Talk:24 (TV series)/Archive 2

message: Does anyone know which model cell phone Jack Bauer uses in each season?  i'd love that to get addd to the page. Jwikipro 00:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 90% of the time he uses the Nextel I860. Stoneice02 12:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cell Phone 

message: WHY? There was no good reason to have her page redirected here, also I swear Lennox had his own page as well but now it's gone.Puppet125 16:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because it was way too early to create an article for her. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. dposse 20:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandra palmer revereted to this page?

message: I think a link to the recaps of episodes at the FOX website should be enough to satisfy that.  Check out the article on Morris O'Brian to see what I mean.--T smitts 07:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To those complaining of a lack of references

message: It says in the Background section on the Nina Myers' article that 'it is quite possible that she speaks even more languages than that,' referring to Serbian, Arabic and German. However I don't see what this is based on. Algebra Man 14;40, 9 December 2006
:Might have had something to do with the profile Nina had during season 1 on FOX's website. I didn't watch 24 during the first season, so I never checked then, and the profile now for her for seasons 1-3 is listed as classified, and also as deceased for season 3, so we can't check there. Just a guess. It's also possible they could be using the 24 books as proof. I have all 3 out so far, and I think I recall something in there about Nina speaking more languages than just English, German, and Serbian, but it's unknown at this time if the books are canon, so even if that is mentioned in the books, we still couldn't put it in. Anakinjmt 19:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is that sourced? That she had a husnabd? That was never implied in the series and if you want a more detailed profile of Nina Myers check it out at the WIKI 24. Julie198 17:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nina Myers - Languages Spoken 

message: Is it worth mentiong, that even though the episodes are meant to be an hour long, 40 minutes is the actual length of them, due to the ridiculous number and length of American ads? user:algebra man 18:20 (UTC) 12 December 2006
:I doubt it. Every show nowadays on broadcast and basic cable that's supposed to be an hour long is only about 40 minutes long due to commercials. I understand why you might put it in here, due to the real-time nature of the show, but ultimately I doubt people will be thinking each episode is ACTUALLY an hour. Only shows on HBO and such are actually an hour in length. Anakinjmt 23:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be hard to believe for someone who considers 24 good entertainment, but there is a whole world outside the USA, and in parts of that world, whether for cultural, commercial or legislative reasons, television channels follow a different format; some even broadcast TV shows with few or no commercial breaks.  See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. DES 15:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that, and I am fully aware of how 24 is broadcast outside of the US. However, policy here is to do things US way (if in doubt, TV spoilers and such, WWE spoilers, etc. is only put up after it's aired in the US), so to single out this show just because in England or wherever it airs 40 minutes straight and then does commercial makes no sense. Besides, I'm sure the people in England realize this show isn't actually an hour, and any casual reader coming in here would not assume it was actually an hour. Not to mention, the running time is listed as approximately 44 minutes. Anakinjmt 21:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of episodes 

message: Is there a 24 WikiProject?  If not, there should be.  Ninetywazup? 23:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject 

message: This article is scarily one-sided.  There is no mention whatsoever of any criticism or negative press.  In fact, the closest the article ever gets to the word "criticism" is "critical acclaim"...
A few examples of criticism in the press:
*Real Abu Ghraib Whitewash: "24" and Public Acceptance of Torture
*"24" Versus the Real World - Does torture really work? Most intelligence experts say no.
*Torture in Prime Time
*TV Lesson on Torture
*Bauer and the Ethics of Urgency
DES 16:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So be bold, and put it in. Anakinjmt 21:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One-sidedness 

message: All the articles on the various characters, organizations, etc. have no Wikipedia:Reliable sources whatsoever. These articles need to be substantiated. This is not a fan site, it is a verifiable encyclopedia. Many of these articles should be merged either into this article or into an article on characters in general. Articles without reliable sources are regularly deleted. —Centrx→talk • 22:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone went and demerged most of the characters that I had merged into a list. Because of the high amount of source material, the 24 articles have so much potential; however, cruft needs to be weeded and organization must be considered. Unfortunately, I have no time for this right now, because I have my hands full with the Final Fantasy wikiproject and work. — Deckiller 23:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can it no just be reverted? Can the person who split them out be convinced to reverse it? As it stands, these articles are completely unsourced and would be deleted at AfD; that should be sufficient incentive for whoever thought they were so important as to be in separate articles. —Centrx→talk • 02:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please clean up the character articles 

message: In Day 2, 5:00 - 6:00 pm, just after Jack has escaped from Nina, he whispers something into her ear and it seems to scare her. Does anyone know what he said, or even roughly what he is meant to have implied? Algebra man 16:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Joel Surnow says if you send him $50, he will be happy to tell you what Jack said to Nina.--66.188.205.190 03:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I once came across a fan page long ago that stated it, but alas I forgot where or what it was.  I do remember that while in the script it was one line, but during filming Kiefer whispered something else to Sarah so she gave a genuine surprised/shocked expression. -WarthogDemon 19:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If someone has the information they should expose it to everyone else, it's only fair. Whatever Jack said to Nina after the plane crash and the hostage fling would have been released by now but if someone has it please share it. Julie198 17:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I dont remember where I read this but Kiefer said something about Xander Berkely not being good enough for her and that he would be better. I'm not too sure if that is true but thats what I read. Youwishyoukowwhoiam 19:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was an actual script line, but Kiefer told Sarah that line instead, thereby causing a real surprised reaction from Sarah. I'd type this in but it's on a fanpage I can't find, which probably wouldn't be a legitimate source anyway. -WarthogDemon 02:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack & Nina 

message: I have started writing a section on p.p. but doubt if I put it in, it wil stay for very long. If I put what I have so far here, perhaps people could edit appropriately and I'll add it in soon.
Fox makes ample use of product placement in 24 in a variety of ways. The Apple logo is a distinctive sight, which can be easily noticed even when the camera is a fair distance from the computer, or computer peripheral. Screenshots are often taken at the appropriate angle, allowing a Dell logo on, for example, the power button of a monitor to be easily readable. When Chloe is at her station HP receives it’s only advertisement as her monitor has a large HP logo on the back. Algebra man 17:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If i'm not mistaken, I think it's during episode 8, 02:00 p.m. - 03:00 p.m., when Nestor Serrano's character Navi, meets Arnold Vosloo's character Marwan, the laptop in front of Marwan is a Alienware, recongnizable by it's distinctive logo. Hope it helps, when I can confirm exactly when it shows, I'll post here. Onikas 20:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Product Placement 

