Jump to content

Talk:24 (TV series)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Naming

I think this should be at 24 (TV show). Isn't that how it's usually done in Wikipedia? Tuf-Kat

See at bottom of Talk:Television. --Brion 09:29 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

Network

What network carries the show in Australia?

The Seven Network

Disputed: accurate approach to technology

From the article:

The show is notable for its unusually accurate approach to technology (although many have found season 3 to be less accurate than its predecessors)

I'm not sure I agree with that. I'm a professional software engineer, and some of computer jargon they throw back and forth at CTU is laughable. If there aren't any objections within the next couple days, I'm going to remove this statement. • Benc • 13:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How accurate does a TV show need to be, to be "unusually accurate"? :-)
—wwoods 16:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Accurate enough to not make me roll my eyes when I watch it. ;-) Seriously, point taken. What's the best wording for a statement to the effect of: "24 is accurate for a TV show, but still contains many inaccuracies and artistic exaggerations"? • Benc • 18:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That section made me cringe when I read it. Defiantly needs to be changed! Adventuresofthestarkiller 06:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd also add that the mention of the Mac vs. PC debate is nonsense. In later seasons, if not Series 1, CTU are clearly using Dell servers and I'm sure some of the bad guys also use Macs.

TRobinson 13:42, 16 June 2005 (GMT)

The show uses real jargon, but the terms are used incorrectly. If you don't listen closely, it sounds good, but often the sentences don't make sense.

I agree. I think the above quote should be removed as it implies an accuracy which is simply not present. In fact 24 uses a lot more IT jargon that almost any other series and it is ridiculous that they don't have some sort of IT consultant on hand. Nobody would think about making a medical drama without a medical consultant.
Daniel Pope 22:50, 2005-09-29 (UTC)

When, in the first 'hour', Kim's parents talk about having given her a password for her email to show her they trusted her, I thought it was an 'old' series (mid nineties maybe). But it turns out it's from 2001. For that timeframe this is laughable. What about webmail at the internet cafe across the street? Keep the 'nice' mail for the account your parents can see and use the webmail for your real email. Of course, that wouldn't stop Jack (given his job), but that just makes the 'trust' bit more laughable. DirkvdM 18:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Another thing that I find strange is that they couldn't trace the cellphone (that the captive mother and daughter got hold of) when it wasn't being used. I thought that a cellphone always gives off a signal as long as it is not turned off and can thus always be traced. DirkvdM 08:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Real Time?

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)

I think it's around 2 minutes off, because they have to have the closing the commercials that can'y cut into the News after. FD2 23:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I've just started watching on BBC and I've only seen the first two episodes (the first '4 hours'). But I presume the rest is the same. The first episode lasted 1 hour 22 minutes (with introduction) and the second one 1 hour 20 minutes (without the 'previously on...'). So 1 hour is really 40 minutes, not 44 minutes as the article says. Also it's a bit strange to start with the advertising breaks and then say that if you leave those out it doesn't fit. Advertising is not part of the show and it's not normal everywhere, like on the BBC which doesn't have any but also on other public stations, which don't have any in the middle of shows (just between them). If that's where you come from then this all sounds very odd (the first time I had to 'get' this was when I read on imdb about 2 hour Star Trek episodes - for a while I thought that maybe in Europe we get to see clipped episodes or something, although that's very unusual for Dutch stations, which almost always show uncensored full versions and director's cuts and such) So I reversed the approach. DirkvdM 18:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


Hi.

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)


Removing recurring cast

I really don't see why we have the recurring characters listed on this page when we have another page, List of characters in 24 where they're all listed again. Main characters is one thing, the "Recurring cast" section should be removed. K1Bond007 01:46, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Season 4

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)
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)

I think the entire "plot" subsection of season 4 can now be removed. It's really not needed. - James Foster 00:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Calorie Mate featuring Jakku Bauaa

That must be one of the mopst blatant piece of advertisement in the hisotry of the industry.

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)

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)

Reference for "X-Filesish conspiracy thriller type plot, with Jack's own CTU agency ordering the hit on Palmer", please!

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)

Greatest Show Ever Made Or Concieved

FACT!--B0sh 09:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

What about The Simpsons? Ablaze 10:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
NO, the greatest show, with the greatest character.....concieved--B0sh 14:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

24 Image

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)

Found one myself. Ablaze 12:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

24 Wiki

Hi. There's a new Wiki for 24 and seeing the work you guys have done here, maybe you should have a go at editing some pages at the 24 Wiki.

