Talk:24 (TV series)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

contradiction

this sentance makes no sense to me 24 is known for making major changes to its main cast every season—the sole exception being Kiefer Sutherland, who is the only main cast member to star in all seven seasons to date. Glenn Morshower, who plays Aaron Pierce has also starred in all seven seasons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.49.44 (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Radio 1 Interview

Keifer was interviewed on Radio 1 this morning, and BBC Newsbeat posted an article - I have worked some of this into the article as he talked about a movie and how success in the UK was important to them -86.162.169.214 (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Season 8 filming schedule

The article states - "The eighth season of 24 will begin shooting in April 2009 and will air in January 2010." Is this still correct or was this the schedule before the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike? Anthony Rushton (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It now says that Season 8 will start shooting in May 2009, and has a reference which was updated less than a month ago, so it's definitely up-to-date. Julianhall (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Put Redemption in the cast list?

• Where it says who the main cast is and shows the seasons they're in, should we put "R" or something to indicate the character was in it? I know it wouldn't apply to very many characters, but it seems like it would be a good idea to me. 75.42.92.73 (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Animation as a main image?

Is it really a good idea to have an animation as a main image? It's sort of...odd. I think it will show a black image on browsers that do not support animation (some mobiles, possibly?) 86.158.91.210 (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Would somebody please remove the animated gif, it is truly annoying and goes against the style of wikipedia. 173.23.201.218 (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Seconded Fenrisulfr talk 07:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the animation with a picture I found on commons, but I'm not sure it's the best option. I didn't have time to look through all the past edits to see how it used to be but I seem to remember there beeing another image before. I do think it's a lot better now that it was though. That animation has no place in the article imo. it doesnt add any useful information to the atricle, it is distracting and it just doesn't look right. Fenrisulfr talk 10:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The picture you replaced it with was terrible, no offense intended. I took one frame out of the animation, cropped it to widescreen, and put that up. -Zeus-^u|c 15:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

t-mobile episodes??

in the other media section it claims any spisode can be viewed on a t-mobile phone, I work for t-mobile and have heard nothing about this and can not find a way to watch them. Can someone please confirm this or delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.90.69 (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Film location Germany

The link says nothing about Germany, the location talked about is London, UK. Where does the mistake come from or are there any other sources concerning Germany? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.212.7.138 (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Chris Diamantopoulos

I can find no evidence to support him 'starring' in 24. EDIT: Ah, he is confirmed for season 8. Still, a little misleading seeing as though he has not 'starred' in 24 yet. Jumping the gun much?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.81.96 (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Still way too much original research and interpretation here

Wikipedia policies are quite clear: if it's not reported in reliable sources, it doesn't belong here... and there's quite a bit (at least one third of the text) that doesn't belong here. Start with the "status" columns - how can one tell if if Season One character is alive or dead as of the time frame of Season Seven, for example? 207.244.179.110 (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Longevity of broadcast

"24 is the second longest-running espionage series in television history, behind the original Mission: Impossible series by number of episodes and The Avengers by longevity of broadcast." The Avengers ran from 1961-1969. 24 has run from 2001-2009. How has The Avengers run for longer? SignorSimon (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

24 had no 2007-2008 season. It will take both records during the presumed airing of season eight (2009-2010). -Zeus-^u|c 15:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Overview

• http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Steve_Crossin/Sandbox9
• http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:24/S

— Ched :  ?  03:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

checking refs 11 - 24

• [12] [1] - need better ref, it's a wiki
• [21] dead link

will reformat refs, starting with 11 — Ched :  ?  03:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Table of Characters

Why was the table of the characters completely removed? The characters that are now listed, only a handful of which in 24 of the main characters belong. The information about the cast are pretty small.--78.52.173.69 (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we please agree on what should happen with the characters section as there's been back and forth editing like crazy. The way it is currently is, is not helpful at all, as it just has select characters. The table is perfectly fine and is actually helpful, as is lists all main cast members past and present, with all related information - which season they starred in, guest starred in, episode count, status. I would revert and put the table back, but I know that would just get reverted. So, can we please agree on the table is the best method for that section, yes?

Also, unrelated to this issue, but why does it state "24 was originally broadcast in real time..." in the opening section? It's worded like the series is over, or that the show is no longer in real-time or something. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The list of all the characters is at List of characters in 24, so it doesn't need to be duplicated here. I've asked for advice from expert article writers, and their suggestion was to cut the cast list down to main characters only, and flesh out details about them. I've been meaning to flesh out the main cast more, so it resembles something like the cast section at House (TV series), which happens to be a featured article. I've been meaning to do this, but I haven't been able to recently, due to a lack of time. I will get around to it though. Please don't continue to reinstate the full cast list onto this page. It does not belong here, it belongs at List of characters in 24. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you're still in the process of adding the table back, but "Recurring Characters" should probably state "Previous main cast members" or something of the like, as they were all apart of the main cast, and not just recurring guest stars. With that, the "Main Cast" section should then only include current main cast members. I'd be glad to help, I'm just not sure what exact changes you're planning to make. Drovethrughosts (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added the table back, for the time being, as a compromise, for now. I think it's best for the "main cast" to list the really "main" cast in the series, that is, characters who were major for multiple seasons, or who had a large impact on the series, and who we can write a fair bit about. This would push the article's quality up. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The thing with only listing certain main cast members is that there will always been varying opinions. Like, I think Sherry, Nina, and Mason should be added as they played big roles in the early seasons. Plus, the "Main cast" section lists previous cast members, whose are now dead (Palmer, Michelle, Bill). I still like the table as its a great source of various information about the characters. But, maybe a better idea is to have it in paragraph form. I'll use The Wire (no idea if you're a fan) as an example, as its another show with lots of different characters that had changes season to season. The character section there is quite lengthy, simply do the high amount of characters. But, I think that would be a great way to go with the character section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drovethrughosts (talk • contribs) 00:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

===Notable guest stars===

24 features a large number of guest characters in every season. Below are the guest stars who have made the most guest appearances during the first seven seasons.

^† - status of character as of last mention or appearance in a televised episode
* = Attached to star/in production.

What is by this Table???--78.52.173.152 (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

CTU characters

Isn't there somewhere we could put a table of CTU directors as well as a table of US Presidents during 24? After 8 seasons and many changes, I find it hard to follow and remember the chronology of past CTU Directors and staff. I don't think this would be unreasonable. Rather than a List of 24 characters organized in a long list by season, could we start an article of CTU staff? I also find the whole characters area unsatisfactory --Mezaco (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A possible idea is to add another field to the table titled "Role", in which a short description could be listed for all the main characters. Such as, CTU Director, CTU Field Agent, President of the United States, Chief of Staff, etc. Then the duration of that role could be put in brackets, so for David Palmer it would look like: United States Senator (Season 1); President of the United States (Season 2-3). Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Books, edits

Why don't we mske a small not very detailed section, on the 24 page. --Pedro thy master (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, however the topic of 24 is very large, so we have included a small section on other 24 media, like books, in the article, with a link to s more detailed article, if readers want to know more. Wikipedia generally summarizes a topic in the topics main article, like 24, with links to more detailed articles. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So i must delete the video game, sction.--Pedro thy master (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Already done, I'm afraid. I realise you are eager to help, but maybe it would help if someone, like myself, showed you the basics of editing Wikipedia. I was a lot like you when I started editing, and I was adopted. Thanks to their help, I became a much better editor. I talked to Ched and he recommended you accept my offer, but I'll let you two discuss that. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Torture

Should we put a section of how they torture in 24. ? --Pedro thy master (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

24: day zero

would it be a good idea to make a Day Zero artical. -- 02:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Renominate

Should we renominate this artical. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the last?