message: Where do you find promotional photographs and press releases?  I have a username and password at foxpressoffice.com.  --theDemonHog 02:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Press Releases 

message: The articles below are unnecesarry for English Wikipedia. These are:
* List of 24 Japan voice actors: is necesarry for Japanese pedia.
* List of 24 Korea voice actors: is necesarry for Korean pedia.
--JSH-alivetalk to mesee my worksmail to me 11:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please delete these two articles 

message: No matter what you download off of Bittorrent, the episodes have not aired yet on tv. Please, everyone, wait until after the episodes air before you include infomation about the plot. Thank you. dposse 18:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The episodes have not aired yet on TV. 

message: Is it worth making a silent clock succession box, considering how rare they are? Algebra man 21:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silent Clocks 

message: "As of the start of the 2007 season, 24 stands as the third-longest running espionage series ever produced for English-language television, surpassed in episode count only by The Avengers (161 episodes) and the original Mission: Impossible series (171 episodes)."
I've removed this as original research. If anyone can find a WP:reliable source, then add it back in. dposse 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  longest running - original research. 

message: Noticed that "Audry Raines" and "James Heller" are credited with only the current season, not past ones. RoyBatty42 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Recurring Roles needs work 

message: I think this article needs to have a section dealing with critism of the show.  For example, one could be of those who simply don't like the show, but the other could be on the show's conservative bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.81.229.178 (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keith Olbermann had a segment on his show tonight about 24. Watch if it (I suspect you might have already) or find a transcript you want to make such a section. After all, it needs to be sourced, and a nationally televised news show qualifies as a reliable source. Redxiv 02:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "conservative" bias on the show is at the very least debatable.  One could indeed argue it based on frequency of Middle Eastern terrorism and the tacit approval of torture to gain information.  However one could just as easily argue the opposite:  The show has consistently taken the position that profiling people who are Middle Eastern and/or Muslim is wrong and does more harm than good.  Also, twice the show has had villains conspiring to provoke American military action abroad for the sake of oil.  In the most recent example, a presumed-Republican president was complicit in the conspiracy.  --T smitts 05:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't know. I don't actually watch the show. However, the criticism is out there. If properly sourced and NPOV (ie no endorsement or denouncement of the criticisms), I think a criticism section would be valid. Redxiv 08:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the Criticism section lacks valididty because of extreme bias. Olberman is obviously a member of the Left, and the note about criticism based on views on Muslims is just crap. Why? Because at one point, Sutherland broke character and delivered a message to the audience saying that most American Muslims were just like the rest of us, NOT terrorists. --Gaming King 21:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter whether you think the criticism Olbermann made is accurate. What matters is whether it's notable. I would say that criticism by a well-known commentator on national television is inherently notable. If the criticism is inaccurate...it's still notable. Redxiv 05:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need of Critism section 

message: Did Curtis get a silent clock? Algebra man 19:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, Yes. --lightdarkness (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he didn't. --T smitts 05:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There wasn't a clock straight after his death anyway. Trebor 13:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah so obviously it wasn't silent. Wish he did though, Tony too. Julie198 17:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incredible.. As if this thread's title wasn't spoiler enough, I scroll down to complain and see another huge one (Tony's death).. I mean, I could be wrong, but I don't think I have to watch an entire season to contribute to my favorite show's talk page.. Can't people be a little more careful about spoilers? As a sugestion, why don't you just change the title to "Curtis silent clock", and ad a big spoiler warning, since it would even be more informative? Onikas 20:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know there has been a discussion about removing spoiler tags altogether from everywhere since this is an encyclopedia. If you come here to get info on Romeo and Juliet you will read that they died, so if you read 24 info here or discuss 24 info on a talk page, you should expect that people will talk about information from spoilers to 2 seasons ago. Gdo01 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of it having been discussed, we should go by the standards that ARE and not that WILL BE. I'm perfectly aware of this being an encyclopedia, but it still breaks some standards by displaying a huge amount of pop culture, something that is not common. The spoiler tags are a good thing, regardless of this being a encyclopedia or not, because they allow people to access Wikipedia without fear of it ruining their fun. I'm really having trouble understanding how can a spoiler tag be damaging to the encyclopedia criteria. So assuming that it's an encyclopedia and it shouldn't have spoiler tags, i'm supposed to just avoid it altogether? That indeed wouldn't make sense at all, being the huge source of information Wikipedia is. Onikas 19:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 6 spoilers ahead - Curtis' Silent Clock 

message: The article includes the claim, "Jude Ciccolella, who played Mike Novick, appeared in 58 episodes through seasons 1, 2, 4 and 5, the seventh most appearances of any character."  At least twice, I have requested a source to back up this claim, but people keep removing the request without filling it.  Without a source, this is original research and should not be included in the article.  --ΨΦorg 06:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 58 episode number comes from imdb. --Jehfes 08:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does the "seventh most appearances" come from?  --ΨΦorg 09:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What should we be citing?  There is an episode count here.  --thedemonhog 19:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If you look on the main imdb page for 24, the cast is automatically listed in descending order of the number of episodes they appear in.  Novick is the seventh one down. --Jehfes 05:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting source for Jude Ciccolella claim 

message: This seems to be too far from NPOV, so I re-worded it a bit to make it neutral.  [Somebody beat me to the punch; never mind.] Samer 16:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keith Olbermann 

message: How come the page for CTU redirects here? I think it merits an article of its own. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.48.109.122 (talk • contribs).
:It was redirected to this page with no explanation, vote, or discussion. See here  Gdo01 02:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake there is an explanation . Still there should have been a discussion at the least. Gdo01 02:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CTU 

message: Do we really need to brag about how the dvd was prematurely leaked and available on bt? 
Zero day warez, can anyone think of a dvd or software package that didn't end up as a zero day warez? --75.24.196.144 04:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "bragging"; it's making a note of an incident which was reported in the news.  --ΨΦorg 19:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's clearly notable, and it would probably be unencyclopaedic to leave it out. After all, it even caused them to release the DVD early. GrubLord 09:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 6 dvd 

message: I was out of the country and missed taping them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.189.167.200 (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can I see the first two days episodes.  

