Talk:24 (TV series)/Archive 1

message: I remember FOX touting 24 as being in "real time" over the first two seasons...the third was vague, and the fourth definitely not in "real time". Although the hours were different, I always looked forward to seeing how many seconds off their clock was to mine. Maybe we should make this distinction?
Tygar 06:48, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
:The fourth season has been off a little, but not that much. The first two episodes of the season were way off due to being viewed back to back.  - I really don't think it's worth mentioning. K1Bond007 07:15, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
I remember on the earlier seasons, they always said "Events occur in real time" after they say "The follwing takes place between..."
Although I also remember the claim, none of the seasons have ever been in truly accurate "real time".  Fox has always been forced to snip seconds out here and there.  Even assuming that there were no advertisements before or after the show, a real time one-hour episode could not share a one-hour time slot with the "Previously on 24" intro and the previews for the next episode.  At best, the episode (including inter-act ads) probably has to fit within something like 55 minutes.  -- Plutor 18:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Time? 

message: I found out the link to that news article at the Baltimoresun site is invalid. It may be my problem, but please check :). I'm not a native speaker so please forgive my english.--61.149.126.170 18:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi. 

message: The season 4 section is getting very long and disorganized. I say we split it off into another article, perhaps 24 Season 4. We can leave a short summary on the main 24 article and move the rest there. Good idea? Bonus Onus
:I was going to propose this a few days ago. It's out of control. I think it'd be nice to reduce it to a small paragraph with basic information on it then move the rest to it's own page. Either 24 Season 4 or 24 Day 4. K1Bond007 02:54, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
::Remove the first paragraph (the really long one). A quarter of it describes the first 21 episodes of the season and the rest details the last three or so. Everything else stands fine, though there could be another bullet in the 'Plot' section that details the final 30 minutes of the season (Jack faking his death).
::: I agree. Bonus Onus 12:49, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
::::I really think the entire Season 4 thing is unnecessary. A couple of paragraphs outlining the plot (a series of terrorist attacks, starting with a train bombing, the kidnapping of secretary of defence, etc) would do. The entire story need not be told. - James Foster 14:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we do not need the Plot subsection under Season 4.  All we need is a synopsis of the major plot, and a listing of the major subplots, as in the sections for Seasons 1-3.  It really isn't our job to tell the whole story; that's for the fansites, and Fox's official site. — EagleOne\Talk 00:28, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
I've done some editing of the article, mostly title-changing and posting what I posted for "The Death of Jack Bauer" in the appropriate section. If I get more time, I might sit down and rewrite the whole thing, if you like. Steven Hildreth, Jr. 15:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Season 4

message: There is a link to George mason in the cast section at the top, but the george mason page is not related to 24. Is a disambig. page necessary?
Someone else should fix this as i dont really know how it should be done properly.
--Jiphex 23:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks! You're always welcome to attempt to fix it yourself, if you want. If you screw up, we can just revert it. :) - James Foster 01:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to 'George Mason' 

message: Hello. I'd like to see a reference for this:
"The story originally involved an X-Filesish conspiracy thriller type plot, with Jack's own CTU agency ordering the hit on Palmer, but that aspect was scrapped, likely due to September 11th, 2001."
Anyone got one? Thanks! - James Foster 22:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference for "[[X-Files]]ish [[conspiracy thriller]] type plot, with Jack's own CTU agency ordering the hit on Palmer", please! 

message: FACT!--B0sh 09:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about The Simpsons? Ablaze 10:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on! There is no Bauer in Simpsons. Admitadly Homer is Good, But Bauer would just kick is ass, break his back or snap his neck by running up a wall, and then get in touch with his human side and cry, and then save the USA, and then recieve no prasie and be recjected by his nation.....all the time being the hardest man alive.--B0sh 10:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhh so were not talking about the greatest show ever made or concieved? We are talking about the greatest (fictional) person ever!? Ablaze 12:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NO, the greatest show, with the greatest character.....concieved--B0sh 14:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greatest Show Ever Made Or Concieved 

message: Does anyone have the 24 number clock image for the infobox, the pic of jack is nice, but too big for the box. Plus it would space out the article if it was put further down the page? Ablaze 07:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Found one myself. Ablaze 12:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  24 Image 

message: Anyone know why this section was removed? -- Chuq 01:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Debbie didn't want anybody calling her.  TotalTommyTerror 15:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Debbie's phone" section 