What does this sentence mean? "It may also be the last season of the show" There's no information. I knew that already without any real knowledge of the series. Each and every seasion may be the last, as each and every episode may be the last one. I would expect something like "This season is intended to be the last one by the producers." or "FOX stated that they are considering cancellation." Although even these are too vague for me. 84.0.117.147 (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Info on cover art and "spoiler" in Distribution section

The paragraph on cover art of Region 1 DVDs vs Region 2 & 4 states that the split-screen style with selected cast members resulted in a spoiler for people who didn't know about "the special guest star" - and then it gives the name. Isn't that in itself a spoiler for people who maybe never watched the series and came to Wikipedia to read what it's all about? I would recommend deleting the name or marking the section a "spoiler". Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.151.94.219 (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler template is not used anymore on Wikipedia, at least not as far as I know. Anakinjmt (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Broadcast time format

Can someone translate 'January 18 at 8/7c' in the Season 8 section into something more generally meaningful? I figure this probably means something like 8pm Eastern/7pm Central timezones, but that's a guess - I'm quite sure this is not a suitable format for an encyclopedia. Although I suppose the whole section needs a re-write now it's premiered, and indeed it reads as rumours and speculation which again is hardly encyclopedic. Bertcocaine (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Genre

I am pretty sure the show is science fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.170.14.14 (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? Where's your proof? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that 24 fits the genre of Science fiction at all. Format (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Is death of a character a spolier?

In the Real-time_presentation section of the article, a recent edit added information about the death of a main character. Is this piece of information vital enough to the article to warrant adding a "spoiler"? GoingBatty (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the bit about the most recent one being Renee, as the article is meant to look at the series as a whole, not "in the moment". We could list all the instances of the silent clock, but that might be excessive. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Number of episodes

In this article, this infobox states there have been 192 articles. Later on, it states that Sutherland has been in 185. Did he really not appear in seven episodes, or is someone miscounting? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's because 192 is the total number of episodes that the series will have after its end, and 185 is his current episode count. While character count is being updated after each episode, the episode count in the infobox is simply being left alone as there will be 192 episodes when the series is over. Drovethrughosts (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Number of dead

Having watched the show on its air dates from first episode to last (the first time that's ever happened with me and a TV series), I wonder if we could find a source for how many onscreen deaths there were in the total series, mainly because I want to know. It seemed like after the first season there were at least a dozen in each episode, sometimes twice this many (I know the article once had a figure on which episode had the most at that point, and it was close to thirty). A conservative estimate would be at least a thousand diegetic deaths (not counting, of course, the mass-casualty events which often happened in the background), which is probably a record for any TV series (I mean, it wore you down as a long-term viewer, to say nothing of Jack ... it made total sense that he would flip out when Renee died). Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The 24 Wikia has a comprehensive list of all the deaths on 24. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but is this a record? 13,627 counts all the mass-casualty incidents, too. What's the diegetic count? Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Amount of time passed in the 24 universe

Has anybody done the math? It's kind of incredible to think about. 14.34 years in 8 seasons and a special. I guess it's fine that it's never addressed by the show. Don't know if it's worth mentioning in the article. Freddicus (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Cast List in Infobox

So, as we now know this will be the final season, I think it's a good time to put every starring cast member in the infobox. Here's a preview of what it would look like, it's long, but it's what it should be. I'm not sure what could be removed from the infobox to cut it down a bit, maybe the related shows section? Anyway, here it is. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

24 24 intertitle Genre Action Thriller Created by Joel Surnow Robert Cochran Starring Kiefer Sutherland Other cast Leslie Hope Sarah Clarke Elisha Cuthbert Dennis Haysbert Sarah Wynter Xander Berkeley Penny Johnson Jerald Carlos Bernard Reiko Aylesworth James Badge Dale Kim Raver Alberta Watson William Devane Lana Parrilla Roger Cross Mary Lynn Rajskub Gregory Itzin James Morrison Louis Lombardi Jean Smart DB Woodside Peter MacNicol Jayne Atkinson Carlo Rota Eric Balfour Marisol Nichols Regina King Cherry Jones Annie Wersching Colm Feore Bob Gunton Jeffrey Nordling Rhys Coiro Janeane Garofalo Anil Kapoor Mykelti Williamson Katee Sackhoff Chris Diamantopoulos John Boyd Freddie Prinze Jr. Country of origin United States Original language English No. of seasons 8 No. of episodes 192 + 24: Redemption (list of episodes) Production Executive producers Joel Surnow Robert Cochran Brian Grazer Tony Krantz Howard Gordon Evan Katz Kiefer Sutherland Jon Cassar Manny Coto David Fury Brannon Braga Alex Gansa Brad Turner Production locations Los Angeles Washington, D.C. New York City Running time 42 minutes Original release Network Fox Release November 6, 2001 (2001-11-06) – May 24, 2010 (2010-05-24) Related 24: Conspiracy The Rookie