message: Can I have opinions on how much information should be included in these? At present, they read more like short teasers than anything else. Since we have the spoiler template, I would be inclined to write them much more straightforwardly, without worrying about giving away identities of moles, plot twists, etc. Being too vague makes it sound unencyclopaedic in my opinion. But I would like to hear others' views before making any attempt to rewrite. Thanks. Trebor 19:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season synopses 

message: I dont know what's happened but now all the info boxes say  in the black bar beneath the character piture - I dont remember what went here before. Im not sure how to chang them back but it needs to be done soon. Algebra man 20:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorted. Someone had edited (vandalised?) the infobox to say Graham. Trebor 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info boxes 

message: "The criticism by Olbermann followed 24's January 15 broadcast, in which a small nuclear weapon is detonated in Valencia, California by a terrorist group.[17]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_%28TV_series%29#Criticism)
I think it really should be a spoiler advice here. Please correct this if possible. Thank you.
:Is there any relevance to including the plot of the episode in that sentence? I'm not sure there is, in which case it could be removed and just left with "followed 24's January 15 broadcast". Trebor 12:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there is a spoiler in the article then there should be a spoiler warning. Same on all the profiles. 84.129.95.75 17:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler in Criticism 

message: I don't know if this page is the place for it, but I have recently discovered a secret mission for 24 viewers which can be accessed on the site http://www.ctuagent.com. I can't see anything about it on this page and I have all the info to hand, just not the time to add it to the page in pristine condition. If I had some help, I'd be happy to post the info here then someone could put it into good WIKI markup and put it in the article. Any takers? Bobnotts 17:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret mission 

message: Every page concerning 24 has irritating grammar and syntax/punctuation errors.  Even the first paragraph of 24's main page has two unnecessary commas.  I have gone through and edited a very few number of pages, but I am currently not allowed to edit the main page.    Hattness 07:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll be able to when your account is four days old. Commas are often a matter of personal style anyway; some people prefer to use more than others. Trebor 11:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar, Correct Punctuation 

message: This may be a pedantic point to raise, but BitTorrent is not actually a P2P network. It is a data transmission protocol which is in every way decentralised, and the illusion of a BitTorrent 'network' stems simply from the fact that there are numerous BitTorrent trackers apparently designed for illegally distributed content which have grown to massive proportions. Naming BitTorrent as the "P2P Network" that leaked 24 contributes to the view that BitTorrent is a mechanism for wrongdoing or some sort of piracy network, when it is simply an efficient way to stream data that is being exploited for piracy. I would like to alter the attribution in this article to name the actual infringers and avoid needless libel, but I'm not sure what tracker site actually distributed the series first. If no-one objects too severely, could someone better informed please make the change? GrubLord 08:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you say that when the BitTorrent article you linked to calls it a P2P network? From the first sentence of the BitTorrent article: "BitTorrent is a peer-to-peer (P2P) file distribution protocol, and a free software implementation of that protocol."  Can you verify that BitTorrent is not a P2P program? Do you have a source that says that BitTorrent isn't a P2P program? If you do, that means that not only would be have to reword this article, but then completely rewrite the BitTorrent article. dposse 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BitTorrent Attribution Issue 

message: ... is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24 season 6 episodes. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24 season 6 episodes|24 season six]] 

message: Well, most of this is minor, but I figured I'd bring it up for discussion anyways.  I've noticed inconsistencies between the time and episode title formats used throughout these articles and will be fixing to consolidate them.  Per the MOS, times should be in the a.m. format, and episode titles marked in quotation marks.  The Fox website currently lists all episodes in the format "12:00 AM - 1:00 AM".  Given that some of the episodes titles marked now have quotes and others don't, some use "to" and others use "-", some include a space or don't between the time and "AM" or hyphen, they should be made consistent.  At the moment, I figure the above mentioned format is appropriate for standardization, but if there's some reason this should be otherwise, please feel free to mention it. Bitnine 23:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidating episode titles/times 

message: According to WP:MOS, succession boxes should not be used for fictional articles. I'm opening this up for discussion but I think its pretty clear that the guideline is clear in not allowing these. Gdo01 03:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession boxes 

message: After two weeks and no discussion regarding the merge of Counter Terrorist Unit into this article, CTU has been redirected here. If somebody would like to take the lead on this merge, the full CTU article can be found in this version. auburnpilot talk 18:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and added two paragraphs to this article. Both are nothing more than a copy/paste job from CTU's article. Probably needs to be cut down or reworded, but something was needed with the redirect. auburnpilot talk 20:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like the article implies that CTU is a real organization and that it is dramatized in the show (but is not fictional)... should this be fixed? ABA 19:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how we could make the fact that it is fictional any more explicit. The first sentence of the CTU section is: "The Counter Terrorist Unit (CTU) is a fictional United States counter-terrorist agency." You are of course welcome to try; be bold and all. auburnpilot talk 20:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CTU redirect

message: The main aim was to combine the section on torture in "elements", with the section on torture in "criticisms", which made it also seem logical to try and combine the two sections dealing with the Heritage Foundation event together. As the central conceit and USP of the series the real time nature of the show deserves greater prominence and the remaining "elements" section has been moved to the front of the article. Similarly "cameo appearances" seems to better belong to the cast section of the article than in "other media". The fan phone isn't really a spin off of the show and has been given a trivia section of its own.
Although there is a seperate article, as the main protaganist of the show, there really should be a short section on Jack Bauer, his history, character and motivations etc. Koonan the almost civilised 12:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructuring

message: Why is there a death count for each episode? Personally, I think it is a bit gimmicky and very unnecessary - as most of the deaths are of characters we never even meet, as well as inconsistent since we don't have it for ther seasons. I don't think this kind of thing belongs on wikipedia - a fan site such as 24 wikia would be more appropriate - and that we should delete them all. Anyone agree? Algebra man 20:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you there, there isn't even an accurate count on the WIKI but that info should be on a fan site anyway. I also think it's unnecessary and so many people are killed anyway it's not possible to get the accurate count.  Julie198 17:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 6 - Death Count 

message: :Category:24 (TV series) cast members is currently down for being d. There seems to be quite a complete cast list here already. Should anything be added from the category, or a subpage created with a complete cast list? Angus McLellan  (Talk) 14:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:24 (TV series) cast members

message: Opening para says: "Five seasons of 24 have been produced, and the sixth began airing on 14 January 2007."  This appears to be contradictory: if the sixth season hasn't yet been produced, how can it be airing already?  Should this read along the lines "Sixth seasons of 24 have been produced, the most recent of which began airing on 14 January 2007."  Or am I missing something here (in which case, can this be made clear where this sentence appears in the article)?  Sroc 12:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sixth season has been produced 

message: There's a "starring" section in the infobox that appears to only list the current season's cast. I know the box would become rather large, but I was thinking that the box might do better to list the stars from every season, otherwise implying spoilers that certain characters are gone from the show. Any thoughts on that? 74.102.223.160 05:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starring? 

message: Based on the above comments, I have marked the section as original research.  There is no evidence whatsoever that the on-screen clock is supposed to make viewers think of a 24 hour clock.  This is purely an assumption by the editor, based on a particular editor's viewpoint.  Robert A.West (Talk) 03:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the section should be temporarily removed and 'worked up' in the talk pages?  It can be re-added later (or not) when more footnotes are available and join the 'to do' list? GeorgeRob 12:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: As you've probably noticed, this article is quite long. What do you think about moving the tables under "Cast" to the "Characters in 24" article? It would cut down a lot on size and would be a good fit in that article. Stoneice02 12:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of article 

message: Someone should add one of those "Current event"/"information may change" warnings to the section on the sixth season, since every week the plot changes. --Lophoole 17:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag 

message: I believe it goes Domestic, Division, and then District. In Episode 2x24, Division Director Ryan Chappelle calls the District Director "sir" and I hardly think he'd say that to a subordinate. Steven Hildreth, Jr. 14:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To emphasize: Wikipedia has no room for "beliefs", just verifiable facts supported by citations from reliable sources. There is no room for a "hierarchy" without a links or a book citation showing the chain of command (and interpreting whatever was aired in the context of the program is original research, a definite no-no in Wikipedia). B.Wind 18:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CTU Hierarchy 

message: Has there ever been a case in the show where they've tortured a suspect who turned out to be innocent? It might be worth mentioning if so. I can't recall any such times (though I've only watched four and a half seasons). It always seems that they get the right man, making torture A-OK. 220.235.150.37 11:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In season four Paul Raines and David (?) Heller are tortured; neither were terrorists, although they were withholding relevant information.  In season five Audrey Raines is tortured because a known terrorist named her as a contact, she was innocent.
I think you mean Richard Heller. Algebra man 08:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Has there ever been a case in the show where they've tortured a suspect who turned out to be innocent? We had a case in the current season (Season 6): Nadia Yassir. B.Wind 18:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the topic of "Criticism - Torture" 

message: This is a pretty good show.  I do believe I give it two thumbs up and five stars.
:I agree, I'm just glad we don't look too much into it like those weirdos at LOST Wiki, they analyze every little detail and catagorize it, a bit creepy don't you think? I mean, unless you have nothing to do and are a nerd people don't normally lok into the fact that, "OMG they had 4 children and 4 is one of the Numbers OMG! im gonna have a heart attack if I don't edit that page!" I'm glad we aren't like that even though Lost is a good show even if they jump the shark every other minute. 84.129.95.75 17:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the topic of "Goodness" 

message: Currently Kim Raver/Audrey Raines is listed under "Former Regular Cast" and "Season 6 Special Guest Stars".
According to imdb.com, she will be in every single episode of this season starting with 10pm-11pm.  Given her regular cast status in previous seasons, doesn't that make her part of the regular cast again? --Serge 00:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  First of all IMDB is never a reliable source.  Second, there are many characters who have appeared in every episode or many episodes of a season and aren't main cast members.  Wayne Palmer appeared in every episode of season 3 and he was just a guest star.  Until we see next week, we can't put her in the main cast category.  According to Wiki24 she is a special guest star.  Tylerco113x 04:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe they don't want to give the plot awayTvoz |talk 04:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kim Raver/Audrey Raines status 

message: Why is there a section on bias, no other TV show has a section on a "bias", Battlestar Galactica, for example, has no section on bias, 
The West Wing has no section on bias, both of which have a pretty clear liberal bias. My point is a TV show is a work of fiction, it may or may not reflect the views of the writers, however it is not a news program or documentary, it is people exercising their right to free speech.
It should be noted that the most recent season has more apparent liberal bias than conservative, the supposed persecution of muslims, for example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.104.114.202 (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason there is a bias section is because there was an uproar. Its not like we are saying it has a bias, we are just reporting that prominent people have said so. No prominent person other than bloggers have called Battlestar Galactica or West Wing biased. Gdo01 16:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd have to agree, there have been some specific moments which caused uproar and controversy, as opposed to the West Wing which simply had a general feeling of bias with no specific complaints. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hardy24 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Bias? 