message: Doesn't it seem like this article portrays Season 4 in a far more negative light relative to other seasons, it being the only one with a paragraph devoted entirely to criticism.  In my general discussions, Season 3 seems to be by far the most criticized and least-liked, and is certainly far more disjointed than Season 4
:I deleted the paragraph in question.  It offered nothing but criticism about the show and seemed to be more of someone's opinion than anything factual.  TotalTommyTerror 15:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 4 Criticism 

message: There needs to be some mention of this.  , 
:I don't think Cisco placing ads into the show is encyclopedic.  They do it with a lot of TV dramas. Jtrost 14:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cisco Systems Ad Placement Controversy 

message: I notice in the history that the Fan Phone number has been changed multiple times to multiple different numbers. Can anyone verify the actual phone number that appeared in the said episode? 
- Seandals 09:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan Phone Number 

message: In addition to the above comments on how the show couldn't be exactly real-time, did anyone else notice in the very first episode of Season 1 that the bomb on the plane seemed to suffer from James Bond syndrome? (ie. if the camera cut away and cut back, there was no correlation between the amount of time the clock had counted down and the time the camera spent looking elsewhere) Confusing Manifestation 12:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timing 

message: From the article (2.5 Future Seasons):
:"Dennis Haysbert (David Palmer), Reiko Aylesworth (Michelle Dessler), and Jude Ciccollela (Mike Novick) will all appear in at least the first episode of season 5, which implys that one of them (or possibly all three) may be killed in the episode."
Is this objective? I don't think you should be making assumptions, possibly starting rumors with a comment like that. I figured I should post about it before I edit. PhoenixAvatar2 02:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't necessarily consider The Guardian a reliable source of information.  The editors seem to be more interested in progressing their agenda than delivering the facts. Jtrost 21:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This show is about a fictional government agency that is in some respects above the law.  Don't read too much into that. Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectivity? 

message: The season 1 description really should mention that the whole thing was a revenge plot. That was the motivation behind everything that happened.
I also remember Season 1 beginning in Seoul, not Kuala Lumpur.  Anyone have access to the DVD?  Go check this. 134.114.59.41 20:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccuracy of Season 1 description

message: I have marked this article for cleanup.  Here is a list of the things that I see need improvement:
* The article is far too long for the suggested size.  This may be dealt with by downsizing some sections and moving other sections to their own articles.
* There is no proper References section for cited material
* There are several duplicate wikilinks.  Only the first occurrence of a word should be linked.
* The Overview section is far too long and contains a great deal of fancruft.  Much of this could be moved to the trivia and criticism sections.
* The season 4 synopsis contains a list that should be converted into prose
* General trivia contains many fancruft items, non notable trivia, and is far too wordy.
* Fan phone section needs to cite a source or be removed.
:The source of the fan phone is the show itself. I doubt if there are any "official" sources out there like Fox.com or Encyclopaedia Britannica that will back it up. The only places I've seen it is wikis and blogs. But that doesn't mean it's not true; it's just the kind of thing that wikipedia is good for. I think that section should stay. Kafziel 06:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the case then one of those sources need to be cited.  At the moment that section is an example of Original research. Jtrost 15:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe some of the prose is, or some details about the background information, but the number isn't. It's self-evident. The number is the cite. It's the primary source. Call it. Their voice mailbox is full right now, but it's them. I have no stake in this article - I don't think I've written anything on it - so I wouldn't care if the background info is all taken out, but the number itself is perfectly verifiable. If the article just said, "A number to the set was on TV and is circulating the web," then fine - that needs a source. But when they give you the number, you can check it for yourself. That's a cite. Not all cites have to be links to web-based articles. Kafziel 16:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If no one had any suggestions I will go ahead with the cleanup items listed above. Jtrost 18:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: It isn't made clear in the season 5 summary (paragraph 2) of who derak is.  Can someone with better writing skills than me edit in the fact that Derak is the son of "Frank Flynn's" girlfriend.  It'd make more sense than to just throw a random new name out there. --Lightdarkness 18:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I clarified the sentence a bit.  There is no evidence that Jack is dating Diane, but he did mention that she was lending him a room.  Until their relationship is further revealed, it's best to assume they are not dating. Jtrost 23:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the guy named Derek? Mattara 12:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 5: Derak 