--YOU SHOULD TRY SOMETHING LIKE SMALL SCRIPT NEXT TO MARK THE SEASONS THEY WERE MAIN CHARACTERS LIKE

Kiefer Sutherland ^(1-8)
Leslie Hope ⁽¹⁾
Elisha Cuthbert ^(1-3)
Anil Kapoor ⁽⁸⁾

and you should do it in the order that they were introduced. Like —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.230.96.15 (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's way too long. We need to discuss and decide which actors played a critical role in the series, and those who didn't. Regina King (Sandra Palmer) didn't play that much of a role in the series and shouldnt probably be in the infobox. The problem here is that "importance" is a subjective thing, and who I may think is important may not be important to someone else, and vice versa. It's something we'd need to discuss in length to come to a consensus, I guess. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The order is how it should be - they're ordered by when their names were put in the starring credits, so that's fine. Putting the seasons they were in next to their names, I think will just clutter it up even more and just add more unnecessary text. As for deciding who should be listed, I personally feel they all should be. The people who have the least amount of appearances for a series regular are Regina King in season 6 (9 episodes), Rhys Coiro in season 7 (10 episodes), Alberta Watson and Lana Parrilla in season 4 (12 episodes), and Colm Feore in season 7 (12 episodes). But even still, the cuts the list down 5 people, that's nothing. After that, you'll have different opinions on who's important and who's not. Other options would I wouldn't agree with are just listing Kiefer and then putting something like and others, or simply putting see below as that completely defeats the purpose of the infobox. Both Lost and The Wire contain a lengthy starring section, so it's not out of the question to do it for 24. I say we bite the bullet, and just list them all. Of course, that's just my opinion. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's far too long, 99% of people would just gloss over that as TLDR, especially if they don't recognise the names. It would be more than logical to list just Sutherland as the only 'star' of the whole series, and find some appropriate wording to link to List of 24 cast members in the infobox next to him, such a 'and supporting cast'. That article gives the reader an immediate visual representation of who the other major cast were and in which season they appeared, and is better than any method Wikipedia could create to decide who is important, which has inherent problems as original research. I never watched the Wire, but I don't think comparisons with Lost are relevant - even if the characters of Lost didn't appear in every season, they were notionally part of the whole 'story'. That can't really be said for 24. Not to mention that there are almost double the number of stars being listed here for 24, compared to what is currently listed for Lost. MickMacNee (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have seen all but the final season. Given the way the series has gone, essentially there's one star: Keifer Sutherland. Much as I'd personally love to sneak Mary Lynn Rajskub into there as well, there is such a chasm between Sutherland and "Everyone Else" that I think realistically it should only be Sutherland. Format (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is where things get difficult. While Kiefer may be the only true consistent "star" of the show, this isn't a one-man show. Perhaps we should consider the stars/characters that had a major impact on the TV series. Perhaps we should just write a list of stars/characters who might be included on the list and go from there. Probably the best way. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Stars/Characters to Add to list

• Jack Bauer
• Kim Bauer
• David Palmer
• Chloe O'Brian
• Tony Almeida
• Allison Taylor
• Bill Buchanan
• Charles Logan
• Michelle Dessler

This is just a start...it's early here and I'm still tired. Feel free to add to the list. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

How are you picking these names? If you aren't using a method which external sources also use, then this is original research, and has no place in the article. MickMacNee (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

How is it original research? How about using common sense? Adding only Kiefer would just be silly, adding every single person titled as a main character would be impractical. Consensus starts with discussion - I've been around just as long as you have. When a rule, in this case, at least as you see it, original research, would do more bad than good, we can ignore it. I feel that stating that every main character that appeared in the series, given the length of the series and large amount of main characters in it, would be impractical. Can't we just discuss this and come up with a workable solution? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

IAR is not for ignoring content policies, it is about ignoring obstructive beurocracy if it gets in the way of enforcing core content rules like OR. It doesn't matter if two people or a hundred people agree on something on the talk page, if the solution is OR, it cannot and will not be allowable in the article. MickMacNee (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, WP:IAR simply states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I see nothing that says "except for content rules." The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored.

I should also point out that subjective material can lead to a gray area (or black hole) when dealing with content. Some editors, as well as readers, will attribute more weight to certain information. (Mind you, I am not saying this always happens.) To take an example from my own experience, look at the article Jewish principles of faith. There are some areas I feel are more important and should be expanded, while others I feel could be shrunk down, and the whole list could use a reorganization. (I try to abstain from editing religious articles for personal reasons, which is why these changes won't happen.) Now, my opinion on those changes, on the importance of bits of information over other bits, is subjective to my understanding of my religion. Were I to edit as I see fit, based on what I think is important alone, that would violate the letter of Wikipedia:No original research. When it comes to cast listing, though, would it be harmful to Wikipedia? Are we going to have readers discrediting Wikipedia simply because John Smith didn't get top billing in the cast roster?

To restate Use common sense:

"Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter.

Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It is. It's a friendlier restatement of Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules. "

The long and the short of it? When it comes to a simple thing like a cast listing, don't fret so much over rules and policies. WP:OR is directed towards bigger things: If you had a philosophy that drinking milk gave you cancer and had no other sources? Oh yeah, that article will be deleted in a heartbeat. Cast listing order? I don't think so. It really should not be a big deal to discuss this and gain consensus. 2¢ ^Avicenna_sis @ 09:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Deciding who was and who wasn't a 'star' of one of the most succesfull shows ever is hardly trivial. Despite your long rationale, it is simply a basic fact that IAR is not and never will be about ignoring core content rules like NOR in favour of just 'talking it out' at indidual articles. I know this for a fact based on years of watching various content disputes play out where people have tried and failed to use plain old common sense to justify making stuff up as if they were here to act as original authors, and because of that, appeals that this is 'just common sense' because this isn't really important, are entirely unconvincing to me, no matter how logical it might sound to you. No matter how many people discussed it, if it was essentially the product of their imagination rather than having any grounding in sources, then fankly, somebody coming along and tagging it as dubious would be entirely in the right. You should note above, that already we have had two different ideas of what the 'common sense' approach would be, where the original poster thinks that it is entirely logical to list everybody named in the credits as a star. Plain old common sense isn't as uniform as you might think. MickMacNee (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Building on the earlier example, you could easily use the "hidden" template to hide the cast list as follows:

Extended content

24 24 intertitle Genre Action Thriller Created by Joel Surnow Robert Cochran Starring Kiefer Sutherland Other cast Leslie Hope Sarah Clarke Elisha Cuthbert Dennis Haysbert Sarah Wynter Xander Berkeley Penny Johnson Jerald Carlos Bernard Reiko Aylesworth James Badge Dale Kim Raver Alberta Watson William Devane Lana Parrilla Roger Cross Mary Lynn Rajskub Gregory Itzin James Morrison Louis Lombardi Jean Smart DB Woodside Peter MacNicol Jayne Atkinson Carlo Rota Eric Balfour Marisol Nichols Regina King Cherry Jones Annie Wersching Colm Feore Bob Gunton Jeffrey Nordling Rhys Coiro Janeane Garofalo Anil Kapoor Mykelti Williamson Katee Sackhoff Chris Diamantopoulos John Boyd Freddie Prinze Jr. Country of origin United States Original language English No. of seasons 8 No. of episodes 192 + 24: Redemption (list of episodes) Production Executive producers Joel Surnow Robert Cochran Brian Grazer Tony Krantz Howard Gordon Evan Katz Kiefer Sutherland Jon Cassar Manny Coto David Fury Brannon Braga Alex Gansa Brad Turner Production locations Los Angeles Washington, D.C. New York City Running time 42 minutes Original release Network Fox Release November 6, 2001 (2001-11-06) – May 24, 2010 (2010-05-24) Related 24: Conspiracy The Rookie

--Ckatz^chat_spy 03:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, iirc including info that cannot be printed is against accessibility rules. MickMacNee (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I really like the idea of using the hidden template for the rest of the cast. As for it being against WP:ACCESS, aren't the tables used in the cast section the same thing? Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Whenever I've seen table's hidden like that elsewhere, someone has eventually reverted it. Anyway, ACCESS isn't my speciality which is why on this issue I am a 'maybe'. MickMacNee (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

One thing I know for sure is that the method of putting long lists of references into a scrolling list is a violation, and I can't see what the difference would be in allowing hidden tables. Maybe the fact that at least they can be uncollapsed before someone prints might be the differece. MickMacNee (talk)

So, since users have been adding new actors name into the infobox, do we have any sort of consensuses of what to do? If we're able to use the hidden template, I think that might be the best way to go. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Presidents

Where's the chart of presidents? I can't find it. OneWeirdDude (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There isn't exactly a chart, but the 24 Template (usually found at the bottom of "24" related articles) has something along those lines. SCΛRECROW 04:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Wayne Palmer's fate unknown? If he was well, presumably he would have retaken the presidency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.12 (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Charles Logan: Dead or Alive?

