User talk:Blue Rook/Archive 10

Welcome to my Talk page, 24 fans!
 * While you're here, feel free to rummage through the archives of previous discussions:
 * Archive 1 (older) & Archive 2 (newer).
 * To pose a question or discussion topic, click the EDIT tab (not the + tab) and post at the top, right beneath here.

Season 1
Hey, it's good to see you finally got a copy of Season 1! --Proudhug 01:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh you can say that again. It's just a library rental, really, but I do have a birthday coming up soon, so I might bug some people for my own copy of the Special Edition. Can't wait to see those deleted scenes! 04:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Poll idea... again.
Hey again... a while ago I raised the idea of running a poll for the current users and possibly to attract new users to the site, and you raised the point of voting by radio buttons instead of editing, I looked briefly for the radio buttons to no avail, and was just wondering whether you ever got around to it. Sorry if I'm just annoying you but I thought I was a good idea for the site, and possibly even a good way to liven up the Main Page. Thanks again for your time! :) BillBuchanan24 13:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I remember a prediction about lack of timeliness on this one :) But I've waited long enough, so, in the next few hours I definitely will ask the Central Wikia folks on IRC about this. Whatever they can do to help, or whatever directions they point me to, I'll be back before tomorrow to let you know here.  17:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Background information and notes


.. did you know your sig looks like this?

I assume the bit that overlaps 'Talk' is unintentional? -- SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 20:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)




 * I just uploaded an image of what I'm seeing. As you can tell there is a discrepancy between what we're viewing. I'm very glad you brought this up; I was afraid that others were viewing it differently. I'm going to try to fix this immediately. Btw, was your image how it appears in every instance that you see the sig? 22:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I see it the same as you, Rook. --Proudhug 22:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting... if you guys don't mind me asking, what browsers and OS are you using? I'm using Safari (Mac). 22:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The only difference is that "talk" is white and bolded, and "contribs" is a lighter shade of blue. I use a Firefox and IE on a PC. It appears identical in both. --Proudhug 22:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Aha yes, those slight differences you mention make perfect sense: talk is bolded because we're on that page, so it can't be linked, and contribs is darker in my pic because I just visited there. I should have cleared my History before taking that pic, it would have returned contribs to the default color. Thanks Proudhug! What remains is for me to determine why it's funky on Simon's screen. 22:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's like that on every page. I use Opera on Windows Vista, 1280x800 pixels. -- SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 06:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I already posted my answer on the Audrey Raines talk page, but just in case you didn't see it, your signiture picture, to me resembles Proudhug's view of it. -- Matthew R Dunn 18:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Medical personnel
Is there a category for medical personnel? I can't seem to find one. Comp25 15:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope! But if you make Category:Medical personnel I'd love to help you fill it up. There is a good number of doctor and nurse characters that could have a home there. – Blue Rook 18:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)contribs

Day 1 1:00am-2:00am
Should an image gallery be made for this episode guide ? If so, how do you make them ? - 2Anthony4 09:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, yes that guide definitely could use a Gallery. See Talk:Day 4 8:00pm-9:00pm, where I just recently talked to Simon about how I do Galleries. Some important things I'll repeat here are: every picture from the current version of the Guide goes to the gallery, with captions; you select about a dozen or up to 15 to remain in the Guide, and you place them left/right/left/right on the page so it's staggered; and you try to avoid situations where one image is very close to the next. Those take time to do, so it's greatly appreciated that you're looking into this! – Blue Rook 15:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)contribs

Unfortunately I can't do it tonight (overloaded with work) but I skimmed over that day 5 one and I think I know how to do it. Under categories what number would I put in ? --2Anthony4 20:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries, whenever you're ready you can give it a shot, and others will come along to tinker in case ya missed something. With that category, the number should be 102 since that episode is Season 1, hour 02. – Blue Rook 20:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)contribs

User:Nina&Tony4eva
Not to drag you into things but this user is kind of ticking me off, when on this wiki am I required to reply to her posts on my talk page, obviously if the posts are actually usefull or concerning importances on this wiki but otherwise do I have to reply to the posts ? I'd rather not speak to a spammer like her - 2Anthony4 19:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies that you felt you had to deal with that person: from now on, please note that you are never required or obliged to respond to provocations like that. You can always simply delete and ignore that kind of thing, it's the best course of action, anyway. I've made it clear that if the user does more trolling, I will impose a block. – Blue Rook 19:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)contribs

Thanks, although I have to say, she made so many posts that she's put me on my way to almost making an archive for myself ! P.S: If that last comment came out as though I was complaining, sorry, just wondering whether I needed to reply. -2Anthony4 19:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course not, I didn't think you were complaining at all. It was a good question to ask. With regard to the provocations, they are completely useless and should be the last thing a user would consider archiving. My advice is to delete it all, and in the future if you do a Page Move archival, those posts will still always exist in the History should you ever need to refer to them. – Blue Rook 20:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)contribs

I swear to God I was just joking! I know some people don't get my sense of humour but I was joking yesterday! I thought his quotes were good, especially the Kim one! See, it was a joke because of the day before we were talking about 13 year old bossing 28 year olds around! I thought he would have got that! I'm really sorry! I won't joke again! Nina&amp;Tony4eva 16:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback policy?