message: The events that happened in season four obviously have a huge effect in season five. We need more infomation about it so than the season five summrary can be accurate. 
Dposse 19:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'm thinking we need to do a complete overhaul of the article, specifically the plot summaries. IMHO, we should remove all unnecessary information and essentially just do a concise overview of the season. Additionally, we should probably make a seperate article page that has a better/expanded summary of the episodes/season. See Lost (TV series) and Episodes of Lost (Season 1) as an example. K1Bond007 03:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is probably a very good idea. Dposse 03:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, the old information from each season, including the trivia, can be copied to a page for each season and have only the important plot development for each of the old seasons.  Assawyer 04:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If you people wish to do that, i will help as much as i can with the new page. Dposse 04:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I also started to write one paragraph summaries of the main plot in each 'season' heading without giving too much away. Feel free to change as necessary. Calwatch 07:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, but Fox is well known for taking clips out of context. I'd like to see evidence of an intimate relationship in the show itself before jumping to that conclusion. Based on my read they were starting to get to know each other better but it seemed like they still had more of a brother-sister relationship going on. Calwatch 06:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: more infomation for season 4

message: If the cast list has so many inactive characters. I think some should be deleted, or maybe just list the season regulars there.
I suggest that Sarah Gavin, Erin Driscoll and James Heller should be deleted from the list. Since they are not season regular actually.
:I disagree. If they were ever part of the cast, or will be part of the cast, they should be listed. Dposse 15:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about the current cast of the current season is listed on the main page, and a subpage is created for ALL former cast members. --Lightdarkness 17:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That is a good idea, Lightdarkness. Dposse 17:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems like there is already an article for a List of 24 characters, so we don't really need a subpage of old ones here, that list is a full of all major and minor characters from prevoius seasons, so I think that should sufice. --Lightdarkness 14:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast 

message: I prefer the title 24 (TV series). This seems to be the emerging consensus on WP, at least among shows that I like: Nowhere Man (TV series), House (TV series). It's the most descriptive and concise title. "Television" alone only gives the context of the article name, but "TV series" tells exactly what the name is. "TV series" is better than "TV show" because series implies a string of episodes. — Shadowhillway 00:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Jtrost 00:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Are there any objections to this? Jtrost 22:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Do it.  --Serge 22:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. Mushroom (Talk) 23:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree also --Mattara 12:05 3 Feburary 2006 GMT + 1
I moved the page.  Does anyone know if there is a both that can get rid of the double redirects? Jtrost 20:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Use WP:AWB K1Bond007 21:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I use OS X, so I can't run AWB.  Could someone else do it? Jtrost 21:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article title 

message: I've added another cleanup bullet to this article, because it's becoming clear to me that if it isn't a problem now, it will be soon: a duplicate effort is being waged to describe and list 24 seasons, and their episodes within. The article List of 24 episodes, while incomplete, has a framework incorporating all five seasons into it, and there are now also articles called 24 (season 1) and so on, which have in-depth descriptions of a given season, and it probably will end up having individual episode listings as well.
In my opinion, these articles' content should be merged (probably into the 5 season breakdown articles) as soon as practical, to avoid people duplicating the effort of describing individual episodes, air dates, etc. Skybunny 01:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've completed the merge of List of 24 episodes into the individual season pages, and removed this task from to-do. I've also added to the comment urging people not to put too much detail on the main page, that if they want to add information about individual episodes, that's the place to do it. Skybunny 19:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup bullet added: merge episode lists and summaries 

message: I assume this is a typo and that season 2 didn't come out on DVD before season 1.  I don't know the correct dates, or I'd fix it. --Proudhug 19:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the pending tasks for this article is to verify the region 4 release dates.  If you have access to those dates, please make sure Wikipedia is correct. Jtrost 20:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Region 4 DVDs 

message: I'm quite interested in doing full episode guides starting with season 1. I would write them not as episode summaries but as full episode portraits. Would that take up too much space do you think?
Mattara 19:51 1/2 2006 GMT + 1
:Not at all.  Many TV shows here have full episode guides. Jtrost 22:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might take a lot of time Mattara 12:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Episode Guides 

message: I'll start looking for screenshots on each episodes Mattara 12:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Screenshots

message: wouldn't it be a good idea to have pictures with each of the season summary pages? I mean, pictures from the season in the season summary article. It would help to make the pages look better, don't you think?
I would do it, but i'm not too clear on the copyright limitations here on Wikipedia. 
Dposse 19:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pictures for summaries 