I have noticed that not everyone is in agreement that Charles Logan was still alive when Season 8 ended. There has been an on-going edit war between those who those who think he is dead and those who think he survived the suicide attempt, while others are willing to make his status unknown. Most of those who want to change his status to dead never leave an explanation. In my opinion, no matter which character we are talking about, their status is determined by whether they were dead or alive when season 8 ended, or the last time the character was mentioned in the series. Charles Logan was still alive when found shot with a self-inflicted gun-shot wound, and it was the medic's opinion that he would probably survive, but with suvere brain damage. Whether he might have died 10 minutes, 10 hours or 10 years later is irrelevant. Any of the characters listed as alive could have theoretically died off-screen, but we list them all as alive.Juve2000 (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing Characters

What happend to Aaron Pierce does he not get a mention as other than Jack he has been in the most series. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.13.252.61 (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

He's mentioned in the Cast appearances section and is listed in the Notable recurring characters table. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 201.92.135.170, 6 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Can anyone add the Crime genre to the Genre list? this is a crime series. 201.92.135.170 (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

201.92.135.170 (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Can you provide some examples of other shows that would fit into the Crime genre and the page you want linked? I looked at other shows, like Law & Order and CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Neither of these list the Crime genre. Thanks—C45207 | Talk 23:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Tips on improving article

Some tips for steve (after requesting in IRC)

• "Each 24-episode season covers 24 hours in the life of Bauer, using the real time method of narration.[1]" is that correct (may also be critic I know from some German reviews: 24*45min...) (Of course it's correct, although the episodes are not actually 60 minutes in length, they cover the hour.) —Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Look after the references and the date (one dateformat, all fields in ref, esp. publisher)
• "officials[8][9][10]and" and more example: between 10]and should be a whitespace, comma and dots should get before the references...

mabdul 12:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• ove one (or more) pictures, they are all on the same place, maybe some sections deeper
• Is the language parameter in the infobox right? I know there is a german snyc (Other languages have been spoken on the show, but not enough to include them). —Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• the Overview of the seasons isn't well written: nearly every paragraph is beginning in the same format
• I can't say, but maybe you should add a reference(a review) for every season at the end of the paragraph
• season X "begins and ends" --> not need: we know multiple time that the full season has 24 hours...

mabdul 12:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• why was jack in prison (season6)? explain!
• "Due to the 2007–2008 Writers' Strike, season 7 was delayed one year." please a reference (maybe there is already later one, so use this twice)
• Again German magazin celebrate the split screens. Didn't won (because of this) the series any award? It's hard to remeber since it is really a long time. Alternative write that soem magazines celebrate this new technique... (with ref ;) )

mabdul 12:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• see at the top of the page the tools: fix the errors (dab and external!)
• "Series conclusion" get we some not primary involved? (although they are good)
• "Gordon is currently no longer involved with the project, but states that director Tony Scott has an idea and will pitch it to Kiefer Sutherland.[35]" are there any reasons give why he stopped?
• Made the comments at the table † and * "clickable" (see for example Comparison of layout engines (CSS))

mabdul 12:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Canada, Africa, Europe, Latin America, Asia, Australia, New Zealand and the Middle East." whats the rest? Antarctica? Say global/worldwide
• other media has to be expanded!

enough to work. rest seems ok for me atm. mabdul 13:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• somebody added (in the last 10 revisions) imdb as a reference: this is not a reliable reference (maybe acceptable for the cast, but didn't look where this was added for). mabdul 16:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I added the IMDb references (well replaced them for another). It was for the Relation to other productions section talking about several cast and crew who worked on La Femme Nikita would later work on 24. It previously just had links to their respective IMDb pages, but I switched it with this link. I also added a similar reference for the Air Force One and 24 casting as well. I'm trying to find a more suitable reference for the content regarding they used the same Air Force One set from the film, but coming up empty. I remember in one of the commentaries they mention borrowing the set from The West Wing, but not Air Force One. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002576393
  • In Eve (TV series) on 2011-03-18 11:19:08, 404 Not Found
  • In George Lopez (TV series) on 2011-03-19 21:44:16, 404 Not Found
  • In Get This Party Started on 2011-03-19 23:32:12, 404 Not Found
  • In Get This Party Started on 2011-03-22 05:09:18, 404 Not Found
  • In Girlfriends on 2011-03-22 06:32:21, 404 Not Found
  • In Half & Half on 2011-03-22 19:27:20, 404 Not Found
  • In Half & Half on 2011-04-15 21:56:32, 404 Not Found
  • In Joey (TV series) on 2011-05-13 23:49:00, 404 Not Found
  • In 24 (TV series) on 2011-06-19 05:36:10, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:24 (TV series)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• "First broadcast on" is that the right tense?  Done Changed to "Premiered"
• "the show ran for spanned 192 episodes"  Done
• "while a feature film of the same name is"  Undone please wikify "feature film of the same name"  Done
• "Bauer is the only character to have appeared in all eight seasons, as well as appearing in every episode of the series." → "Bauer is the only character to have appeared in every episode of the series." This automatically means that only Bauer has appeared in all eight seasons.  Done
• "begins with him his working" See User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing  Done
• "Los Angeles-based" and "highly-proficient" addition of hyphens  Done
• "Jack Bauer's racing" addition of "'s"  Done
• "conspiracies which dealsing with"  Done
• "including the Best Drama Series" is the necessary, since "Best Drama Series" is an award?  Done

Premise

• why's "24" in bold face?  Done
• I suggest "24 is a serial drama which starsring Kiefer Sutherland as Jack Bauer, which focuses focusing on the efforts of the fictional Counter Terrorist Unit"  Done

Overview

• wikify "the Balkans"  Done
• "end of the second season's"  Done
• missing commas in "his new boss Secretary of Defense James Heller and"
• good summary of the seasons. No further action required.