The address is http://24.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page

You guys have done some great work here. keep it up!

Director ----> Special Agent in Charge

look at Jack's profile at the official 24 website(http://www.fox.com/24/profiles/), it states: "Former Special Agent in Charge", not Director of CTU. This includes George Mason, Jack Bauer, Tony Almeida and the others who held the position.

"Debbie's phone" section

Anyone know why this section was removed? -- Chuq 01:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks like possible vandalism. The same person changed the phone number in that section to all 5's just 5 minutes before deleting it. I think you should put it back in, if you like. - James Foster 14:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Debbie didn't want anybody calling her. TotalTommyTerror 15:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Season 4 Criticism

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)

US tv schedules

This bit needs a better explanation: "decided to implement a year-round schedule, and aired the entire season, without any hiatuses, over 19 weeks". Readers in the UK, for example, don't know what this means. Are US tv series not shown from start to finish on a weekly basis? Why not, and what is shown during hiatuses? -- Tarquin 12:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of factors in US television that can interrupt a broadcast. Season 4 of 24 was the first to be shown without any interruptions in the weekly broadcast schedule.
What had happened before was that 24 would be shown on Monday nights up until American Idol started taking over. IIRC. Then 24 (and a lot of other shows) would go off the air while broadcasts of American Idol took over. The show used to be on, like what, three nights a week I think...?
Idol isn't the only program that does it. At the end of October a lot of FOX primetime programming goes away for the World Series Baseball games. It's about 2-3 weeks of just baseball. And quite aggravating if you were getting in to a show.
Then over the holidays, viewership goes down, so the TV stations tend to just switch to lower class programming. Such as showing movies on Thanksgiving instead of the regular primetime programming. The networks tend to pick up again in January (resuming or premiering primetime programming) after the holiday downtime.
Did that clear anything up for you? I work in television so I'm a bit familiar with the "why's" and "how's" of what happens with primetime programming. If you have other questions. TotalTommyTerror 15:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you, TV scheduling in the US is crap. 134.114.59.41 20:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Cisco Systems Ad Placement Controversy

There needs to be some mention of this. [1], [2]

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)

Fan Phone Number

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)

After some searching, I found the correct number to be 310-597-3781. I have made the nessicarry change. - Seandals 09:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Timing

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)

Broadcasters

Please add that German broadcaster is RTL 2. Thank you.

Good Article Nomination

I would consider this article on 24 [TV Series] to meet Wikipedia's standard for a good article. Please help me by either agreeing or disagreeing, and stating why you chose your position.

Objectivity?

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)

p: Hi, im not familiar with editing Wikipedia-discussion-thereads, I hope it is OK if I just try to comment like this (if not, pls. redirect my comment): I'm shocked that the whole article is not taking up the very important debate about torture in 24. This is a serious threat to democracy, so taking it up is the duty of any critical media. I propose that at least the following link is taken in: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1682760,00.html It is a comment on the problem by the philosopher Zizek in the big british liberal newspaper Guardian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.59.27.214 (talk • contribs) February 2, 2006.

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)

Torture is a serious topic and only because a series made by fox issues it to push their right-wing agenda, this doesn`t mean there should be NO reference about it in this article. Torture is not normal or in any way legal so this is a heavy statement by the writers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Primzahl13 (talk • contribs) February 19, 2006.

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)

24 depicts technology relatively accurately, relative to other shows

I agree with the article statement that 24 technology depiction is more accurate than many other fictional shows, especially regarding information technology (IT). I've worked in the IT field for 30 years, and while 24 isn't perfect and takes significant dramatic license, it's the best fictional show I've seen regarding computer technology.

Beyond this, 24 is the one of best shows at presenting the collaborative, IT-centric nature of modern intelligence work. It's further more accurate since it typically depicts all CTU operatives as being computer literate, if not experts.

This contrasts sharply with other shows and movies. James Bond is essentially a computer illiterate. To Bond, Q gadgets are opaque magic boxes he understands little more than an aborigine would. On Alias, Sydney Bristow relies on tech guru Marshall for most computer stuff. How many times have you heard a character on Alias say "send me an email on that"? Essentially never. On all other "spy" shows, if IT is not directly relevant to the plot, it's simply unmentioned. In their world, servers never crash, networks never fail, there's never contention for any IT resource -- it's just magical. On other shows you'll never hear a character even say the word "software" unless it's directly pertinent to the plot.