message: I posted this item right after "technology":
Featured Weapons
-	Jack's personal handgun is a H&K USP Compact (Heckler & Koch Universal Self-loading Pistol). Jack wears Second Chance brand body armor (bulletproof vest).
and it was removed.  This is correct information with links.  I am new at Wikipedia, can someone tell me where I went wrong?
Well, I'm certain Jack has used many other handguns than the USP, and I'm pretty sure that in 7.5 years he's used more than one brand of body armor as well.  If you look closely throughout the series at Jack's guns, you'll see a wide variety of pistols.--Seven11groove 11:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions on contributing to the 24 Wiki 

message: I don't remember anything about season 1 or 2, but in 3, 4 and 5, all of the "main evil masterminds" have a British or a received pronunciation ("university/lecture british english", or whatever :p) English. 3rd has an obvious Britishman, the fourth has one too, because he lived most of his life in UK, and in the 5th, the guy who monitors everything on a big screen and uses his cell speaks BrE, too. Do 1 and 2 have the same? What are they trying to imply? --84.249.252.211 23:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are trying to find a patturn that isn't there, only the season 3 person was british. Season 1 and 2's key terrorists were in no way british, and too eairly to say much of anything about season 5's key terrorists. 210.49.90.25 12:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have you noticed? 

message: what does "In Episode 4.5" mean? Can't we put something better than that there? dposse 22:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the fifth episode in the fourth season.  This is a common way to reference episodes. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't it be S04E05?--Anthony 06:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a POV if I've ever seen one.--Anthony 16:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well "episode 4.5" sure isn't understandable to everyone.  So I would say we should either use a standard, or use "in the 5th episode of the 4th season".--Anthony 03:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  in the "fan phone" section... 

message: I hid the ratings section because it held no infomation, and because Tv ratings is something that isn't available to the public. If you find ratings for the seasons, then go ahead and unhide it.
if you have a problem with this, discuss it here.
dposse 21:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it.  There's no need to have an empty section. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: TV Ratings are available to the public and are published in major newspapers like the Los Angeles Times every week. However, they are not readily available online. Calwatch 06:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weekly ratings are available online, but having that section would cause an exhaustive list that wouldn't be very encyclopedic. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hid the ratings section. 

message: From the "24: The Movie" section:
"It should be noted that the film would be a two-hour representation of a 24-hour day, not an actual 24-hour-long film as this would be financially straining on production and impossible to show in theaters."
Is it really necessary to state precisely why the 24 film will not be twenty-four hours long? Even though this is an encyclopedia, a statement like this borders on redundancy. I propose that this sentence be removed in order to streamline the wording and flow of the section. ccromwell 20:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerning the "24" Film

message: http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6409/whoisthisok5.jpg
Does anyone know who this is? He's in the second episode of season 6.
edit: nevermind. found him
72.83.127.21 03:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is this?

message: Does anyone know how many seasons they are making (or atleast contracted to make?). Would be useful information if someone who knows can put it up.00:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Future Seasons

message: While there is a lot of emphasis in the article on the real-time nature of the show, there is little said about the almost constant suspense and non-stop action.  To me, it's not the "real-time" nature that makes it so different, it's the non-stop suspense and action.  Within minutes in the first episode of the first season, the viewer is introduce to several suspenseful issues.  And it remains so throughout.  It's relentless.  As soon as one issue is resolved, another is created.  It seems like this should be pointed out in the article; not sure where.  --Serge 04:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I copyedited the section to remove POV statements and original research. Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspense; non-stop action 

message: :Image:24tv.jpg
 
I added this image to the infobox, it's the title card for 24. It was removed by Jtrost, so I'm posting it here for discussion and group consensus. 
Here's the page before it was reverted by Jtrost: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=24_%28TV_series%29&oldid=42699437
24 has been on for five seasons now and like most shows the title card is the only constant in the series, that's why I think it's more appropriate then an image of Jack Bauer from season 5 chosen to represent an entire series with a large ensemble cast that has been on the air for five years. Most shows use a title card: ER, CSI: Miami, Law and Order, it adds semblance to Wikipedia. The picture of Jack Bauer could be added to the article where it makes more sense. HeyNow10029 04:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the 24 logo much better than the snapshot of Jack Bauer. - Bevo 17:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd go with the logo. I think we can do better than this shot though. The Fox logo is unnecessary. Maybe later I'll pop in a DVD and take a shot of it. K1Bond007 18:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree on the 24 logo and not the Kiefer picture. Jack Bauer already has his own page. This page is for the whole show and it should be the black and yellow 24 logo. tv316 18:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a consensus to me. HeyNow10029 05:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image 