Conception

• "Woodland Hills, Los Angeles, to" missing comma  Done
• "The episode had a $4 million budget, with the start of filming beginning in March 2001"  Done

Design

• "Furthermore, a secondary story will often takes place outside of the main plot." Past tense  Done
• "smaller, silent, clock display also"  Done
• "The duration of each episode without commercials is approximately 43 minutes" source?  Done removed

Setting

• wikify "South Africa" and "Sangala"  Done Wikified South Africa, Sangala not wikified, as it doesn't exist.
• "with these 'Domestic'" these sounds informal  Done altered wording
• "While CTU itself is a fictional agency, several entities with similar names or duties, like the National Counterterrorism Center, have emerged since the show's debut on television." source? Sounds like original research.  Done ref added.
• White House bunker shown in season 6, were also filmed here."  Done

Series conclusion

• "was issued from Fox which explaineding"  Done
• reads well

Relation to other productions

• "Like Similar to the 1997 film, Air Force One,"  Done

Feature film

• "Series co-creators Joel Surnow" Already  Done
• wikify "Prague" and "Morocco"  Done

Cast and characters

• reads well. No actions required

Reaction

• "torture as normal,[41] effective,[42] acceptable and glamorous,[43]" move all refs to after glamourous  Done
• "in torture in future seasons" future, or subsequent?  Done

Ratings

• "after many fans grew became unhappy with constant interruptions." source?  Done removed
• "four-hour premiere increased viewership by 15% in viewers"  Done

Awards and nominations

• "24 won and was nominated for several television awards including" → "24 was nominated for and won several television awards including"  Done
• "68 Emmy nominations,[67] with 20 wins.[68]" move ref to end of sentence.  Done

Television

• no actions required

Home media

• "strictly emphasized"  Done
• paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 are unsourced. Reference it, or trim it down then reference the remainng text.  Done removed, can't find any refs for any of it.

Other media

• "The success of 24 led to the extension of the series being extended"  Done
• "as well as a number of "behind-the-scenes" books." source? There's a video, you told me that, but no books.  Done ref added

References, further reading and images

• please add alt text to images. I know it's not a GA requirement, but do it anyway, for the sake of vision-impaired users. See WP:ALT  Done
• "Steven Keslowitz, The Simpsons, 24, and the Law: How Homer Simpson and Jack Bauer Influence Congressional Lawmaking and Judicial Reasoning, " why isn't the title italicised?  Done
• no damaged links, no action required.

Assessment

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I'm happy with the article. It's an informative read, and adheres to every GA criterion. Very happy with Steven Zhang's effort and resilience on the article, and I hope he can improve this article enough for the Star. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 201.68.207.202, 6 July 2011

Add Crime to the genre list on infbox and category Crime television series. There are plenty of sources on the internet considering 24 a crime show. While I'm aware that it doesn't have gangster or mafiosos, I remind the show is ridden of criminal activities. It's well agreed this is a crime show amongside its fans and internet users. 201.68.207.202 (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

201.68.207.202 (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Per the previous edit request, this series does not fit into the crime genre. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Longevity

The lead states that "At the conclusion of its eighth and final season, 24 became the longest-running espionage-themed television drama ever, surpassing both Mission: Impossible and The Avengers." (which is supported by one article). However the British series Spooks lasted 10 seasons, although it had fewer episodes. I suggest we change the text to reflect that fact. Drmab (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, but for pure longevity, Spooks must be the winner ... Is there an article out there on this issue?Verne Equinox (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's in terms of number of episodes, shouldn't it be Mission Impossible, which counts 206 episodes (171, plus 35 in the revival)? 24.200.87.235 (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Request change to "conception" section

I can't edit this page as I don't have ten edits on wikipedia, so I'll put this here: the part about the show's production is inaccurate. Filming was not in the Chatsworth Pencil Factory until Season 4. Their main studio for seasons 1-3 (including the CTU set) was a building at around 6300 Variel Avenue in Woodland Hills. Then, after Season 3 they rebuilt the CTU set at the old Mitsubishi pencil factory at 21050 Lassen Street in Chatsworth-Acer4666 (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll have to have another look at the references (I wrote most of that section) and see what I find. How did you find out this info, by the way? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 00:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I contribute to Wiki 24, trying to identify all the shooting locations in the show. Pictures like this outside the CTU set showing the Trillium towers, or the "24: Exposed" feature on the season 2 dvd showing the same thing, or scenes from the show set outside CTU showing the Trillium towers, give the location on Variel Avenue (right next to Trillium Towers). This thread mentions the new studio location on Lassen and Variel, 21050, which was a pencil factory according to this and now belongs to 20th Century Fox. I suppose this may go against the "no original research" policy of Wikipedia, but the info is correct so take it how you will.--Acer4666 (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I too have contributed to Wiki 24 before :-) Haven't had a chance to check my references yet, but it's on my to-do list. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 19:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 February 2012

Add Crime genre to the genre list and add category Crime television series by which lists 24 as a Crime show. 201.43.35.149 (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Kim's age

On Kim's Wikipedia page it states that she was born in 1987. As the First Season started in 2001 that would make her 14 at oldest. Surely this can't be right, she looks and acts likes someone in the last year of high school? Cls14 (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:Spoiler

I'm about to change the wording of the reaction section to reflect the guidelines regarding spoilers on Wikipedia. It's unnecessarily censored, as the sentence revolves entirely around Teri's death, and public reaction. Please don't change this back in an attempt to preserve censorship, unless there are grounds in Wikipedia's guidelines that support your change (I've looked, and as far as I can tell, it shouldn't be censored.) drewmunn (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't refer to specific dates in-universe

The issue of when the series takes place has come up again. I have removed months and years that an anonymous user put into the 8 season articles with good faith. There is no canon date that one can associate with the seasons. I answered this on the project page and I did not answer it here because "Kim's age" above was posted by the same user. The various pieces of evidence that pertain to real dates contradict eachother as stated in the exhaustive account on Wiki 24. I agree that the seasons most likely take place a few years after their air dates but it is POV to side with one piece of evidence over another. If you want to cover more of the opinions in an encyclopedic way, feel free to expand 24 (season 1)#Series timeframe. Connor Behan (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 April 2013

Under 2.6 "Feature Film", please change "March 2013" to "March 2012" in the second-to-last paragraph. The date stamps on both sources linked to this paragraph will verify that this decision was made by 20th Century Fox in the spring of 2012, not 2013. FridtjofAndersen (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 April 2013

Add Crime genre to the infobox, per 201.43.34.254 (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Unfortunately SideReel's genre tags appear to be user-generated based on their help page; as such, it doesn't count as a reliable source. BryanG (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ninth Series

With the news that Touch has been axed this has freed Kiefer Sunderland up. It's been reported and now confirmed by 24's writer and producer David Fury, that 24 will return for a special 12 episode Ninth Series, This needs adding to the article. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22478477 87.112.141.113 (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

If you provide a citation that completely confirms this beyond rumour, then feel free to open an edit request. drewmunn talk 11:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It's official! 24 return in May 2014. But as season 9 or as a new series??? What do you think? -- J. Bauer (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It's very unlikely to be a reboot, but we deal with hard facts. As such, nothing on this front is confirmed. drewmunn talk 14:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

is 24 season 9 not a reboot if you do not believe then wait to see for yourself as for me i know a reboot is not a smart idea.--Wjmdem (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We know this, it's just that we must always ensure everything we write is sourced. drewmunn talk 21:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.fox.com/programming/shows/?sh=event-series---24---live-another-day --z33k (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Main cast vs Recurring cast

What's the criteria for "main cast" and "Recurring cast" in the list of characters?