This is bad since a large fraction of today's audience is computer literate, if not working in/with IT. This isn't 30 years ago when a few jargon words would satisfy 99% of the audience. On other shows when IT isn't realistically depicted, and especially when the main characters are uncomfortable or unfamiliar with IT, this strains believability. It's as if on a cop show the characters are unfamiliar with guns.

By contrast on 24, most characters are computer literate and comfortable in today's IT centric world. On 24 information technology is presented as a fine-grained, natural part of the work environment. It doesn't always work perfectly. There is contention for network resources.

On other shows it seems IT is alien and unfamiliar to the writers, directors, and producers. This filters through to the show characters who are likewise not totally comfortable with IT, and in show settings where IT is pure window dressing, not deeply integrated into the show. They have some fancy flat screen displays in the briefing room, and that's all.

True 24 sometimes takes such dramatic license with computer-related technology it's absurd. A notable example was the "Dobson override" in season 4, where a nuclear reactor could be remotely taken over and forced to melt down. That's idiotic, as control systems on current reactors were designed before the digital era, and are hard wired analog or electromechanical controls.

However those gaffes are infrequent relative to other shows. Looking at the big picture, I can't think of another popular fictional show that more accurately depicts technology in general, and in particular IT and the modern IT-centric workplace. Therefore the article statement about 24's technical accuracy relative to other shows seems appropriate. Joema 22:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparing the official Fox character bios of 24 to character bios from other shows illustrates 24 is much more realistic at portraying computer technology. None of the Alias characters have significant computer experience. By contrast, several of the 24 characters have extensive computer experience. That may seem like a small thing, but it shows how computer technology is foreign to the writers, directors and producers of other shows besides 24. They are computer illiterate, so their characters are also. Joema 13:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement made, "The show is notable for its approach to technology, which is more accurate than many other shows ...". Most other shows don't even cover technology, which makes them more accurate. The language used inside CTU is laughable. "Send it to my screen." "I need to update my cron tables". It's using accurate sounding terminology, but it's mostly nonsensical in the contexts in which it's used. To use the word "accurate" with respect to how 24 approaches technology is really misleading. I do agree that it does a better job of giving a rough idea of how techology might be used, but it's way too far from accurate to use that word. IMHO. --Serge 06:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


I love 24, but as a 20 year IT veteran it's almost physically painful to hear them talk about computers. They depict the ROLE computers play very accurately, but the terminology they use is nothing but a few buzzwords endlessly repeated and strung together at random. "Get me a protocol TCP partition on the data protocol array and protocol tunnel my subprocessor protocols. Protocol, protocol protocol, pro, to, col. Protocol."...yeesh.

And the absurd screen layouts with 20 transparent windows piled up...only a raging teen nerd boy would do that, not serious professionals.

Also, at work I never leave my station without locking my desktop PC. And I don't work in a security- or intelligence-related business, I'm simply a software engineer. I can't imagine someone working for CTU (or similar) would leave his station with his machine unlocked. And it happens in 24, with important plot impact (e.g. s4e3). Wouter Lievens 11:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


1.GPS does not work underground( subway etc.)
 2. There is no way to switch optical scanner to magnetic scannner

Inaccuracy of Season 1 description

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)

I think Season 1 did begin in Kuala Lumpur. Season 2 began in Seoul. Cubs Fan 03:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I just checked it and Season 1 did begin in Kuala Lumpur and Season 2 began in Seoul. tv316 13:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

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)
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)
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)
  • Main cast contains too many inactive characters. Since they are listed on a separate article, they should be removed and only the current main characters should be listed.
  • Criticism needs to cite sources or be removed.
  • External links contain far too many non notable fansites. We should limit it to one English fansite. Sites in foreign languages are not necessary because Wikipedia is available in several languages and people who speak their native language go to that Wikipedia, not the English one. See WP:EL for further information about external links.