message: To quote...
"Jack Bauer, David Palmer, Tony Almeida, and Secret Service Agent Aaron Pierce are the only characters to appear in all five seasons of the series."
What about Mike Novick? Does he not appear in all 5 seasons?
80.176.191.231 12:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. He wasn't in season 3. He was replaced by Palmer's brother as chief of staff. K1Bond007 22:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional 'all series' characters 

message: I created the character infoboxes, modeling them after the James Bond character infoboxes. That is why dead villains are listed as Terminated instead of Deceased. In the military, when enemy personnel are killed, they are terminated. So people need to stop changing it, it only makes them look like an ass that changes things for the sake of changing.  Simon Beavis
: So people need to stop changing it, it only makes them look like an ass that changes things for the sake of changing.
: I humbly suggest that this is not sufficient rationale not to make an edit to an article, for, among other reasons, that this is an implicit complaint about other editors.
: The counter-argument for making a character's status 'deceased' is that it is used in the case of all other character articles, such as Edgar Stiles, for consistency's sake. A person's 'alignment', in that case, is irrelevant; whether they are 'Alive' or 'deceased' is the only guiding factor, and a considerably simpler standard. Insisting on using 'terminated' on certain characters necessitates a value judgement on any character, because a 'villian' is a question of perception.
: I'm not going to revert changes you have made to character articles like Habib Marwan, but I do (personally) believe that 'Deceased' is the better and more neutral term. Skybunny 07:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess in retrospect that last statement was a bit hyperactive. But your statement [This] necessitates a value judgement on any character, because a 'villian' is a question of perception is not entirely accurate, because 24 villains are as easily identifiable as Bond villains, hence the category on the character table. The alignment of characters such as James Nathanson, Sherry Palmer, and Christopher Henderson is left up to individual perception, so they are in different categories. Simon Beavis
These are poeple, not machines.
Luke 18:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Your response clearly indicates that you did not actually READ my rationale. So to post it again:  created the character infoboxes, modeling them after the James Bond character infoboxes. That is why dead villains are listed as Terminated instead of Deceased. In the military, when enemy personnel are killed, they are terminated. It has NOTHING to do with that Schwarzenegger flick. Simon Beavis
Regardless of whether or not the military uses the term to describe enemy deaths, terminated is not the appropriate status for the infobox. The Counterterrorist Unit is NOT a branch of the United States military - it is a division of the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA and other government angencies use the term "deceased" in dealing with the deaths of all individuals, whether terrorists or agents. Anyone who has watched the show could have observed this.
Your rationale is pure stupidity. Consistency, as others have said, and accuracy are very important. Who cares if you created the infobox? You look like an ass for being so dogmatic about the "Terminated" status when it's PATENTLY OBVIOUS that deceased is the proper word. - 68.32.34.152 01:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Current Status" 

message: Would anyone object to me archiving sections on the talk page with no comments since 2005?  Just to keep things nice and tidy.  If there are no objects in a day or so, I'll go ahead and archive.  It can always be reversed :D --lightdarkness (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've archived all 2005 sections, should bring page size below 32 kilobytes. --lightdarkness (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: Maybe they're saying SenTox on the show, but I'm sure that they're saying SynTox (as in Synthetic Toxin).  It's a small problem, but I thought I should bring it up.
Syntox is the correct spelling.
Luke 19:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SenTox or SynTox? 

message: This article has too many images.  Having pictuers all the way down the side is cluttering, sloppy, and confusing. --Hetar 01:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The image of Jack driving doesn't add anything valuable.  Also the second 24 logo is redundant.  More could probably be removed, but those are the two that stuck out the most to me. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. I don't think we need any for the season synopsis. (Just for starters). K1Bond007 03:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many images 

message: I am marking this article for cleanup (again).  A couple months ago we had it in pretty good shape, however recently a lot of fancruft and other nonsense has been added.  I've been doing some general cleanup, but my edits are quickly reverted.  Here are things I think we should do to make this article looks better:
#Under the Stars in the infobox, have an anchored link to the main cast section.  This is the way a number of other TV show articles do it, and how it is done on the Wikiproject page.  This helps eliminate redundant information.
#Get rid of "recurring" under the main cast section.  Identifying a character as recurring is a POV statement since there is no objective way to identify main characters from recurring characters.
#Get rid of the header links in "24 in other media".  This causes the TOC to become very long, and each of those sections are too short to justify their own headers.
#Clean up the lead for the "Season synopses" section.  A lot of it is fancruft.  The entire lead can be shortened to a couple sentences.
#Delete the Broadcasters section.  This is simply a long list that isn't very encyclopedic.  Wikipedia is available in other languages, so let's leave it to other Wikipedia's to publish their own broadcast information.
#Let's start actually doing stuff on the to do list instead of adding things on there then letting them sit.
Remember, more is not better.  Let's start deleting unnecessary information from this article and make it encyclopedic once again. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup part 2 