 * Hey there, I've been looking through the site's policy, and I couldn't find anything related to rollback. I'm not familiar with the policy here, and on Wikipedia, rollback is a tool that is given out by administrators. Could you explain how it works on 24 Wikia? Thanks. Steve CrossinTalk 01:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, we don't have any established policy concerning the rollback rights. On Wikia wikis, it can be granted by bureaucrats. Administrators receive it by default, and since no one here has expressed interest in it until now, I suppose this is why it was never written into our policies. Generally, if we don't have a specifically-tailored policy for something, we defer to Wikia's rule and other Wikia wikis in general for precedent. Regarding rollbacks, the standards for its usage are universal: it is to be used solely as an anti-vandalism tool. Check out this Help Wikia page, and go to the bottom; in summary, it says since rollbacks skip the step of adding a custom edit summary, they should be used for obvious vandalism only. (This is because reverting good faith edits using the rollback feature is extremely bad form and can spur a flame/wheel war.)

I'd have no problem giving you the rollback feature; in the next few weeks, try to patrol the recent-changes to make some vandalism reverts, and make a report or two over at Wiki 24:Vandal alert. This would give me grounds for the proposed user rights change, and I'd be happy to assign the rights to ya. I might as well update the policy while I'm at it. – Blue Rook 02:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)contribs


 * I was already aware of how the rollback feature is to be used, as the policy is the same on the English Wikipedia, and I was active vandal-fighter there, and an experienced one. Rollback should only be used for reverting blatant vandalism. I am not sure about here, but on en wikipedia, it is also permitted to use rollback to revert your own edits. That is OK, isn't it? As for watching recent changes, I'll set up an RSS feed to keep an eye on recent changes. Steve CrossinTalk 02:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Poke. Steve CrossinTalk 08:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's good to have another experienced anti-vandal around. 8) And, I saw you mentioned this before, the thing about rollbacking your own edits. I'm not sure that's a good habit to get into, and it's also not the purpose of the tool to begin with. I can count on one hand the times I've rollbacked myself, and those were generally on MediaWiki edits, where I couldn't Show Preview to see what my work would look like. It's always best to traditional-revert your mistakes, and add an explanation in the summary so others can learn from it quickly. Are you asking because you're expecting to make many errors? Why not just Show Preview all the time instead? – Blue Rook 08:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)contribs
 * I'm fine with not using rollback on my own edits. I'll use show preview, or undo, when I need to undo my own edits. I was really just wondering on the policy in relation to rolling back your own edits, but you've made that clear. Thanks. Steve CrossinTalk 08:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just note I probably won't be around this wiki, or active. From what I've seen recently, there's not really much I can do here to help. There are active editors here who I know are doing an excellent job, but for now, I sorta feel un-needed. :) Steve CTalk 12:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a huge change from just a few days ago... is everything all right? You're definitely needed, for example there are tons of pages that need expansion and sentence work. Just look at our Ramon and Hector Salazar articles, they're pathetically small and could use serious expansion from their episodes. I appreciate the compliment about the current editors, but please don't feel unneeded as there are always PNAs, incomplete guides, and insufficiently detailed articles that would love your attention :) – Blue Rook 18:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)contribs


 * Well...I wasn't too happy with this. But I'm not going to fight over it. Steve CTalk 22:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't be angry bud! I believe Simon had a valid point: we want to keep Template:Domesticunits visually differentiated from Template:CTU. With that other image they were nearly identical at the top, I would say. That image was a near duplicate of Image:Ctudomesticunits.jpg anyway. Don't let it bug ya, fellow editors revert my contribs, too, and it's rather annoying sometimes but it's part of the wiki process and I almost always learn something useful. – Blue Rook 23:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)contribs


 * Oh, I didn't even know Domesticunits existed. Well, I'll not go fully inactive then, and I'll try editing some more. Thanks (I'm, er, not used to being reverted on 24 stuff). Steve CTalk 23:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just Joined
Hi! I'm just after joining I love James Heller too but he's not in my top 10. He was brilliant in Day 4 and 6. I hate his daughter though. Nina&amp;Tony4eva 15:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey there, welcome to the wiki! I see you like Heller. You might just be the right person who might enjoy reading through his article to spot places for overdue spelling/detail corrections.
 * In the future, would you mind posting at the top of my page? Unlike Wikipedia, on this wiki, many users prefer new messages to be at the top. (It's not universal, just a matter of personal preference and you're free to keep messages wherever you like on your personal Talk.) You can do this by clicking "Edit" instead of "leave message" and typing below my prompt line.
 * Lastly, I notice that many newcomers consider this to be an open forum regarding anything 24. I can tell from your tribs that you feel the same way 8) Please just remember that these pages are dedicated almost exclusively to creating and maintaining an encyclopedia, and opinions regarding characters and the show are meant to be left at the door of one's own user page. – Blue Rook 18:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)contribs

Sydney, Australia
I think the Sydney, Australia issue is pretty funny.

