Talk:List of minor characters in 24

Split

Yes, Ira Gaines was the head terrorist for the first hours of season 1. He was a Drazen henchmen but that was not known until a little less then 12:00 noon. He needs to be put back. He played a much bigger part then say, Ahmed Amar and he managed to make it on the list. He was only in first 4 of season 6.

Ira Gaines is a major character for half of season 1, he should have his own article, like Syed Ali and Marie Warner... at this rate every character save for Jack will be turned into a minor character.--Gonzalo84 05:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I diaagree i think the He is a minor character. This is because he was effectivly a drazen henchmen who failed. I admit that for the first part of the first season he featured heavily but after thet he was killed off and had no further brearing on the rest of the season. Unlike Syed Ali who was warking alone and efectivly mastermided the nuclear bomb plot. When her was kiled his death had a bearing on the rest of the season as it would eventually lead to the cyprus recording being declared bogus. his death was the straw the caused jack to believe the recording was bogus before recieveing the phone call to confirm this. Finally marie Warner is in my opinon a minor character and should be classed as one as she was just a minor terrorist. who cropped up occasionally and only once more after the nuclear bomb exploded.--Lucy-marie 21:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Theo Stoller and Collete Stenger both need pictures.

there has been no response to the comments and no attmpt to modify it is now a new month so the split deadline has passed so result no split.--Lucy-marie 12:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Character Missing

Frank Allard redirects here, as a minor 24 character. Problem is Frank Allard is not mentioned on this page. He should probably be added, particularly if that redirect is to be kept. Bitnine 23:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, no mention is made of Brady or Mark Hauser.66.24.227.212 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If I am wrong, which correct me if I am, Collette Stenger is not here either, though her link directs her here (at least her link on the mandy page). Vreddy92 14:58, 20 May 2007 (EST)

Jacob Rossler

Please explain to me why Jacob Rossler, who was a very minor player in the Season 5 plot, did not affect any major characters in the long-term, and only appeared in one episode before being offed warrants and entry here?--T smitts 19:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

LISTEN EVERYONE

There are many minor characters, over 300 I believe that cannot all be put onto this page. I disagree with many people benig here and many others not. However, the 24 WIKI is a much more detailed page with all the characters. If you're looking for Ira Gaines or Maureen Kingsley or Marie Warner or whoever, each person has their own profile and it is much more organized that way. The editors there aren't at all like the editors at the Lost WIKI, who analyze every fricken detail and catagorize it but the 24 one is very thorough and complete. We always could use more pople editing with us there. Thank You. Julie198 17:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is getting quite long. Admittedly this is inevitable as the show continues and new characters are introduced. At some point we may have to consider splitting the article into smaller articles by season, group, or something else. (I don't think we're at that point yet though). In the meantime, there are some characters here that I maintain we really don't need here, having only appeared in one or two episodes and made very contribution to the plot in the long run. (There are exceptions to this, such as Haas and Alexander Trepkos, who appeared in only one and two episodes respectively, but whose actions affected the entire day).

Most of the ones we really don't need have been hastily added, with no picture (though some do have one), and brief, poorly-worded descriptions. If no one objects, I'm going to do a little bit of "spring cleaning" on this article in a day or two. --T smitts 05:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Zhou

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)

Mark Bishop

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)

I agree. Bishop definitley fits the Minor Character section. Order_66

Yep, agreed. Bishop should definitely go in the Minor Characters section. Chris Bulgin

Maybe we should wait until we see the finale of Season 6, he could become pretty major... I will revise this on Tuesday, but so far I agree. Vreddy92 14:58, 20 May 2007 (EST)

I concur. Just make sure to put him in the "Other characters" category, since he didn't work for the government and wasn't really an antagonist. I've recosindered this. He should be in the gov section. --T smitts 05:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC) --T smitts 14:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Massive merge proposals

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)

Approve and implement quickly.--Lucy-marie 12:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done SQL^{(Query Me!)} 12:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Split

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)

Once all of the mergers have gone thorugh. The issue can be properly looked at.--Lucy-marie 15:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Quality

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)

I am afraid that would not work as some minor character span two seasons. The best way to go about it would be Minor antagonists in 24 and minor government figures in 24 etc.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea, we must to do this before we merge others characters --Strike07 12:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strike007 (talk • contribs)