message: What are other people's opinions on the separate page for Cubby, Tony's mug - linked from this article in the General trivia section.  I want to get some consensus before I protect the Cubby page as the re-direct to this page. -- Chuq 22:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cubby mug 

message: I`m not understanding why someone keep putting Carlos Bernard as a part of the ACTIVE main cast, since he is gone and isn`t a part of the cast anymore. This way we can put all past cast, since ACTIVE main cast appearently isn`t for just ACTIVE actors.--Rockdolly 10 April 2006 21:18
: Seriously... sorry guys, Tony is dead and not coming back.... It's hard to accept, yes, but it's the truth and you should stop putting him back on the active cast list. RayaruB 01:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carlos Bernard in the cast 

message: Should the game be listed in the seasons of 24 between seasons 2 and 3?  While it didn't air, one could make the argument that it is a season of 24, what with it being a new story that takes place over 24 hours.  I'm not going to change anything, or even start a vote, but I'm just wondering what other people think about this.Eric Sieck 02:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Game as Season 2.5 

message: Does any 1 agree with me on the theory that a "Main Enemy" exists on the show? I think there is a secret society or something that calls all the shots but Super Jack Bauer just keeps foiling thier plans. Disagree with me?
o.k. then answer these ?'s for me.
1)who was the man on the boat in the end of season 2.
2)how did Henderson or whoever know that Jack was still alive.
Since the show will be on for at least another 3 seasons we will see won't we. I think we should start a theory page.
: 1) The man on the boat is named Max.  See 24 (season 2) (especially the "Conspiracy Theories About Max" section) and 24: The Game for more on Max, his motivations, and his fate.  2) After stunning an reviving Jack, Henderson tells him, "I never believed you were dead."  He was simply indicating that Jack was too good and too clever to allow himself to die the way it was believed he did. -- Plutor 19:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is a short 10 minute prequel to season five where Jack meets up with Chloe and she says something about how someone had accessed files she had about Jack's faked death before she deleted them so that leads me to believe that someone Henderson or Logan knows had gotten this information. Jondy 02:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's calling the shots? 

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed
:There is a random infobox right in the middle of the article, and more importantly, the bullet pointed list of 'trivia' is not good prose - it should first of all be prose, and second, if the 'trivia' is significant enough to be mentioned, it should not be isolated into a trivia section but included in the main text.
 Worldtraveller 20:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed 

message: There's going to be a movie of 24. Shots take place in London. Someone, please, take some action and start editing lol! --nlitement [talk] 21:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  24: The Movie 

message: Apologies if this has been covered before, but Season 1 can't be in 2002 as there was no Presidential election in 2002.  Presidential elections always occur on a leap year.  2002 was not a leap year, but 2000 and 2004 are.  If we hold that "24" started post 9-11, then the first year possible would be 2004.  If we remove that constraint, it seems as if 2000 would be a more likely starting year.
:In the 24 universe, it has to be 2002, since 18 months later (in 2004), Aaron Pierce says he came into the secret service at the start of Regan's second term (1984), and Palmer says that it was nearly twenty years before. — Deckiller 18:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact, I've looked up several ongoing debates about the timeline which, in all honesty, should not even be a component in the Wikipedia article on 24, since this is a general interest encyclopedia. The most logical choice would be to remove it completely, for any claim would be pure speculation and POV anyway. — Deckiller 01:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for that?  I find it strange that the 24-Universe can have presidential primaries two years off but it's taken for granted that the term periods for Reagan and Milosevic are the same as in this universe. AEuSoes1 08:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Timeline Goof 

message: I don't think all these CTU agents merit their own articles, and I'm hesitant to return to my merge ways. I think we should use the power of the wikia to our advantage and usher people there. — Deckiller 18:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major issue