If you have anything to add please do so. Jtrost 17:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Season 5: Derak

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)

Looks perfect 64.252.140.63! --Lightdarkness 23:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

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)
Isn't the guy named Derek? Mattara 12:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

more infomation for season 4

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)

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)
That is probably a very good idea. Dposse 03:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

The Fox website says that she is his girlfriend

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)

Cast

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

article title

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)

I agree. Jtrost 00:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Are there any objections to this? Jtrost 22:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Do it. --Serge 22:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree as well. Mushroom (Talk) 23:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
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)

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

Cleanup bullet added: merge episode lists and summaries

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)

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)


Region 4 DVDs

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)

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)

I don't know about other countrys under region 4, but in Australia, we didn't get ALL of season 4 until the 25th of January 2006, the first half was released a few months eairler, but the rest wasn't until the 25th --210.49.90.25 12:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Goofs

Is there a place for goofs/inconsistancies? I posted the following on Jan 31 2006, but it was shortly removed from the triva section.

In Episode 1.5, when David Palmer walks into his son's room the countdown clock states the time as 4:40 AM, while the bedside clock says 4:57.

anon: that might be irrelevant as if you ask any random strangers on the street for the time, I doubt you'd get the exact same answer from everybody.

Full Episode Guides

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)
It might take a lot of time Mattara 12:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots

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

pictures for summaries

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)


HEY!!!!!!!! Is anyone going to answer this?? dposse 01:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

character box

I know I'm not doing this right, still new a WikiEditing but anyways... the 24/CTU character box is only on some pages and it's poorly organized and doesn't have all the characters. ---- Helgunn

Questions on contributing to the 24 Wiki

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)

Have you noticed?

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)

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)

Graphic novel / comics

Both the IDW Publishing [3] and Titan Books [4] (the US and UK publishers respctively) point to the general page. I am chasing up some of these missing entries when, as is the case here, I haven't actually read them in the hope someone who has will get the ball rolling. (Emperor 20:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC))

OK I started the entry: 24 (comic) - hopefully someone can expand that at some point (Emperor 01:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC))

Merge?

It has been suggested the comics entry be merged with this one - I don't really see the point. That entry does need expanding but has as much potential to make a good standalone entry as sy the 24 computer game or other spinoffs. (Emperor 02:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC))

Agreed, leave it as it's own article. The 24 page is long enough as it is.
OK despite no one suggesting it was a good idea it has been "merged", although this seems to be nothing more than putting a redirect in place and none of the actual information being moved over. Equally the main entry here points to the comic entry which redirects back to the main entry. It seems like another example of messy hit and run editting. I won't revert the entry but I wanted to flag the problematic nature of the edit. If people feel the entry should be put back to its pre-"merged" days then they have my vote. (Emperor 03:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

Right - I've written up a 24: One Shot page and as such slightly edited the comics entry. What are people's views on a main page to tie the three graphic novel pages versus a simple link to each one within the subsection. Sheriff Hall 20:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

in the "fan phone" section...

what does "In Episode 4.5" mean? Can't we put something better than that there? dposse 22:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

alright, but some people might see it as "episode four and a half". dposse 00:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be S04E05?--Anthony 06:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

no. people usually don't care about the production code. dposse 20:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

It doesn't matter. As authors of an Encyclopedia, we have a duty to have our infomation understandable to everyone, not just people who understand "common ways to refrence episodes", or production codes. dposse 16:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

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)


That has already been done. ^_^ dposse 03:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I hid the ratings section.

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)

I removed it. There's no need to have an empty section. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. That's probably a good idea. dposse 21:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


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)
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)

Concerning the "24" Film

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)

Who is this?

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)

Future Seasons

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)~

Suspense; non-stop action

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)

I copyedited the section to remove POV statements and original research. Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Infobox image

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)

I like the 24 logo much better than the snapshot of Jack Bauer. - Bevo 17:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Seems like a consensus to me. HeyNow10029 05:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The logo is better. Luke 18:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)--Luke

Thank you for discussing this on the talk page. It would be a good idea to do this with every infobox image you intend to change. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Character's ages

Can someone please give a source for all of the character's ages in the infobox? I used the House Special Subcommittee Findings at CTU book for a source for one character, Kim Bauer, and Jtrost has continued to revert my changes. There is no information in the official 24 web site, nor in any official 24 canon books I have read about specific character's ages in the fifth season. (Nor are character's ages mentioned in the show's dialogue except perhaps if they are planning for a birthday.) If this is the case then we need to delete the age line in the infobox as it is unsourced and thus irrelevant. Calwatch 03:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