I say finish off the mergers first, to deal with one thing at a time rather than splitting pages, while trying to merge pages at the same time.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

We could split them all off by season and if a character appears in more than one season, give them entries in all of their seasons but only the first one would actually have anything and all the others would say 'See 24 (season x)_Joe_Bloggs' where 'x' is the first season they appeared in. It would definitely shorten things down. asyndeton talk 15:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

This article is currently close to unreadable, and it could quite easily be divided by order of season the character first appeared. This would resolve the current issue of the article's readability, even if it is short term, it's a good idea for now. Waiting for all the articles to be merged into one would impact on the article, I'm doing this in good faith, if you have any objections as to why this is not a good idea, please discuss it here, instead of just reversing my edits before discussion. Dividing them up into seasons, if only for the time being, is not detrimental to the article, but if you believe it is, please say so before reverting my edit. Thank you Steve Crossin (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Assad: An Antagonist-Disputed

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)

Comment- Agreed. I noticed that today. He should be in the Government and political figures section, he was at one point, before the article was merged into this one. This may be my point of view, but I'm sure that I would be backed up on this. And if not to go into the Government and political figures section, he should not be in the Antagonists section. He was formerly a terrorist, but for most part of Season Six, he was affiliated with the US Government. He does not belong in the Antagonists section. If you require citations, I will find them. Steve Crossin (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

John Keeler

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)

Abu Fayed

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)

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)

WP:OR

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)

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)

Never mind; it was all an error & Toddst1 unreverted. --Lquilter (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Something is wrong with the article "John Keeler"

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)

And what is going on with Evelyn Martin!!!??

Search Evelyn Martin right now and click on the 24 character option. What is going on with this article!!!! Is Wikipedia broken?? Is this article hacked? ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The website for the actual Evelyn Martin (24 character) is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evelyn_Martin_%2824_character%29&redirect=no

yes the parentheses are indicated by %28 and %29 but what is wrong here? searching for it doesn't work, but typing the website directly into the address bar or just clicking on this link does work????

~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• The disambiguation page linked to the Evelyn Martin redirect page. I'm not sure why it didn't redirect correctly, but I fixed it simply by changing the disambiguation page to point directly to Minor_characters_in_24#Evelyn_Martin. --Lquilter (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding?!

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)

Sadly, it will not happen. It’s a war just to keep a handful of pages unmerged because certain, self appointed Wikiguardians are determined to merge or delete every page relating to fiction that they can. --MiB-24 (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Why doesn't Jamey Farrell, the mole from season 1, have at least a section?

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)

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)

The Jamey Farrell section is located on the minor agents page.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Tag added: Article is too long

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)

• The article is also much too long because many of the character entries are much longer than can be supported by independent, reliable sources. Instead many of them include significant amounts of plot summary and original research. I cleaned up a few but more needs to be done. See also WP:FICT. --Lquilter (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Tag added: Multiple Issues

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)

• I have no problem with the seasons lay out. You can also include recurring minor characters in later seasons: Just put their name, and a "see season X" reference with an internal anchor. --Lquilter (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Tag added: Duplication (Lynne Kresge)

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)

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)

• It might be okay for licensing reasons, but it's not okay for style -- Wikia can have all kinds of original research and plot summary, and wikipedia can't. So this section is way too long. I'll edit it down. --Lquilter (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Temporary editing restriction on this subject

Please note that

“ 1) For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction. ”

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2#Temporary injunction. Thanks -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

New Proposal: Splitting of Page

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)