For example, Sherry Palmer is "Recurring cast" for 1 despite being in 22 episodes, while Sarah Gavin is put as "main cast" for series 4 when she was in only 12. Also Edgar Stiles is "Recurring cast" for series 4 despite being in all, but "main cast" for 5 where he's in only 13.

basically - there doesn't seem to be any consistent line in the list. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This is something that requires clarification, but I believe most of the examples given above depend on their billing in credits. I'll check that, however.  drewmunn  talk  16:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It's quite simple: it's how the actors are billed. If they're credited as starring, they're main cast, if they're credited as guest stars or special guest stars, they're recurring. Yes, sometimes actors appeared in all episodes of a season, but are credited as guest stars. It's just how it is. We, as editors, can't change it based on what we think. The way it is right now is correct, everyone's in their proper place. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

ah - right. thanks for the explanation. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request on July 29,2013

In the 'Impact and reception' section under 'Awards and nominations' shouldn't the fact that 24 was ranked #71 by the Writer's Guild of America in the 101 Best Written TV Shows of all-time be on there? Source: http://www.wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=4925 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.43.239.136 (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Season 9/Live another day

Why are we falsely referring to this as if it is it's own separate thing and not part of the continuity? -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Because Fox doesn't refer to it as season 9. It's billed as a "limited event series"; but that doesn't mean it's not part of the continuity, nor does the article give any indication it isn't. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Live another day is a Tag Line. Common Name is Season 9. Besides, mini season or not...it is the latest/last season and not 8 as was previously believed/stated. Therefore the article should be updated to reflect this. MisterShiney ✉ 18:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not a tagline, it's the subtitle, like 24: Redemption. The official title is 24: Live Another Day per Fox, official website, which states "...is a thrilling new event series". No where does it state "season 9". Yes, I understand that it's essentially a season 9, but we refer to at what it's officially known as. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Redemption was a movie. A cat is a cat. A dog is a dog. Point is, it's season 9. Most/all news articles refer to it as the latest season. Therefore it should be clearly indicated here that it did not end at season 8. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not real time

The incorrect claim that the show uses "the real time method of narration" should be removed. There are constant 4.5 minute gaps. It is not real time. That marketing lie should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.116.228 (talk) 07:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the format of the show. Episodes range from 41 minutes to 58 minutes in length, and each depicts 60 minutes of action. They all also take up 60 minutes of broadcast time during their original airing, and events are arranged chronologically and progress at a 1:1 time ratio. This makes it realtime. The gapes in the shorter episodes are for commercial breaks, but the action still occurs throughout the break (that's when the characters go to the toilet, eat food, and sleep), it is just not shown. On return from the break, the time elapsed in the 24 universe is equal to the time you have been watching commercials. If you watch the episodes on home media, or a syndicated channel, the ad-breaks are not present, or may not be the same length. However, the action depicted is still realtime, just with non-synchronous points.  drewmunn  talk  10:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I just timed an episode from the second season, and it was 42:30 long. The clock in the show showed 60 minutes. The real-time claim is a bold-face lie. Why do you people defend Fox this way?

You should really look at the above message. There's an explanation there. Beerest355 Talk 02:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Just watched the first two episodes and noticed that the clock is 1:44 when the Palmer brats show up. The next scene with Teri and Alan, it is 01:42. Going back in time is not real time by any definition. I don't understand the pro-Fox bias here on Wikipedia that supports this nonsense. I guess Jack Bauer and Fox have a time machine in order for this show to do this. Is that really what you're claiming Beerest355? Please get out of here with this sort of bias that is ruining Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.43.225 (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have watched episodes from the first season that I timed and the clock kept being off by as much as 50 seconds at a commercial break. The third season opener does not pause for commercials and yet is only forty-nine minutes. Despite these errors (or as I like to think of them: "poetic licenses") the show is still of a real time format: It does not have flashbacks that pause the present (Revolution (TV series)), it does not show "cool" action sequences in slow motion (any action movie), and its story is not shown out-of-order (Pulp Fiction). Most notably, it does not pause the story for commercial at a tense moment just to pick up a moment later (any other TV drama). Your push for an encyclopedia free from company bias is admirable, but is incorrect this time. ––Ɔ Ȿ♭ ௵ ☎ ℡ ☎ 03:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

And now there's a ninth season that skips time... OMG! Insert more trolling here. Connor Behan (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

US is correct per MOS:ABBR

"...use "US" in articles with other national abbreviations, e.g. "UK" or "UAE"." The end. Nothing to do with personal preference whatsoever, just the rules guidelines. Jimthing (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia has no rules, Second, there is a clear exception for the correct American English acronym, U.S. as has been pointed out to you by a couple of editors. Rather than telling everyone what to do, which will get you nowhere but blocked for edit warring, why don't you try calmly and civilly making a case for your change, then trying to gain consensus for it. In this article, it's been U.S. since it was written, and that's considered standing consensus. --Drmargi (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I have made my case clearly and calmly a number of times now, so do stop patronising me. I'm a longterm editor and follow the MOS as they are defined, and not by what I personally feel like. And what you said is simply untrue; there is absolutely no "clear exception for the correct American English acronym", as the MOS states the US vs. U.S. quite clearly above (I quoted a gazillion times on my edits that have been completely ignored by your reversions!), no matter whether the article is about an American subject matter or not, the guideline above it absolutely clear. I and other editors have been making such edits per these guidelines for YEARS now accordingly. Jimthing (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Take a deep breath and stop taking things so personally. This isn't about you. This is about your blinkered ignoring of a number of policies, and failure to observe revert and talk page practices in order to push a single edit. There is a clear exception in the MOS that allows for use of the correct U.S. acronym, as has been pointed out to you by I believe it's four editors. Given that, the burden is on you to establish consensus for the change you want to make. If you're a long-term editor, you should know that. Please step away and calm down, then return when you're prepared to discuss in good faith and in a calm manner. --Drmargi (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Drmargi, you say "this" isn't about Jimthing, but your comments to and about him here and on other talk pages say otherwise. Time to start talking about edits rather than editors if you want to see anything constructive come of discussion on the dispute. Because, after all, the discussion is supposed to be about the disputed content not editors disputing the content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Et tu? You might want to review the editor's history today before taking me to task. --Drmargi (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not necessary for me to review his history. Personal comments are always unnecessary and "talk about edits not editors" is standard advice when these types of situations occur. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Drmargi again, there is NO EXCEPTION but the one you keep making up. If the article uses another country that is acronymic, then this stands: "...use "US" in articles with other national abbreviations, e.g. "UK" or "UAE"." So can you please just stop ignoring the guideline I quoted to favour your own which doesn't apply for the edit I have made, and listen to WHY something has actually been done instead. Jimthing (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not making anything up. Formatting follows the guidelines for American English. Period. --Drmargi (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Jimthing: It's obvious you are upset about this, but making personal comments about editors opposing your edits and rationale isn't helping your argument. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not upset and I have not made any personal comments about other editors either, so i don't know where you got that from. What I am, is annoyed that the guidelines here are being entirely ignored by this editor who instead pushes the American English line, that is NOT relevant to the edit I did. The guidelines stipulates that "US" should be used when another country is acronymic –as they do not have stops in them– in order to have uniformity. Saying "this is an American article, so we can just ignore that" is flatly not correct. Jimthing (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I happen to agree with your reasoning on the edits. Your tone, however, and use of all caps is less than "friendly". Just take care to not be the one returning fire with fire. It's not worth it and can be used against you in the Wikipedia "court of law". That's all I'm saying. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Opinion. As a completely uninvolved party Drmargi stop being a jerk. If can't stand for one moment that articles will get tinkered with, whether you like the changes or not, you don't get Wikipedia. Besides it's you being the protectionist editor with WP:OWN issues and the trump card in this is Jimthing applying WP:BOLD. But you are just another one of those who likes to play Rules lawyer but when the rules work against you, the classic line Wikipedia fallacy is played which is WP has no rules (if rules are not important - why spout them as the reason to why you don't like the changes? You can't have it both ways LOL). Please stop trying to hide what Wikipedia is: a club of POV cartels; each one is made up of sockpuppets and meatpuppets. All that Jimthing has done is try and do something he liked. Without first checking with the page keepers. Furthermore his changes were in keeping with WP's own style; he didn't make it up (US is preferred to U.S./I didn't make the rules but they seem preferable to me, this isn't a site for 19th Century grammar). Which in its own right makes you appear even more ridiculous. They were doing exactly what the site states and you throw it back at them that there are no rules. GTFOOH. 81.132.175.69 (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC) — 81.132.175.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