message: This seems to be a section which has only just been created, and frankly it needs a lot of work, it's overly long and contains more plot details than the season recaps. I'd suggest heavily editing it down to the barebones because it it's current state it's hard to edit and i doubt it enlightens anyone on the subject. --Hardy24 13:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, i've significally edited down to make much more sense and to be easier to edit and add to in the future. Also added a better description of the idea of "cross season story lines" at the beginning. 
---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hardy24 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I did considerably more work to edit them down.  I added bullet points to make them easier to read and understand. --TARDIS 22:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've removed or edited three small things in this section. It was never stated that Kim and Chase were married, they both simply left CTU ro further pursue there relationship. Jack did not kill Nina in the same room that Nina killed Teri, it was simply a similar room. Kim returned for two episodes in season 5, not one. --Hardy24 19:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My oversight...  thanks for that. :-) --TARDIS 20:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross Season Story lines 

message: OK first of all I do accept that I shouldn't have removed so much info without consultation. However if you look further up this page you will see a section about Season 6 death counts in which I tried to discuss it but only one person replied and I wasn't going to wait forever. OK now my reasons for removing the death counts. 
1) They are vague. Many of them say things such as "More than 254" - 7:00AM-8:00AM (24 season 6). Several of them have unconfirmed deaths, 4:00PM-5:00PM (24 season 6) which in my mind accounts to speculation and rumours. Since we don't have exact numbers what is the point in putting them there?
2)The characters who died are mainly non-entities 7:00PM-8:00PM (24 season 6). Do we really need to list every bad guy that Jack has killed or every security guard that has heroically lost his life in the line of duty? The answer is no and I will point you to WP:NOT#IINFO where you will see that Wikipedia is not "an indiscriminate collection of information" which I feel a death count is. As I said above this stuff belongs on a fan site. And if a specific character is killed and is important enough to have their death mentioned, e.g. Curtis, it will be mentioned somewhere in the plot summary.
3)They provide us with no real information. How exactly is the storyline drastically affected if 47 people in the Chicago Hotel are killed? Again I refer you to WP:NOT#IINFO.
4)It is inconsistent. Do we have death counts for the other series? Once more the answer is no. Why should Season 6 be any different. For that matter do we have death counts for other TV programs? Out of the ones I read on Wikipedia I can again answer no. Why should 24 be different?
As for the trivia, the stuff I got rid of was in my opinion pointless as in one episode for example, there were 2 rather long trivia points not about the episode but giving an indepth discussion of the 25th ammendment - I'll admit most of the remainder wasn't as bad but so what if Jack's father had business in Venezuela before Chavez? Or if the code for the bomb is 624 which could possibly stand for Day 6 of 24 (again I remind you of speculation)? For most of this stuff I will once again cite WP:NOT#IINFO.
I await your opinions on this. Algebra man 11:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: look, 24 is totally different show, I don't know if you even watched it before. And these death count, trivia and plot summary are for just to inform people regarding the episode during the airing of the show. Once the show is over (until May), they will be removed. That the way they do every season. I don't understand why you are bringing this up now. Chris 20:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on the deathcount, although perhaps a link to a fansite that does hold such a list could be added to the links at the bottom - surely nothing wrong with pointing people in the right direction if they are seeking such information.
On the trivia, I think perhaps this not as straight forward, certainly there is reason to always be concerned with length, anything which unduly adds length to the article, without adding much value should be flagged up and be reconsidered. But many TV show articles do indeed contain trivia sections, and it's simply a good way to include information of note, but which could make the main article rather dense with too much information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hardy24 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I, for one, actually glanced at the death count first before deciding to read the synopsis or not. Arent sure if this is a valid reason to keep them thou! ;)--Huaiwei 14:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Death Count and Trivia 

message: Hi, i found that the old CTU page off and only a small blip in the main 24 artical about it. I don't like this because it takes alot of the history and such from CTU, which I find important to people who may want to know a bit more about it. i saw the archive of the old CTU page and feel that it should be put back up and updated. just wondering if anyone here agreed with me. Thanks, Tyler G (I'm a noob so don't bite me.) Tyler Gothier 01:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CTU Redirect 

message: Although the article is due for breaking into smaller articles, I'll leave that to others to decide how to do that.  However, there were so many categories in this article, they seemed scattered to me... in that they were just added to previous categories with no thought of organization... just a concern for thoroughness.  Not a bad reason, but it needed to be reorganized into broader overall categories.  So, with that in mind, I did so.  All Other Media is organized in the same section, which includes DVD releases.  Ratings is a broadcast-related item, not necessarily a critical reaction, so it went underneath the new Broadcasting information category.  And Controversy is a reaction, both critical and viewer, so it is now organized under Critical Reaction, as is Parodies and Interaction with viewers, which makes more logical sense (at least to me) under that category.  I made no changes whatsoever to the content... things were moved simply done to make the article more organized.  I'm interested in hearing everyone's feedback on this.  Thanks!--TARDIS 03:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally agree with the restructing that has been done. Although I'm still unsure why the Trivia section was scraped at it's contents either deleted or moved elsewhere. And yes the article is getting very long and needs certain sections breaking off. I'd suggest the "in other media" section as one possible candidate for a new article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hardy24 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yea, it is a bit long, we almost need a 24 Portal. Tyler Gothier 00:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Trivia sections are generally discouraged as being unencylopedic, and I've noticed that more and more articles are being tagged for this.  Makes sense... if information is significant, it should be included within the article somewhere where it's more appropriate.  A list of random and moderately interesting facts is not reason enough to include.--TARDIS 00:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, if thats the general consensus, though given the subject matter I'd have thought that the unencylopedic nature of a "trivia" section could be overlooked as long as it's actual contents were true and well sourced. --Hardy24 11:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article reorganization

message: The cast list section is stupid complex. I'm not quite sure how we got here, but it's overly complex and long. I mean, do we really need two seperate charts to seperate "special guest stars" and "guest stars", my vote would be to merge those two charts. 
But i'd appreciate opinions and other ideas. Maybe restructing that section will be easier after the current season has finished? --Hardy24 20:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Recurring cast should be combined together, like any other series.  The difference between "Special Guest Star" and "Regular Old Boring Guest Star" status is interesting to 24 diehards, but as far as television goes, recurring cast is recurring cast, regardless of what title card is used (which is determined by contractual obligations and nothing more).  I think the boxes should be combined... then if you want to mark differences between "Special" and "Guest", use asterisks and make notations below.--TARDIS 23:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Great, could someone do that then, i'm still a bit of novice at editing wikipedia and i'd probably end up making a complete mess of it. --Hardy24 20:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this move, but I will say that we need to keep the former main cast list up, because those actors helped make the show what it is, even though they aren't on it anymore. Tylerco113x 03:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone would consider getting rid of the former main cast list. Another thing though, what do people think about moving the series of cast photos, so they start along side the list of current regular cast? --Hardy24 10:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Okay, it's done. :-)--TARDIS 22:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhual Cast List Section 