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed
:Come on... Next to no references? Tons of lists with little formatting and next to no info on the reality part of the show (production and such)? Failed.
 Staxringold 22:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed 

message: shouldnt there be some mention that 24 was initially intended to be a docu-drama illustrating the need for a well organised counter terrorist force. This was said by Joel Surnow and Robert Ccochrane on a featurette on the season 2 dvd set, where it was also mentioned that 24 was initially meant to run only for one season howver due to high ratings internationally, particularly the uk, it was brought back for subsequent seasons.  
Pat 08:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 24's initial intentions

message: I added a notice that the show's claim to portray events as occuring in real-time was abandoned after the second season. The show itself (editing and chronology) didn't change, only the claim was retracted. Any comments or corrections?
:I would think ANYONE, even some guy of the street, to know that 24 is in real-time. This isn't a clear answer, though. User:Jasonflare
::Agree with Jason. They removed that statement because it grew redundant. It still applies (although recent seasons tend to write to commercials, meaning that the long car drives are written so that they fall around the time of commercials to enhance the thrill). — Deckiller 04:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I always had the problem with this "real time" thing. Reason is that every epsode is supposed to be 1 hour but it is in fact 45 minutes (the rest is space for advertisement). Might sound silly but it kind of breaks the entire "enchant" of 24 for me -- is like its main selling point is flawed. I only saw episodes of the first season though, so I don't know if something changed on this. --Pinnecco 21:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Characters do things during commercials, as well; that's when the "boring" stuff usually occurs (car rides, etc). — Deckiller 02:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here at Spain the commercials are not so "regular" as it seems to be in the USA, so it's usual to see a whole episode without any commercial (so running for 40-45 minutes instead of 60), but on the second one --they tend to air two or three episodes on a row-- cut twice for a 15-minutes non-stop commercial run, making it last for quite more than an hour. This makes the "real-time" claim really comical. --83.45.210.145 18:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless one actually watches the show with a stop watch in hand and regularly monitoring the elapsed time since the show began, why should this matter? Asa01 22:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: A bit nitpicky, perhaps, but events don't even happen in real time.  When watching the DVDs on my computer, which has a minute/second display, discrepancies become noticable.  It's only 3-5 minutes per episode (for example, the clock saying 51:14, but only 7 minutes and 31 seconds of episode occuring before the clock ticks off the final seconds, showing that real time and 24's time do not align) Darquis 09:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real-time 

message: Hey, do you guys want to change the cast list so it looks like this (just until winter):
* Keifer Sutherland as Jack Bauer in 120 episodes
* Carlos Bernard as Tony Almeida in 95 episodes
* Dennis Haysbert as David Palmer in 80 episodes
* Elisha Cuthbert as Kim Bauer in 71 episodes
* Reiko Aylesworth as Michelle Dessler in ?65? episodes
* Mary Lynn Rajskub as Chloe O'Brian in 64 episodes
* Jude Ciccolella as Mike Novick in 51 episodes
* Kim Raver as Audrey Raines in 47 episodes
* Penny Johnson Jerald as Sherry Palmer in 47 episodes
* Roger Cross as Curtis Manning in ?? episodes
* Sarah Clarke as Nina Myers in 37 episodes
* Louis Lombardi as Edgar Stiles in 37 episodes
* James Morrison as Bill Buchanan in 33 episodes
* Gregory Itzin as Charles Logan in 32 episodes
* D.B. Woodside as Wayne Palmer in 31 episodes
* Glenn Morshower as Aaron Pierce in 29 episodes
* Xander Berkeley as George Mason in 27 episodes
* Sarah Wynter as Kate Warner in 25 episodes
--154.20.217.225 19:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the existing format is better. However, I think it would be good to include the number fo episodes each character has appeared in. I also think it would be good to add Kim Bauer to the current cast list in the article!! For some bizarre reason she isn't listed at all! -- Hux 17:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Has Glenn Morshower really been in only 29 episodes? 128.233.109.24 15:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  --Demon Hog 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast of Characters Suggestion List Change 

message: Someone needs to provide a source for saying that Preproduction has begun or that sentence will be removed. dposse 23:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preproduction source. 

message: Some parts of this Tv series. Feels strongly as propaganda.
proof: sacrifising life of goverment agent for good and well being of american people.
proof2: shoot to kill. man escaping from karantene. when shooting it the leg would be enough to stop him from leaving.
proof 3 : http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/apr2005/2424-a05.shtml
:Good practice is to cite such sources and describe it in a "reception and criticism" section, stating "24 has been described as a propoganda source by several columnists, including _____". Placing it in the lead like that violates several policies as I have previously mentioned. — Deckiller 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it yet again - propaganda is a POV word. Unless you are citing someone else as having said it, it doesn't belong. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda ? 

