Talk:Terrorist attacks on 24

Casualties
Should we not change this to "Civilian casualties" and remove federal agents from the count? --proudhug 01:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you think it'll work better if we don't include feds? Thief12 03:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Well, we don't include terrorists, so I figure the point is to indicate how many civilian casualties there are, since that's generally the target of a terrorist attack. But maybe I'm wrong. It just seems to me that there are a lot of CTU and FBI agents who tangentially died during terrorist attacks that aren't included here. --proudhug 03:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But there are instances were the target is a federal building, like CTU. Besides, when casualty counts are given in the show (which is from where we try to get the info), I assume they are including agents as well. Thief12 03:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so then we need to start thinking if people like Mark DeSalvo and Barbara Maccabee were victims of terrorist attacks. --proudhug 04:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say no because Mark DeSalvo was killed during the Drazen's break-out of prison, which isn't necessarily a terrorist attack (hence it is not on the list) and the other woman was killed by Marie Warner, but not during a terrorist attack. Thief12 04:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So, even though someone is a direct casualty of the planned set-up, but just not the actual executed attack itself, they're not included? --proudhug 04:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The intention is to list the direct casualties of the attack. If we were to include the ones that were killed during the planning process, then we would end up counting almost all the dead of each season. If we're referring to the attack, then what was the effect of said attack? "Well, it killed X people." Thief12 04:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we need to include all non-terrorist fatalities. As mentioned, sometimes feds were the intended targets. Also, the "attacks" should be WMD attacks or major shootouts or bombings. A few murders here and there don't meet the unspoken "magnitude" qualification. 02:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that make sense. I just figured that if I was running to city hall to plant a bomb and I had to shoot a civilian and a cop who got in my way on the way there, they'd be included in the attack count, despite not being planned targets of the attack. --proudhug 15:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree they would be included, like Carrie Bendis in the Sentox attack. 20:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So then what about people like Reza Naiyeer, Richards and Barbara Maccabee? --proudhug 23:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The intention of the page is to list terrorist attacks and the casualties directly related to it, not the amount of kills on the terrorist belt. If you look at any info about terrorist attacks (or any disaster) in any news or any place, you'll see the list of casualties directly related to the event. If I'm talking about a nuclear blast in Valencia and its effect, it bears little relation to it if the terrorist killed a guy on his way to pick up the bomb. Thief12 04:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Templates
Can we not do away with the templates? There are only a handful of items in each table, so it won't make the page gigantic, but it will be easier for people to edit. --Proudhug 02:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That was my idea. Thief12 03:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Creation
I don't know if people would like this list, but I think if we have lists of deaths and kills by Jack, I don't see why this one not. Moreover when the show deals with constant terrorism. Anyway, any advice or recommendation is welcome. I wanted to align to the left the parts of Purpose and Outcome in the boxes but couldn't do it. If anyone can help with that, you're welcome. Thief12 00:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I love it so far. And for those attacks which have pages of their own, we can right to them from here too. Very excellent work Thief. As for the align situation, I tried a few tricks, but none of it worked. Hopefully someone else has some input on that? 00:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I thought about linking to it from those pages. I'll deal with that in awhile. Thief12 01:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm really excited with the way this page is turning out! 04:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! that's the idea. To make something that's informative about the show, but also enjoyable to read. I'll finish the two remaining templates tomorrow. Thief12 05:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to be a buzzkill, but "Terrorist attacks on 24" is a bit OOU don't you think? -- SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 10:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds like real life terrorist tried to attack 24 cos they didn't like it.


 * It's an OOU page, like handguns on 24. Simon I can't tell if you're recommending deletion or just a move to a different title? 16:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's just like Deaths on 24. Thief12 17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I definitely wasn't recommending a deletion, I too think it's a brilliant page. Now I see your point about pages such as handguns/deaths on 24, I agree it's fine to leave it as it is. -- SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 18:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree this page is brilliant. I can't believe no one came up with it before. --Proudhug 14:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Colors
Currently, "unsuccessful" is red and "successful" is green. What if we flipped this scheme around? Green for "successful" makes it seem like it's good the attack succeeded. 20:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good for the terrorists! :-D Nah, but I think it's ok to flip it. Thief12 01:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But doesn't that violate NPOV? Kinda like using the term "villain"?  I think a red "successful" would look even more weird.  It's like saying success is a bad thing. --Proudhug 14:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What if I said that red for "successful" is more appropriate because a successful terrorist attack results in bloodshed? 14:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

EMP
Not sure if we should include the EMP detonation among the terrorist attacks of Day 4. Thief12 19:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that's a tough one. The EMP wasn't motivated by "terrorism"... more like corporate mischief. I'd say it can go in the section at the bottom to be safe. 19:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought that too. Thief12 19:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)