message: Per WP:FICT guidelines for minor concepts, etc. I won't do it myself, it would probably be better if one of the editors of this article merged it. Croxley 01:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure it would be wise, the main article is already at a stupid length, to add in another section about something which most readers of this article could probably care less about. At most it's probably worth one line, maybe two on the issue, somewhere in the articles discussion of torture in the show. But then thats just my opinion, if there's a vast wave of people the other way then fine. --Hardy24 09:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind if nothing is added to this article, I was going to just redirect that page to this one, but I thought I should mention a merge here in case any editors wanted to keep any information on Hyoscine-pentothal. If this is uncontroversial then I'll go ahead and make it a redirect, with no merging needed. Croxley 02:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hyoscine-pentothal]] should be merged here 

message: I think the this page should be deleted since we know *nothing* about it - as per teh first sentence and common sense-, except that it will involve Jack Bauer and it will follow season 7 - I actually think it is pushing it to have the season 7 page since it is so premature but I'm willing to let that slide. What does everybody think? Algebra man 18:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but the season 7 page should stay because Season 6 is almost over.Tyler Gothier 21:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Season 8 is definitely premature, but Season 7 has already been greenlighted by Fox, so it's a sure thing that the show is coming back next year. --TARDIS 22:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the season 8 article is premature.  Redirect to 24 (season 7) or 24 (TV series)? -- Chuq (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What season 7 page are you talking about because I can't seem to find one.Youwishyoukowwhoiam 19:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Both the Season 7 and Season 8 pages are redirects to the main article as there won't be anything substantive (and sourced by reliable sources) for awhile. The redirects maintain availability until it's time to put in significant details (besides "Jack/Kiefer and Chloe/Mary Lynn will be back"). B.Wind 18:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 8 page 

message: 1:00AM-2:00AM (24 season 6) needs some immediate tending to as it seems that it has been vandalised. I would do it but I haven't seen it - so I 'm desoerate to read it! A quick fix would be much appreciated! Algebra man 18:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think it's been vandalised?, it looks fine to me. --Hardy24 11:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1:00AM-2:00AM (24 season 6) 

message: It's a section buried below the "bias" and "torture" sections. 
It seems really oddly worded, and I believe it should simply be placed as a paragraph in the main critical and audience reaction section. I don't think it warrants an entire subsection. Though it's defintely worth mentioning and it appears well enough sourced. --Hardy24 13:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what sense is it NPOV? Too many weasel words as quality is subjective. B.Wind 18:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd argue it's not point of view because there have been a number of online news reports on it, and it's even gotten to the point where several Executive Producers have responded publicly to admit that series 6 hasn't been up to there standards and to try and explain why, and that they've learnt from these mistakes, and that they'll be making significant changes to the show next year. --Hardy24 09:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  allegations of decline in storytelling quality 

message: I see that's what is now in place of the cast list in the main summary box in the top right. Surely the current regular cast list isn't to long to be here. Anyone know why it was changed? --Hardy24 13:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  starring... see below 

message: Okay... pet peeve time.  Look, we all like Glenn.  He's plays a Secret Service agent really well, and in interviews, he comes off as a really swell guy.  But he is not, I repeat NOT, a member of the main cast AND NEVER HAS BEEN.  Yet, someone keeps wanting to add the fact that he's made an appearance in all six seasons to the section on the main cast.  Yes, he has made an appearance in all six seasons.  Yes, that's moderately interesting.  No, that information doesn't belong in the paragraph about the main cast, because, I don't know, Glenn IS NOT PART OF THE MAIN CAST.  He's a bit player, a really nice bit player that we all have fond feelings for, but a bit player, nonetheless.  Sorry to shout, but this is really annoying me.   I originally had Glenn in the Recurring Cast section with an asterisk and a note pointing out that he has made an appearance in all six seasons.  I dunno why it was removed, but that info does not belong in the paragraph on the main cast.  Sigh... rant over.--TARDIS 00:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, this might just be me, but the fact that Glenn Morshower is the only actor apart from Kiefer to make an appearance in every season is worth a quick mention in the cast paragraph, but i'm willing to go with whatever the consensus on the issue is. --Hardy24 21:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Glenn Morshower keeps rising from the grave

message: Seeing as we're between seasons I figured that there is no such thing as a former cast and current cast, its all the same.  Once season 7 is announced we can put it back the way it was, but for now leave it all as one.
And will people stop putting up who died in the cast table??  Its totally unnecessary information and we don't need it.  If they want to find out who died they can click on the characters.
Tylerco113x 04:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revamped Cast Section 

message: Please.  ITs not necessary, and its a spoiler that someone might not want.
Tylerco113x 23:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop indicating who died in the cast list!!! 