message: Does anyone else notice how often they use phrases like "You're out of time," "There's no time for that," "We're running out of time," etc. I understand the whole real-time aspect of the show and the fact that they always want to build suspense. But still, the number of times they say "We're out of time" is comical. This has to be a joke with the writers or something. Thoughts?
:Yeah, I think it's one of those inside jokes, like "I have a bad feeling about this" for star wars. I think it adds a bit of comedy to the show to round it out :) Perhaps if we can cite some sources, we can discuss this in the article. — Deckiller 05:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We're out of time!!! 

message: The List of broadcasters keeps getting larger and larger... is it really necessary (and encyclopedic) to include this information? There are a lot of countries with television broadcasters, and the list will steadily get larger and larger until it takes over this article. I don't think it's necessary to list each and every single broadcaster for each and every country that carries this show. Just the original broadcaster (FOX) is necessary. I don't think it's necessary to say that Global carries it in Canada, or any other country's broadcaster (I single out Canada because I'm Canadian). What do you guys think? Should be remove this section? --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the broadcasters section was a particularly huge section of the article.  Still, I've made some formatting changes (using columns and reducing text size) which may help. -- Chuq 03:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reducing text size attempts to reduce the literal percentage of article space used. I don't think it fixes the problem I have with this information not being notable enough, and whether the information takes over the article (this is not simply a formula of percentage of article size by number of lines), though if you must include the information, I'd put it in a table instead, to prevent repition of "In x_country, it airs on y_broadcaster". --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of broadcasters taking over this article 

message: I don't see it appearing in the trivia and maybe I dreamed it.
The serie premiere was originally supposed to air on 9/11/2001.
In addition, the slogan on the billboard was something like: "A day that you will never forget". 
I remembered it because it was a REALLY spine-chilling coincidence. Can anyone confirm it though?
Supalognon 12:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  24 & September 11 

message: are forums proper sources for wikipedia? dposse 23:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proper sources 

message: I created a television forum at . 24 has its own section along with all other primetime television shows. Would it be appropriate to post a link in the External Links section to the 24 area of the forum, allowing fans to go discuss this show? Same goes for other shows.
Thanks,
Mike Colucci, TV-Watercooler.com
Tv-watercooler 02:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  24-related forum 

message: I noticed on the cast lists that there is a regular cast list (which I think should just be called current cast), recurring roles, and special guest stars. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a former cast list as well, as well as edit the cast lists up now? For example, Kim Raver is under special guest stars, but she was a cast member for seasons 4 and 5. And, Jean Smart was a cast member for 5 and Gregory Itzin was a guest star for season 4 and a cast member for season 5, but both are listed as Special Guest Stars. Perhaps we could make changes to this to reflect all of their cast status over past seasons? And, hopefully that makes sense. If not, I can clarify if you want. Anakinjmt 00:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking the exact same thing.  I'll add a former cast list.  Also, I'm fixing the special guest stars list, as far as I know, neither Mandy nor James Heller have been confirmed to return. Tylerco113x 02:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast List 

message: This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright.  If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally.  Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 06:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube links 

message: Does this article really need 32 points of triva?  I feel this is a little excessive.  Is it not possible to substantially edit this list down to a more reasonable length?  Say a dozen entries?  Some points can be incorporated into the main body of the article (such as the point about the original intention of the show) while others surely can be dropped altogether.
For example is it really necessary to have a trivia entry telling us that The West Wing once made a throw away reference to 24?  Or that Denis Haysbert's character got a 21 gun salute which another of his characters once did?  How encyclopaedic are these points?.  --Stenun 09:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There shouldn't be any trivia section at all if this article wants to make GA or FA. Some points can be integrated. "I think I'll need a hacksaw". — Deckiller 15:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridiculously large Trivia section 

message: So, i think that the order should be how they were credited.  For example, in the first season, Jack Bauer comes first, then Teri, then Nina, then Kim, then Palmer.  So I think the order should be that, not when they departed from the show.
Tylerco113x 21:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former Cast List Order 

message: Jean Smart is credited as First Lady Martha Logan so I think we should keep it that way on the former cast list.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  Tylerco113x 21:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "First Lady Martha Logan" v. Martha Logan 

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