See WP:NOTUSA. Periods it is, --Drmargi (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

(Firstly, Drmargi regardless of it being an IP address, do not remove other users' additions –in this case 81.132.175.69's– to discussions as you feel like it: they stay as a record of the conversation regardless of being for or against you/your POV. Hence restored in-line accordingly.) More importantly, again, to just quote a WP link without the specific part you say defines your point, is pretty poor for a PhD graduate. I'm sure you know you need to qualify your points, not simply expect everyone to go along with an link containing many separate factors within it. And that link certainly does make it clear that BOTH are used in various style guides within the US itself, with more modern version depreciating the historical period version to non-period, hence the guideline I quote MOS:ABBR comes into effect when this has already been dealt with, to quote (yet again) "...use "US" in articles with other national abbreviations, e.g. "UK" or "UAE"." – i.e. whether using US with/without periods is not the point here, the point is what other countries are listed within the article containing acronyms. A subtle, yet defining point of my edits. Jimthing (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no obligation to let a sock/meatpuppet's (and we both know which it is, quack, quack!) attack post stay per WP:NPA, as I've pointed out before. Second, WP:NOTUSA was written to address issues exactly such as this; the periods stay in and American English article because that is correct American English. Formatting in another country's style does not supersede that simply because it's different. MOS:ABBR addresses contingencies when NOTUSA doesn't apply. American English = American formatting = WP:NOTUSA applies. The periods go back. --Drmargi (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd be careful making such inferences and accusations about socks and meatpuppets, Drmargi. If you have reasonable suspicions and credible evidence to support your suspicions and claims, file an WP:SPI. But also be sure to read WP:NOTFISHING, WP:NPA, and WP:ACCUSE as a reminder of what's appropriate, what's not, and that such aspersions are very strongly frowned upon. Right now, you're coming off as someone who is only interested in winning and using sock/meat accusations as a way to reach that end rather than an editor who just wants what's best for the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Yadda, yadda. Pull the other one; it's got bells on it. You guys set the bar this low. Don't be surprised when it comes back at you. --Drmargi (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing's coming back at me, I'm just trying to keep things civil with this "discussion". Frankly, with someone who has your (claimed) credentials, I would expect more than what you're showing here. And your strange implication that I'm somehow involved in any socking or meatpuppet activity that might be going on is (sadly) noted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well your buddy made civil discussion impossible. The blinkered approach to policy is fascinating; you'll defend an obvious attack post in clear violation of WP:NPA, then come at me for removing it. Incredible. But that's OK. You just strengthen my position. --Drmargi (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's because YOU are not supposed to remove other users comments regardless of what they may say however insulting you think they may be. Jimthing (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Jimthing is hardly my "buddy". Before yesterday, I hadn't even heard of him. More importantly, I didn't defend the wording of the post, I was defending policy that states removal of another's article talk page comments is not allowed. What I've said here may or may not strengthen your position, but your behavior and words here certainly do not. In the mathematical sense, I guess that makes your position pretty much a wash. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Drmargi Accusing others around here of sock/meatpuppetry is pretty low without having factual evidence for either of us doing so – better get your facts straight before doing that type of thing, and removing other users' comments as well is not done on WP in order for you to "win" discussions – and will always be re-added back by others who see you do it regardless of your attempts to skew discussions in your favour (and likely reported too). You keep stating YOUR personal opinion here time and time again without even reading or checking the facts of what the WP guidelines set down in policy. "your buddy made civil discussion impossible" basically is you insulting me just because your points are invalid, so you ad hominem attack instead. How cheap. Again, it's got NOTHING to do with US English vs any other English, it's to do with acronyms of other countries to keep consistency within articles. Every time you get all "my way or the highway" about it being about your interpretation of US English, it shows you completely fail to comprehend the actual point others here are making. Jimthing (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to spell it out for people who cannot read and follow appropriate guidelines, despite them being VERY clear here. They work as such:

• WP:NOTUSA states U.S. is the most common usage in N.America, however it also states "Use of periods for abbreviations and acronyms should be consistent within any given article and congruent with the variety of English used by that article." This can be read as use U.S. if article is American-based, though the original author has the choice at time of submission. But it also states "consistent within any given article".
• Hence MOS:ABBR also comes into effect, "However, use a consistent style within the same article; use "US" in articles with other national abbreviations, e.g. "UK" or "UAE"." meaning any article with another acronym country should then use US without periods.