She's definitely (currently) in her 20s. I'd say 23 or 24. She was Sophmore in H.S. in Season 1. Add 18 months (s2), 36 months (s3), 18 months (s4), and 18 months (s5), and you'd come up with approximately 7.5 years. I turned 16 when I was a Soph so. A specific age would be speculation, but to say she's in her "20s", I don't think so. That works for me. K1Bond007 06:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
But what about the others? WHy is Sherry Palmer younger than David Palmer, if they were high school sweethearts? This is just speculation on all levels. Calwatch 07:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Then remove it. The age field is more so for movies and books (non-recurring), not really TV shows (which will obviously change - practically 8 years thus far for 24). K1Bond007 08:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I will repeat what I said on Talk:Kim Bauer. This is all speculation and original research, which is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. If all the character's ages came from this source that was dated around season 1, then all character ages should be removed. Anyway, would you consider a character's age encyclopedic? I think it falls under fancruft. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
To conclude a specific age would be speculation and original research. To conclude shes in her 20s is not. It's an easily obtained range and I could do it not just by reading the season 1 bio. I could also get it from reading her season 3 bio and because I've seen all 5 seasons, I could conclude she's in her 20s without a doubt in my mind without even reading any of these bios. Any one of us should be able to. Shes an easy one to figure out though. If you read an earlier reply of mine, the one you replied to, I said the age should be removed. My first reply was merely a response to the argument of Kim's age. K1Bond007 17:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going to comment out the infobox with the "age" listing. Leaving a blank line serves no purpose at this point. Calwatch 21:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

In Season One, Kim is going to get a drivers licence. So she either almost 16 or 17, depending on CA's age requirement in 2000.

Additional 'all series' characters

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)Notauser

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)

Max deserves a character page

Considering the additional information we have on him from the game and the significance of his role I think he deserves his own page and a place in the "Others" category in the infobox. After all, we have more information on him than James Nathanson and he has a page.

"Current Status"

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)
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)--Luke

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)

Has anyone here actually read the Five pillars? Wikipedia is committed to something called the NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW (pillar 2). In keeping with the NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW, we should have standard, consistent terms - "Deceased." By classifying a villain as "Terminated," there is no longer neutrality as it is taking the point of view of the U.S. Armed Services. While 68.32.34.152 might have a point about the CIA's use of the term, taking the point of view of the CIA is also not neutral.

The best neutral, consistent term is DECEASED. Terminated is too biased and from a U.S. MILITARY (not neutral) point of view. - Paulus89 19:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I say if anything, go with what the creators of 24 have chosen, and they clearly display "DECEASED" on the profiles. It makes sense to me to go with what they say, even if this is such a miniscule aspect. However, the whole neutrality thing kind of pushed me into this. IMO, it's not about "adapting" to either the U.S. Military or the CIA, but to choose what the creators intended it to be. Jondy 02:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"24: Conspiracy"

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the VCast-Only 24:Conspiracy put out by Fox, the 24 minute long spin off that takes place at D.C. CTU? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0449543/

Archive?

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)

I've archived all 2005 sections, should bring page size below 32 kilobytes. --lightdarkness (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

SenTox or SynTox?

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)--Luke

Although this article says SynTox, the 24 website hosted by FOX spells it as Sentox (http://www.fox.com/24/episodes/3pm.htm look under 3:20PM). Plus, Wikipedia character profiles that use the name of the nerve gas spell it as Sentox. I'm going to change it.

--Borisborf 01:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, the 24 website has it listed as Sentox, but it really doesn't sound like that on the show. Just leave it as Sentox, it seems to be official.

Other Media

The top of the article isn't the right place to link to the game, soundtrack, and mobile phone spinoff. There should be a section called "24 in other Media" that describes the game, soundtrack, mobile phone, books, graphic novels, and possible movie.

I decided to make the edits. It's still a bit ugly, but hopefully, someone could fix it. I also took the disambiguation from the top. I don't think it's warrented since it only connects to other 24-related articles which links could be found from within the article itself.

Too many images

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)

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

Lost reference?

>>Season 1 begins each episode with Kiefer Sutherland reciting this line, followed by, "on the day of the California Presidential Primary." The importance of this episode introduction can be understood below in season one's synopsis.

This is in the article and probably refers to the long intro 'This is the longest day of my life', and 'I don't know who to trust' lines in the intro that changed a few times in Season 1... but the line isn't there - so someone should probably amend that ^^ quote in the article.