• It's an interesting suggestion. I will say I don't love the splitting out of "minor characters" into "adversaries", "agents", "antagonists", and so on. The recent dispute points out that this really makes no sense, when someone can be both a "government and political figure", an "agent", and an "antagonist"; Spenser Wolff, for instance, could reasonably fit into agent & antagonist, and even arguably fit into "government...figure". I've often thought that it would probably be more helpful to simply have a complete index of characters, season by season is fine, with a one-sentence description for each, and a link to the appropriate more detailed biography, whether separate page or included in a "list of minor characters" page. In theory, we could actually include several brief indexes as well on the page, so that characters who play multiple roles (agent, adversary, ally), could be listed under each of those sections, and simply alphabetically in the full list. So one way to handle this would be to have "List of characters from Season n of 24"; the list could have several mini-indexes & one-sentence character bios that link to the individual character bios. What do you think of that? --Lquilter (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Alexis Drazen, Andre Drazen, Josh Bauer, Lisa Miller (24 character), Marcus Alvers, Marilyn Bauer, Phillip Bauer, Reed Pollock and Reza Naiyeer have been suggested for merging and all of them seem pretty minor. Although I think they should be merged, the article itself (minor characters in 24) is way too long and merging them might even bring the article to a new low. There are a lot of characters on 24, most of who don't return. I think the article is better off as some sort of a list with a very, very brief description. And also I think the minor characters should be organized in bullet points instead of like === === which adds to the clutter. миражinred سَراب ٭ (speak, my child...) 16:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Great ideas, and great work. I had been thinking about the subheadings versus bullet points, too, so I'm glad you picked up on that. --Lquilter (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• To the user who cleaned up this page, I take my hat off to you. This article is now very easy to read, gives clear, concise information about the characters, a good job well done. Can I reccomend we now work on the Minor CTU Agents in 24 page? Steve Crossin (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hamri Al-Assad

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)

• I have added him to the "Government and Political figures" section. Anyone who has any objections to this, please explain why you object. Steve Crossin (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Keeler, Republican?

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)

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)

• I've found a page that mentions all this. However, I'm not going to re-add it to the article. It's really a minor detail that isn't necessary. Here's the page anyway: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008107.php
  

And, do you agree with the move of Assad to Government and Political figures? Steve Crossin (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Noah Daniels

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)

Please see here for details as to why this was merged. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 02:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what u expected to find there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.168.126 (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

ethan kanin

i suggest kanin get his own page, as he will be chief of staff in season 7 and will be a main cast member —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.168.126 (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. Season 7 hasn't even happened yet, and Kanin was not at all a character of encyclopedic note during Season 6.

How about now? He played a pretty large and important role in Season 7, and it's confirmed that he'll be returning as at least a recurring character in Season 8. Other characters, such as Tom Lennox and Martha Logan, have had roughly the same prominence as Ethan Kanin and they have their own pages. 03:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Martha Logan was nominated for an emmy, and that article is a Good article, so if you wanted to split Ethan off into an article, I'd suggest you look for real-world sources with real-world info. Otherwise, it's not worth it. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Saunders

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)

This is not the place for single season villains to have there own page. This is a general interest encyclopedia and not a TV or Fox TV or 24 specific encyclopedia. There is though a 24 specific encyclopedia which can de found here at 24 wikia

So then on that note, how come Dina Araz, Navi Araz, Andre Drazen, and Peter Kingsley all have their own pages? Comp25 (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

They just havn't been merged yet, feel free to merge the mentioned articles.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Page name change request

I think the problem here is not with Saunders' notability, but the scope of this article. Saunders was the driving force behind the entire third season, so to call him "minor" is inappropriate. Comp25 is correct about this. ...But I don't believe that Saunders deserves an entire Wikipedia article even though he wasn't minor. Not all major characters deserve a Wikipedia page. The solution to this is to give this whole article a new name.

It should be called "Recurring and minor 24 characters" or something. If we used a title like that, it could be a repository for every 24 character that deserves a mention in the Encyclopedia but not its own whole article.

If we don't change the name, however, then Saunders doesn't belong here either. Blue Danube (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and change the name. Then more articles that are not needed can be merged into here with less frivolous resistance, for example some of comments like this [1] --Lucy-marie (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Lucy I'll change the page in a few days if no one contests it. If, and when, I do, I'll go through the What Links Here area and try to update the wiki by relinking to the new page. I have added the appropriate template, so hopefully we'll get some feedback here. I'm willing to consider other name changes as well.

The page is in desperate need of restructuring. I think it's impossible to link to the subsections below Political Figures (for 1 random example, you can't redirect to Antagonists, Season 2, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong). I'd like to put the major Headings as the Seasons, and then list underneath each of them Subheadings of Political/Antag/Others. With some careful naming, we'll be able to redirect to specific seasons' subheadings. (Turns out I was dead wrong about this; those redirects do actually work.)

