's Jack Bauer. Does anyone disagree with me? -JonathanSrules 2:13, July 10 2006 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There is no reason for the tag to be on a template page. The supposed Hal Garner controversy/tempest in a teacup (you say tomato, I say tomato) has been resolved on the mediation page. I'm removing the tag.Transcendentalstate 17:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree so we can get rid of characters like Max and Graham. They can hadly be considered big characters we don't even know there last names.--Lucy-marie 22:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why not break up the template in to smaller more managable templates such as villans of 24 and antagonists of 24 etc etc.--Lucy-marie 22:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree fully. This would mean that very few characters (save Nina) would have as much clutter in the template(s), making it much more comfortable and easy on the eyes. Radagast83 22:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I've said before, listing practically every character in the series is impracticable and unnecessary. I've went ahead and deleted every dead or no longer active character from the template. The only names that are currently in there are people who played a pivotal role during season 5 and survived. I figure we can change it with every season depending on who the main characters are. Remember, the purpose of a template isn't for it be a rehash of a category, but rather it's a list of the most relevant and noteworthy articles pertaining to a particular topic. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 12:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also urge everyone to look at Category:Television show navigational boxes. No other TV show template lists as many characters as this template does. The norm seems to be the current main cast, not every single character that was ever in the series. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 19:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are in fact some character templates close to this size or even bigger (have you seen the Seinfeld and Simpsons' templates?) Additionally some other templates have an equivalent number of non-character articles that lead to the template being almost as big. The template as it is only shows main characters who were last seen alive at the end of season five, not necessarily characters that would be likely to be most of note. (I suspect

Cheng Zhi

).

For the record I didn't mind the condensed version we had before with smaller font. Or as a compromise, we could split up the template with smaller templates for characters in a certain group (a template for CTU characters, one for government, one for terrorists, etc.) since I noticed something similar was done for Law & Order characters.--T smitts 20:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss what characters to put on the template. I don't really care which characters are on there as long as the number is reasonable. Having characters that appeared in just a few episodes or have not been on the show in a few years is ridiculous. Remember that we have a category for the characters, and two pages that list all of them. Having a template list dozens of characters is repetitive. Can we start by agreeing on a maximum number of characters that can be on the template at any one time? How about 15? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 22:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I suggested the group-specific templates (and I see others above have suggested the same thing). It keeps the size down and isn't as big a problem when new characters are invariably added in the future. What do you think? --T smitts 03:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a crude idea of what I had in mind. It has most of the major characters from CTU over the years. We could have a similar one for Presidents and staff, one for terrorists/antagonists, and one for civilians/others. What do you think? --T smitts 04:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like that. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 12:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

She is fine where she is.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Comp25 (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That definitely needs work. I'll add some, feel free to edit away too. Blue Danube (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sounds good. Blue Danube (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Conveniantly these can be listed in other for the time being. Until there is eirther notability established for these charaters to reatin a spac eand warrent re-naming the first catagory, or there are enough notable characters to warrent a seperate catagory. Until then just list in others. If there are not enough notable charaters just leave them in the others catagory.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

yes, I agree. Frietjes (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I see no consensus here for anything other than the default. Frietjes (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]