That's quite clear; articles with other acronym countries should then use US. The end. If you don't like that guideline then attempt to get it changed, but that doesn't give users the right to simply ignore it as it is now. Jimthing (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

According to you, given you want to prioritize the acronym policy. The trouble is, you refuse to recognize that WP:NOTUSA was written to address issues exactly like this. Further, as Drovethrughosts pointed out, this was a GA with the abbreviation U.S., and you have not gained consensus to make any change from status quo. You can dodge that responsibility by edit warring until the sun goes down, but that burden is on you to gain consensus before you make a change from a long-standing version of the article. --Drmargi (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Being a GA is entirely irrelevant, yet again. A DRN against your reversions has been opened against you, comment there. Jimthing (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

OFFS, you don't open a DRN against someone. You might want to read up on what DRN is actually designed to do. --Drmargi (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I know what it's designed to do, but clearly you don't, given you haven't even bothered to comment about your actions in editing against guidelines properly explained to you several times now. As well as removing commentary from your talk page that argues against you, by instead only keeping the positive comments – very uncivilised non-WP way of discussing subjects by silencing opinion you don't agree with. Jimthing (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong quote

Gordon is cited with a wrong statement: ″In season two, the story involved a Muslim American family, and the father and the mother—and the son—were party to a terror plot.″ This is not a description of season 2 but of season 4 as the Araz family is meant. So the quote should be corrected using squared brackets. Also, the source for the whole quote should be added!!--Stegosaurus Rex (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair point with this one. The quote actually did say Season 2, though he is referring to season 4. I'll take a look at correcting that. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This article and featured article candidacy

Hello @JohnGormleyJG: - I removed the article's nomination header for two reasons - firstly because I feel it should go through a peer review first, and second, I feel that the nomination (and credit) should mainly go to those that have done the work to get it to that state - your additions regarding the future of the show are definitely helpful but I don't feel it's fair to take credit for the entire article. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 10:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Steven Zhang: Oh I never said I was taking credit for the article. It would not be right of me as I was just editing this the past year. I felt this article had potential to be a featured article and I saw it was never nominated before so I decided to do so. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 10:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fair, and I think if this article was nominated for featured article, it'd be good to have many people keeping an eye on the nomination page to implement feedback. Maybe my mind is still back in 2009, where editors would sometimes make a few edits to an article and then nominate/take credit for its featured status. I guess I'm overly defensive :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2015

Season 8 was not the "conclusion". So please make that "initial conclusion" 43.252.220.209 (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Looked through all 4 uses of 'conclusion' in the article, all of them make sense as they stand. Cannolis (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Timeslot column in the ratings section of the article

What is the point of the timeslot column in the ratings section of the article? Normally I don't mind having a timeslot column on articles for television shows but after season 3 there were multiple timeslots per season. To someone unfamiliar with 24 they could be confused as to how 24 episodes aired over less than five months in one timeslot. Personally, I think that the timeslot column should either be removed, moved or the extra time slots should be added. 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Reboot NEWS

White actors and actresses will be excluded from the cast.

Headline-1: Fox to Reboot ’24’ with ‘Diverse’ ‘Jack Bauer’

• http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/01/15/fox-reboot-24-diverse-jack-bauer/

ARTICLE SUBTITLE: In the name of racial diversity, another major TV network has announced that it will exclude white actors from participating in the casting process of a major series reboot.

QUOTE: "While producers on the potential show would prefer to cast a black actor in the lead role, Walden did not rule out the possibility of filling the slot with a Latino actor.

“Whether that’s African-American or a Latino actor, we’ve been really excited about some of the people we’ve been seeing throughout our internal process,” she said.

24: Legacy will revolve around military hero Eric Carter’s return to the U.S. and the trouble that follows him. Carter reaches out to ask CTU for help in saving his life and stopping what potentially could be one of the largest-scale terror attacks on American soil.

Walden also revealed Legacy will deal with sleeper cells radicalizing Americans and will feature an entirely new cast." -- AstroU (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

article title change

Hello, I currently live in India and there is an official television series aired in India known as 24. all things that the English 24 series follow like the genre of the series is followed by the Indian series too. It Is like the INDIAN VERSION OF THE ENGLISH 24. (It is not violating any copyright issues as it took permission before making an Indian version) THEREFORE I WOULD LIKE THAT THE TITLE OF THIS ARTICLE BE CHANGED TO "24( AMERICAN TV SERIES)" SO AS NOT TO CONFUSE WITH THE INDIAN SERIES WHICH DOES NOT HAVE AN article at present but will soon have as I am working on it. --VarunFEB2003 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

24 (TV series)#Indian adaptation links to 24 (Indian TV series) which has existed for three years. "24( AMERICAN TV SERIES)" is a hopeless suggestion. If we move it then it should be to "24 (U.S. TV series)". There are already hundreds of articles with "(U.S. TV series)" in the name.[2] See Wikipedia:Requested moves for how to start a discussion properly. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

ok thnx solved VarunFEB2003 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I would say that we should keep the titles as they are. The American version of the show went on for several seasons and is widely known. I feel that if a random person is looking for an article on the 24 series, they are overwhelmingly going to be looking for the American series. Meanwhile, the Indian series only went on for one season. Although it has been brought back for another season, I'd say it's too soon to know if any further disambiguation is necessary.

And finally, please don't start another article for the Indian version. We only need one article on it. Please put your efforts into the existing article. Dismas|^(talk) 10:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose move. Per Wikipedia:Partially disambiguated page names#List of partially disambiguated article titles it is possible to just say "(TV series)" about the primary TV series. In addition, the Indian TV series also has a section here. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Should there be a hatnote to 24 (Indian TV series)? RJFJR (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 24 (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528010350/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=053007_07 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=053007_07
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718105553/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/07/15/monday-final-ratings-mistresses-adjusted-up-no-adjustment-for-24-live-another-day/283002/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/07/15/monday-final-ratings-mistresses-adjusted-up-no-adjustment-for-24-live-another-day/283002/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 24 (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140728033316/http://www.abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=060204_09 to http://www.abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=060204_09
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5sTeuwnqz?url=http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=011707_08 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=011707_08
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100509041250/http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/29-6/KESLOWITZ.29.6.pdf to http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/29-6/KESLOWITZ.29.6.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Does 20th Century Fox Television Distribution distribute 24 or does 20th Television distribute the original 24

In this article, it says that 20th Century Fox Television Distribution distributes this. Has anyone seen a 20th Century Fox Television Distribution logo at the end of the syndicated original 24? Or the 20th Television logo? I do not know why 20th Century Fox Television Distribution distributes this even though it is in the United States and not international. Seen a 20th Century Fox Television Distribution or the 20th Television logo at the end? Comment below with a colon symbol before the comments and sign with four tilde symbols. 172.58.6.248 (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 24 (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/television/2014/05/new_24_miniseries_live_another_day_starring_kiefer_sutherland_reviewed.htmll
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120427021546/http://community.post-gazette.com/blogs/tunedin/archive/2009/08/07/press-tour-journal-24-plans-ahead.aspx to http://community.post-gazette.com/blogs/tunedin/archive/2009/08/07/press-tour-journal-24-plans-ahead.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/4529/sutherland-talks-24-movie-filming
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114041654/http://motherjones.com/media/2011/10/homeland-season-2-claire-danes-howard-gordon-alex-gansa?page=2 to http://motherjones.com/media/2011/10/homeland-season-2-claire-danes-howard-gordon-alex-gansa?page=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705130805/http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/film/23452 to http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/film/23452
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130610084227/http://www.wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=5044 to http://www.wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=5044
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120701000653/http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Television/Anil-Kapoor-to-remake-US-TV-series-24/Article1-767403.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Television/Anil-Kapoor-to-remake-US-TV-series-24/Article1-767403.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)