Also Lucy, I know you don't feel particularly persuaded by some of the opposition to your thoughts (I wouldn't either in many of these cases), but it doesn't purchase you any social capital to belittle others who express their opinions with difficulty ... just reply nicely or ignore em . Also, you have linked to The 24 Wiki before, but then in the same breath called it a place of "frivolous detail". It's kind of stinky at best to point someone in a direction, tell them they have no choice, and then say it sucks. At the moment, I have over 10,600 edits at that wiki (yes, you read that correctly, and I can prove it if desired). It's been my hobby for a year, so I'd like to ask that you please, please, consider your audience and tailor a bit more tact into the manner in which you give advice and describe other wikis. Blue Danube (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm the template I mentioned in my above post to promote this discussion was by an uninvolved editor for what seems to be bureaucratic reasons. I have asked for help in its proper restoration since I obviously could use some assistance. I have not restored the template but it should be back soon. Blue Danube (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves, and next time make some attempt to follow the procedures, and we'll all get along a lot better. Or, if this isn't your thing, just leave it to people who do like doing this sort of housework.

I'm not the one who blithely deleted your template before, and I'm not going to move your incomplete move request to the area reserved for those (as I just did another), instead I'll fix it up for you. That seems most helpful to the project. But spare a thought for those of us who undertake this work. We're all volunteers here, and doing our best. The procedures are here to help us in that.

If you think you can improve the procedures, have a go. If you don't want to do this, maybe your criticism of others who do follow them, including those who clean up after you, is not all that helpful. Andrewa (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? I already fixed it by posting a discussion there before you came here. The template was deleted because there wasn't a discussion there. I put a discussion there, and then replaced the template. Is there still something wrong? Blue Danube (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No, what you did was to again ignore the procedures and instead post an incomplete move request which had I not fixed it for you would probably have been moved to Wikipedia:Requested moves#Incomplete and contested proposals rather than actioned.

The format of the discussion area is optional. The format of the entries at WP:RM is not, and there are notices all over it asking you to use the correct template there, which you ignored. This is to save the time of the admins whose help you are requesting when you raise a move request. We're all volunteers like you. You don't have to use WP:RM, but if you choose to, please respect the structures which are there to make it work for all of us. Andrewa (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ignore it. Ignoring it is an active choice, and I tried to follow procedure by posting a template to bring the discussion to the attention of those who visit the article. Then someone comes along and deletes my effort to help foster a consensus discussion, and you know what that's like? It's like raising your hand in class, and a nun comes over and wind-up slaps your arm with a ruler. You find out later it's because you were supposed to raise your right hand, not your left. Anyway, it seems both our feelings are hurt. Apologies for not doing the right thing. I come from Wiki 24 where, compared to here, there is considerably less instruction creep since it's a smaller shop. Blue Danube (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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)

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)

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)

• Comment isn't the usual way this is done is a "List of xxx", so the proposed title should start with "List of". 70.55.89.214 (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This is not a list a list is basically names of characters who appeared in a show with links to bigger articles. This is characters who do not warrant a separate page, but it is not a list of all the characters in 24.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• • It is an enhanced list. There are many list articles where the "list" is a set of paragraph or sections with each paragraph or section being an item of the list. 70.55.200.51 (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I just checked the move log, and it seems this was once called "List of..." in the past. If the Wikipedia precedent is to start this with "List of..." then we should do that. I'm not sure why it was changed, I wasn't around at the time.