message: The Doctor Who episode '42' was a nod towards 24.  Should this be added to the parody section in the Critism page?
137.205.230.17 17:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor Who Parody 

message: The article lists CTU as being part of the Department of Defense. The 24 book series clearly states that the unit is part of the CIA, and would be the only canonical link offered thus far. Nostalgicmonkey 08:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOD vs. CIA 

message: I feel that this article needs some serious tending to asap. As you can see it doesn't actually discuss the individual seasons in the slightest. I'm not sure if that is what is meant by 'this article does not conform with writing about trivia' but I feel it is being ignored as people believe that saying there is a problem is just as good as fixing it and, as it's central to the 24 universe, it needs to be put on the radar again. Algebra man 10:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jack Bauer]] 

message: This is beginning to irritate me and I want to see what others think. I know that there is speculation about whether or not he died. However the same is true of Tony's death and we label him as deceased so I feel we should do the same for Philip and not put him as "unknown" or "assumed deceased" or "possibly escaped" as the first two are vague and the last is speculative. Algebra man 14:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True - unless you actually see their heads cut off, or at least see them in a casket, you never know on tv. Look at Lost. I'd agree with this change. Tvoz |talk 14:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philip Bauer's death 

message: On cturookie.com there is a webisoide launched that showcases what happened before Day 1. Is anyone planning on making a article for it?
:List_of_Other_Media_for_24_%28TV_series%29#Online_media. there. ThuranX 00:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made an article here Day Zero (24) --Ncusa367 23:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  24 Day 0 

message: The show's fifth season featured the President of the United States performing terrorist acts, which is impossible because a President never has and never will perform terrorist acts of any kind. Ever. 
The last episode of the fifth season also features hero Jack Bauer getting his ass kicked by a bunch of Chinese guys. Jack Bauer getting beat up by Chinese? Pfft... that's not very realistic. 
The fact that he wasn't sleeping, eating or pissing/shitting during the show brought up controversy because it was "unrealistic". People, we're talking about Jack Bauer, he's an American Hero, it IS REALISTIC...GET WITH THE PROGRAM! Londo06 21:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Who is this Ethel person? It seems as if she is meant to be Teri Bauer's sister and she appears on the Jack Bauer and the Kim Bauer page? Is it vandalism? Algebra man 14:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the 24 wiki (http://24.wikia.com/wiki/Ethel), she is briefly mentioned in the first series as an Aunt which Kim tries to contact when she cannot get in touch with either her Mum or Dad. Though I don't think it ever mentions in the show if she is Jack's or Teri's relative, so it looks like someones taken an education guess and decided she was Teri's sister. Hope this helps. --Hardy24 15:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethel? 

message: Why does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_24_episodes redirect to the main article, is this an oversight or was there a reason behind it? --Hardy24 15:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List_of_24_episodes 

message: Many or all of the existing individual episode pages for this series appear to fail the notability guidelines for television episodes, and have been tagged accordingly.  These articles can be improved through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. Overly long plot summaries should be edited, to a maximum length of approximately ten words per minute of screen time. Trivia should be integrated into the body of the article, or removed if it is not directly relevant. Quotes and images should only be used as part of a critical analysis of the episode. You might also consider merging any notable information onto the show's "List of episodes" or season pages.  Otherwise, when these pages come up for review in fourteen days, they may be redirected, merged or deleted. If you want any help or further information, then come to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage.   Thanks. TTN 17:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These will be redirected fairly soon. The season articles are already up, so there should be little disagreement. TTN 19:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode notability

message: The individual episode articles for this series are now being reviewed according to episode notability guidelines.  Please contribute to the discussion on Talk:24 (season 1)#24 episode review (season 1). Thanks. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  episode review for season one articles 

message: What is the meaning of the word "ironically" in this context?
 Ironically, Mike Novick was involved with [the 25th Amendment] being invoked in both the 2nd and 4th seasons.
: It doesn't add anything to the sentence, it's just someones writing style I guess. Removing the "ironically" if you feel the need. --Hardy24 21:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's like rain on your wedding day. 209.180.36.94 21:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There should be a special wikipedia flag for misuse of words like "ironically" 

message: Ive heard that anytime a person dies on 24 the clock ticks but is silent. On the last episode of last season Jack Baur stands on the cliff looking out and the show ends with a silent clock. Also rumor has it that Tony will be returning because when he died the clock made sound. After all of this people believe that Jack will die and Tony will replace him. But how can this be with a 24 movie coming out that Kiefer Sutherland has already signed for. How wierd would that be if he was in the movie but dead on the show. Please help with this dilema. Hammerkid14 13:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is really the place for this, but i'll help you out anyway. The silent clock is not really as black and white as, "if someones dies the clock is silent", in most cases when there is a notable death the clock ticks and there is silence on the sound track. But in other cases it has been known for the ticking clock noise to be silent but for some else to replace it. So at the end of series two when an attempt was made on David Palmer's life, the clock noise was replaced by that of a heartbeat and heavy breathing. In Series 3 when Jack killed Ryan Chappelle, it was replaced by a ambient background noise from the trainyard where the last scene took place. At the end of Series 6 the noise of waves crashing against the rocks below Jack can be heard instead of the clock noise. It's not at all clear what the producers meant by this. In all likelihood it's simply meant to draw a line under the previous 6 years so that they would be seen as one whole, and that season 7 was a fresh start.--Hardy24 15:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Silent Count  

message: See . Should this be mentioned in the article? JoshuaZ 03:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next year's season will be "green" 

message: The information in the infoboxes is getting out of hand; character affiliations are cluttering up the infobox -Nina Myers has seven, just as an example- characters such as Tony Almeida and Charles Logan are constantly having their status' changed - not unfairly in my mind - and other characters have a ridiculous amount of jobs named - Erin Driscoll seven. Infoboxes are meant to be succinct and convey the most important information concisely; at the moment many of them are a true mess. I suggest slimming them down via removing the messy sections - e.g. affiliations -, the unnecessary sections - jobs held - and anything else that would help the problem. asyndeton 16:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Affiliations, the way I see it, should be kept strictly to organizations. As Asyndeton has mentioned with Nina Myers, things like "Unknown Enemy Season 3" and "Max (unofficial)" are somewhat unnecessary and messy. It might be easier to just say she is affiliated with terrorist organizations that we know the names of, and then simply label the rest as something like: "Various terrorist groups/organizations." -WarthogDemon 20:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The information is too detailed for an infobox and clutters it up. Information like 'jobs held' can be described in the articles. -Bardiak 23:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it would be best to limit the affiliations to organizations, not individuals. mirageinred 00:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK it seems that we are in agreement about jobs held, being removed, which I will see to. Affiliations is still a problem, one I also suggest removing, but that will take more debate. I didn't make my case for removing current status clear; we have some characters listed as 'ailve' and others as 'civilian'. The two do not describe similar situations; the first describes a person's health, the second a person's employment with relation to the state. If we do keep it, I suggest imposing some boundaries on what 'status' can refer to. asyndeton 22:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character infoboxes 