Cleanup part 2

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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)

Cubby mug

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)

Carlos Bernard in the cast

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)

The Game as Season 2.5

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)

It be too hard to do that, because we now have so many other "inbetweenwquels" in the 24-Universe. Currently, we have 4 books (1 on the way), 3 comics, 2 DVD prequels, 1 video game, and potentially 1-3 movies. To mark The Game as "2.5" would cause trouble organinzing all these other stories . . .

Who's calling the shots?

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)
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)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for 24 (TV series)/Archive 1 has failed, for the following reason:

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)

24: The Movie

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)

Hold on a moment: If Shooting is supposed to start in "one year and one days time" then wouldn't the soonest for it to be released be between seasons 7 & 8 (if they happen) because one year from NOW, it will BE the Day 6-7 Hiatus, as the article right now claims it'll be released?

Major Timeline Goof

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)

I think that's farily weak reasoning there - the simple fact that there was no Presidential election in 2002 should outweigh a "nearly 20 year" reference. I simply can't believe that the "24 Universe" would suddenly move Presidential elections to the off year elections. More likely explanation is that Aaron's comment was either 1) imprecise or 2) slipped through the edting process. Fingolfen 20:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

In the past seasons the creators have said that the Election years are a bit off, which is fine to accept, since this is the 24-Universe and not real life.

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)

Major issue

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)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for 24 (TV series)/Archive 1 has failed, for the following reason:

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)

Season 5 synopses

The season 5 synopses on the main page was great and now its long an not very good. The synopses is only supposed to talk about what the season is about, not to spoil the entire thing. I suggest that we bring back the old synopses


The previous synopsis had no actual content and held many bland statements (ie "Many sacrifices were made and people were killed). It was changed to a more lengthy one and has now been shortened. The new version holds more weight and actual content related to the story.

24: The Movie error.

At the top of the page it says the movie is planned for 2008. However the headline about the Movie says "between season 6 and 7". Between season 6 and 7 is the year 2007 not 2008. Needs to be fixed?

-SmartSped

I agree. It should probably say between seasons 7 & 8 (if they do Eight Days, I mean.)

Trivia Deleted?

One of the things I love about Wikipedia is how thorough the trivia sections can grow to be. For 24, I once made a trivia edit, citing this [5] as the MacGuffin in season 4. The problem is that it (and other trivia?) got wiped out, possibly when the seasons were given their own sections. This wouldn't be a problem if it was only moved from the main article to the season 4 page, but it wasn't. While I could take some time and dig through the history to find what I wrote and restore it under season 4 trivia (and may do just that), my concern is that it would only be deleted again. I didn't consider the entry inapropriate (certainly not compared to other trivia), I wasn't trying to plug MacWorld or Wiebetech, so why was this (and other?) info deleted?

24's initial intentions

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)

Real-time

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)
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) -- Ah, and this "flaw" was very obvious to me when I saw 24 on BBC which has no advertisement during their shows. --Pinnecco 21:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Logan's reason for being involved with the terrorists

How Logan felt he was "doing the right thing" for the country was explained in one fast line that was hard to follow -- when I asked other 24 viewers to explain, they didn't quite get it either. I know it had something to do with oil and the treaty with the Russians -- but no one has been able to succinctly explain what this was all about. Seeing as how it was the major arc of the whole season, I find this a bit problematic. That said, the show was unbelievably exciting this year.

Agreed, exciting but not without flaws. See, I think Logan's problem started when Palmer came in. Palmer wasn't overambitiouus, Logan was.

Cast of Characters Suggestion List Change

Hey, do you guys want to change the cast list so it looks like this (just until winter):

--154.20.217.225 19:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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)
Has Glenn Morshower really been in only 29 episodes? 128.233.109.24 15:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. --Demon Hog 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Preproduction source.

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)

Characters in Star Trek

As a 24 fan and a Star Trek fan, I feel it necessary to point out that they have shared quite a few actors. The actor who plays Aaron Pierce also plays a bridge officer on the enterprise in "Peak Performance" (TNG 2x24). Penny Johnson Jerald plays Kassidy Yates in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine as well as sherry palmer in 24. Gregory Itzin (Logan) has been quite prolific on Star Trek, playing 5 different roles on different series. Michelle Forbes played Ensign Ro Laren on Star Trek: The Next Generation as well as Lynn on 24. I'm sure there are more commonalities that I haven't spotted, but this is extremely interesting. Surely worth being added to the page...