• Question: How does the list of recurring and minor characters differ from a simple list of all characters? Who is left out? Andrewa (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Good question. You've made me think of something. People like Jack, David Palmer, Tony, and Chloe O'Brian (and arguably a number of others) are notable enough to have an article of their own (those are the ones who, to answer your question, would be left out). Perhaps this should be a list of all characters, but for instances like Jack and Chloe, we simply link to their unique articles? Everyone else then gets to keep their blurb. Andrewa, Lucy, how do you feel about that? I like it even better than both the current page and the proposal I made earlier. Blue Danube (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I think that List of characters in 24 would be the best way to go, with links to main articles where appropriate. The only problem I see is that we might get some time-wasting flack from purists who like to strip anything that seems like content out of any article called a list. From that point of view, it might be easier to avoid the word list. Hmmm... Andrewa (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Oops, problem #2 there's already an excellent article at that name. I don't think merge is a good way to go, why fix what ain't bust? Hmmm again... Andrewa (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
      • THe list is just a directory to characters. Maybe this could be be an explanation and the other remain as a list. minor and recurring characters does cover all characters, with a link to the main article if necessary.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay so we stick to the original proposal: Recurring and minor characters in 24. Any character within reason can be listed there, and for the notable characters who don't get merged, we just link to their article with no description or just the barest introductory phrase. I think this is the best solution. On a different topic, I'm still going to go through with the restructuring I proposed at the same time in my 01:00, 6 Sept post. Namely, everything is listed by Days; antagonists, political, and others are then posted under the days. I can also fix every single link in this manner. Currently we can't link to any Day below the Gov't figures heading. (Turns out I was dead wrong about this; those redirects do actually work.) Blue Danube (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Much better. I think that now the page can truly reflect all of the characters which do not deserve a page.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree with this page move. This article would require a fundamental restructure, which I see, has not happened. A lot of the 24 characters have notable information that's been omitted, as a result of the merges. I feel the move should be reversed, or the page broken up into several pages, ie "Minor Antagonists in 24" so each character can have more than one or two sentences about them. Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor CTU agents in 24 -> Recurring and minor characters in 24

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)

Redemption

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)

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)

Mike Doyle

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)

redirects

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

That is one of the pages which needs it redirect sorting out since the split of the 24 agents in to a separate page.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Erin Driscoll

So her article was redirected to this article. What happened to her entry? Barkeep ^{Chat | $} 17:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

George Mason

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)

The scope of this article is for Minor characters only. This article's fundamental structure hasn't changed at all, and I think that the new name "Recurring and minor characters" would push some people to merge notable characters into here, however removing a substantial amount of encyclopedic information. Each character entry still has only about two sentences for it. That's not enough. That said, I'll make a posting on your talk page Lucy, in the spirit of trying to establish a compromise. Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 20:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The page is not exclusively for minor characters . It is for minor and recurring characters, if it was only for minor characters ten the name would not have been changed of the article. I think hat clarification of the criteria for inclusion in this article needs to be made.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely to the proposal to have a separate article on George Mason as:

At the time that those plot lines were airing, Mason DID have a major impact.He was the second character to die while being part of the main cast.George was honored with the second silent clock in the history of 24 which makes his character important in the 24-universe.

Lucy said: "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."

I strongly disagree to this as, In season 5, Christopher Henderson claims that he was framed for wrongdoing at CTU, and listed George Mason as one of the people possibly responsible, along with Nina Myers.

There are many other examples of what makes Mason significant, but those are just a few out of the many more I could come up with.

Also i would like to bring to your attention that,as a result of the alleged edit war,while the article "George Mason" redirects to the minor and recurring character page,there is no mention of him in the page.Please look into the issue.Jonathan George[jonamonu2005] (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please find reliable independent third party sources establishing notability in the real world for this character and then if that can be established the character can have a separate page. Please see Martha Logan or Michael Tritter as an example of establishing notability.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If reliable independent third party accounts cannot be found the verifiability is failed for the character. Also as for the characters impact in show that is all original research through opinion this fails No original research, without reliable secondary sources.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

please see Minor CTU agents in 24 for the information regarding this character.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

George Mason should have a separate article. --86.41.130.190 (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

References

Proposed split

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)

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)

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)

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)

I see no problem with that, I am just concerned that the scope of major characters could be too broad based and lead to too many individual articles and a disparity of information and a similar situation before te waves of mergers took place.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

I disagree with merging this article. --213.94.238.105 (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Don't split I don't agree with splitting. It has precious few references now. We should focus on adding more references. No need to split.Prapsnot (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Gavin

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)

Page move

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)

Split request tag removed

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)

Yusuf Auda - Not from an unnamed "Arab" country.

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)

Citations and sources are needed

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 ^{{{citation needed}}} to allow some time for sources to be added. N2e (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)