message: "Nonetheless, 24 has become part of American popular culture and has been the subject of numerous parodies. It also got a parody on the anime Lucky Star."
Is this noteworthy enough to be included? 24 is a popular show that has been parodied in media all over the world. Why single out one obscure anime?--Citizen Sykes 18:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parody 

message: There are plenty of sources now that Season 7 will feature a revamp of the shows format, with the main location not neccesarily being L.A., and or things we've come to expect as certainities not being so any more. Should the opening remarks contain mention of this?, even if it was it general terms. Opinions? --Hardy24 16:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that so far it's hearsay, and the fact that we don't know the extent of the revamps, I think we should wait until the new season starts. -Bardiak 23:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 7 Re-vamp 

message: An addition by me about the commercial breaks was removed without any comment, so I put it back. Maybe this requires some clarification. In western Europe (can't speak for other parts of the world) public stations don't have commercial breaks during shows (and the BBC doesn't have any at all). So the real time effect doesn't work. And commercial stations all have their own schemes of where to insert commercial breaks and how long they are, so the effect may not work there either, unless they adapt their scheme. Which they often don't do in the Netherlands. I thought I wrote that clearly enough. Or was it in some way not intelligible? Surely, it's relevant, because it is about an important aspect of how the show works. I can easily understand any confusion because I was also for a long time confused by those 'blackouts' during US shows on Dutch tv. The BBC often makes nice transitions, but the simpler solution is to let the screen go black for a second and then restart. Because this often happens during a 'cliff hanger', I thought that maybe it was meant to 'break the tension' or something. :) Only when we got commercial tv in the Netherlands in the nineties did I finally understand the real reason. DirkvdM 10:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it is particularly relevant, the "real time" aspect of the show is more about the events we see on screen happening in real time, not in the amount of time between acts of the show.  As the viewer doesn't really have any sense of what time passes between acts (surely nobody sits there and works it out?) then the phrase real time is more relevant to the show action, not to the lulls (commercial breaks) in between.  I am also not sure if your addition is written particularly well, it is a little clumsy.Mmm commentaries 23:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Mmm commentaries. I gave up on trying to follow the series with annoying advertising breaks, bought all seasons on DVD and happily watch with no adverts and no breaks. The real-time aspect relates to the story, not the precise elapsed time of the episode. Also, anyone watching any episode is unlikely to be watching at the exact fictional time anyway. You do not have to watch 13:00-14:00 at that time of day for the episode to work or be effective. Like all drama the viewer knows it is fiction and suspends disbelief. Asa01 20:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd think to make a point like that clear you really would have to go into a lot of detail, and since this article is full to bursting I don't think it would be an efficient use of space. I think a quick note (one sentence) that "events occur in real time" only when adverts are taken into account would be sufficient. --Hardy24 15:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, no.  Events of the show do occur in real time, irregardless of commercial breaks, pauses for trips to the lavatory, and the week long pauses between the hours.  The real time aspect has always been about the on screen action, not the commercial breaks. Mmm commentaries 00:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real time 

message: Character affiliations are getting out of hand - Nina Myers being just one example -  and I would like to remove them on the basis that they are subjective and do not belong in the infobox, which is meant to be succinct and for 'at a glance' information'. Unless I meet with opposition by 21:00 (UTC) today, I shall purge them all. asyndeton 09:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affiliations 

message: The template at the bottom of the page is outright terrible and needs to be changed or removed. It makes Jack sound like a secondary character at best and puts him on an equal footing with Bill, whose impact on the show has been much less. It suggests that nobodies like Ethan Kanin, who may as well not exist, and people who haven't even appeared in the show yet are more important and it gives the impression that characters such as David Palmer, Nina Myers and Michelle Dessler are minor characters, inferior to the likes of Kanin. If something doesn't happen soon, I'm removing it. asyndeton 18:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  24 Template 

message: Ok, Why does Larry Moss redirect here (to 24)?
Thought he was a voice actor.Mace Windu 00:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larry Moss 

message: It says something to the effect of "season 5 had the highest body count, including tony, but oh yeah hes actually alive now"
What it should say is "season 5 by far had the highest body count with X deaths (tony almeda actually did not die)" if we still believe this to be true, or "season 5 had X deaths (tony almeda actually did not die)" if we think one less death lessens the extent of season 5's body count.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.121.158 (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  since tony's alive, this article shouldn't say he was killed in season 5

message: I thought this was common knowledge, but I will ask this nicely in case it is not. PLEASE advertise spoilers for the upcoming seasons. Some of us may want to see sneak previews of the next season's cast and plot, but I know that I am one of the many who would like to go in fresh without any knowledge. I mean, I don't even watch the "next week on 24" commercials during the week. Thank you.
-- J.K.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.170.158.46 (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it is quite foolish to come to this page. asyndeton 22:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please advertise spoilers!!! 

message: yeah. have a look at the article and someone who knows more about the show please edit the guest star section. Thanks Philbuck222 11:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sutherland a guest star? 

message: Cast and crew of 24 were in Washington, D.C. this weekend, filming in Georgetown.  I asked them if I could get photos for Wikipedia, and they said no. :(  Though, I was able to observe (from the nearest street corner) and get some photos, including of Kiefer Sutherland.  These are posted on Flickr, and would be happy to upload any of these here, if they would be of use.  Just let me know which ones. --Aude (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  24 filming in DC 

message: Recent vandalism now requires that you have a registered Wikipedia account to edit the page, effective until December 6th, 2007 (UTC).
If there are any repeat offenses from unregistered users after the lock is lifted, I will be forced to put a on a longer lock, or if necessary, a permanent lock (will last 1 year or longer) from unregistered users.
Thank you.
Mr Congeniality (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um...just putting the tag in does NOT lock the article, as an unregistered user was able to edit the page after you put on the tag. Only admins can lock articles. If you want, you can request the page be protected. Anakinjmt 14:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Vandalism