Weapons and Gadgets in 24

any ideas?

Microtech Hallo III.- Knife

Actually it's a H.A.L.O (High Altitude Low Opening) II OTF (Out The Front) autoknife. sources: Official 24 site at Fox Network and Wiki 24

H.al.o 3. .source Jack Bauer in one of the epizodes :) 71.99.113.164

Also I've found that the russian sub (Natalia k524, Delta IV class), introduced in day 5, ep22 4am-5am, it's an american one: the USS Topeka (ssn-754) Los Angeles class. It's based on Pearl Harbor and was comissioned on 21/10/1989 Meanwhile, there is a "Delta IV class" (NATO code name). It's the 667BDRM Delta IV class, it carries 16 non-nuclear R-29RM MIRVed missiles, Henderson calls them "Scorpion land attack missile", and said they're non-nuclear, carry multiple warheads (MIRV), but he counts 12 instead of the standard 16 payload of a D-9RM launch system. However, is does exist a russian "Scorpion" (NATO code name; USA code name: SS-N-X 24) missile. It's a surface-surface sub-lauched, non-nuclear, cruise missile (no MIRV). The Topeka obviously couldn't carry russian weapon system, it has 12 Tomahawk cruise missiles; now, as Henderson stated.

sources: USS Topeka article at Wikipedia, fas.org, wonderland.org.nz (be gentle, it's my first edit :)

Propaganda ?

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)
: feel free to improve my edit. without reverting.


This tv series is in FACT (de facto) propaganda. there is no proof needed. it is clearly visible in any single episozode!

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)

Well our good friend Laura Ingraham calls the show a referendum. "The average american out there, loves the show 24, ok. They love Jack Bauer, they love 24. In my mind that's close to a national referendum that it's ok to use tough tactics against high level Al Qaeda operatives as we're going to get"

Sprotected?

Does this page really need to be protected because of a single editor? I was reporting him for 3RR, but it looks like he's already been banned by the time I was done - in edit summary of protection, you made it sound like he was using multiple IPs, but I couldn't find any others doing the same edit. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There've been three so far: (cur) (last) 10:17, 28 July 2006 71.99.115.10 (Talk | block) (reverting war? it is propaganda, like it or not. proof in talk page.) (cur) (last) 00:02, 28 July 2006 71.99.111.52 (Talk | block) (proof in talk page. dont get me wrong, I do LOVE this tv series. but It is clear propaganda.)

— Deckiller 04:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I missed that cause of the similarity. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:00, 29 July 2006

(UTC)


doesnt have to be protected. just add. sentence about source citing this tv series as propaganda. 71.99.90.143

We're out of time!!!

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)

You could also add: "patch me/him/her through" "send it to my PDA" And finally, the "protocol" thing. I guess it goes for everything, and maybe there a dozen of them in every episode. It's like a running gag.

24 Merchandising: The DVD Board Game

Surprised no one has been talking about this. IMDB has a listing, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0784961/releaseinfo . Other sites have images of the game, http://www.dutchguard.com/24-dvd-board-game-p-tv.html. Release date varies depending on the site-- dutchguard.com appears to have the game in stock, while other places have either August or September for the release.

List of broadcasters taking over this article

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)

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)
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)

24 & September 11

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)

proper sources

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

this is about "GRAHAM"

his name is spelled "graem" (http://www.tvguide.com/News-Views/Columnists/Ask-Ausiello/), ausiello is never wrong and since he talks to the people who work on 24 for scoop i think the name should be changed

I created a television forum at [6]. 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)

Cast List

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)

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)

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)

Tony

which wang put in that Carlos Bernard would be returning as the ghost of Tony alemida. in fact i dont care who put it in just remove it

Ridiculously large Trivia section

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)

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)

Continuing beyond season 7

I found this http://www.forbes.com/digitalentertainment/2006/04/11/fox-24-kiefer-sutherland-cx_0411variety2.html on Forbes saying that production of 24 will continue until May 2009, but I'm unsure as to what I should put in as that is about all the information that is given.

Former Cast List Order

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)

"First Lady Martha Logan" v. Martha Logan

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)

Sandra palmer revereted to this page?

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)

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)

To those complaining of a lack of references

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:24_(TV_series)/Archive_1&oldid=1080494903"