I followed the link to Australia because I could not figure out why there would be an article on the country in the 24 wiki!? The article contained a blatant error that had no apparent reason for being there. There is also no apparent reason for the article "Australia" to exist, and there is no apparent reason for the city of Sydney to be listed there either.

If the city was mentioned in the series, I suggest a clearer way of signifying that fact, is to actually create an article named "Sydney" and stating that it was mentioned, and in what episode. I would do it, but I cannot recall when it was mentioned. It is rather vague to signify a mention of the city of Sydney by creating an article on "Australia" (which may or may not have even been directly mentioned in the show) which has a redlink to Sydney. Strictly speaking, the article "Australia" and any discussion of that country's captial is not "in universe" because they were not directly mentioned in the show. Protocol13 00:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Err, Australia was mentioned on page 89 of 24: The House Special Subcommittee's Findings at CTU.
 * It's not much of an "issue". It seems you might not know this yet, but wikis have clarity and factual errors sometimes. That one was corrected shortly after your original change, anyway.
 * The reason for that page's existence, which is not apparent to you, has been in the article since yesterday, but if it needs to be clearer, go ahead and clarify. Feel free to check it again and see what I mean. Also, in the future, you won't have any need to be skeptical concerning reasons why pages exist, because here is a tip. Just go to the article you're doubting, and click What links here in the toolbar, and you'll see what links to it. If there is nothing there, or if the source seems dubious, then you can begin to be skeptical. Otherwise the context of its mention will be right in those linked articles. – Blue Rook 00:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)contribs


 * Clearly that content was not in the article when I did the edit that started it all: changing the mention of the capital city from Sydney to Canberra. How ever could anyone know that there was a specific reason for Sydney being listed, if the article didn't say why? Obviously I would not have changed it if the reason why Sydney was specifically mentioned was stated in the article, I would have taken out description of that city being the nation's capital. I tried a "what links here" on the Sydney article-it does not seem to work on articles that do not exist(?). The issue was never "what links to" Australia, but the lack of a clear reason why Sydney had to be mentioned. (Whether "Australia" was ever mentioned anywhere in universe was never the issue). Really you are now just being patronising. Protocol13 07:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would Sydney have been in the article in the first place if it wasn't mentioned in the show? --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 08:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Protocol it always was clear that the content wasn't in the article, which is why I said "That one was corrected shortly after your original change." In response to your first question, the answer is: there is no clear reason to know why Sydney was being listed unless the questioning editor knows how to get to Special:Whatlinkshere/Sydney. For future reference, if you click a red link, you can still then click "What links here" even though there is no content.
 * I'm also having a very difficult time seeing through the contradictions in your last two posts. In your first post you said that Australia: may or may not have even been directly mentioned and then paradoxically said it was: not directly mentioned in the show. Then in your first post you said that you: could not figure out why there would be an article on the country in the 24 wiki. But in the post I'm replying to here, you then say: Whether "Australia" was ever mentioned anywhere in universe was never the issue. If something is mentioned, it can get an article, so whether Australia was mentioned or not determines if it should get an article and answers your very first point.
 * On a broader scope, it is always important to question if an article was mentioned in-universe when a concern like this is brought up. We know now for sure that Australia was, and eventually someone will find out when exactly Sydney was mentioned too.
 * If I sounded patronizing, it's because your post in this topic here had a tone that I found a bit odd in response to what I thought was a carefully-worded explanation about why Simon fixed the Canberra part and why I then added the stuff about Charlotte York in the Oz article. I took the time to write that on your Talk because, in the past, new editors often take it the wrong way when people change stuff they've done, and no effort is made to explain why. – Blue Rook 21:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)talk contribs

Thank You
I'm glad you apprectiate the feedback, and cool idea to post at the top of the page, also thank you for not ripping my head off about the Jack Bauer page, but it's always good to test to see what people thank, later.

P.S., bring on 24: Exile and Season 7! Tony Almeida 24 23:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure thing, and of course I'd never rip anyone's head off for a good-faith contribution like that. Just remember, for really important pages like Jack Bauer's, you can post a discussion on the Talk Page to get some feedback before makin changes you feel might be big ones.
 * And yes, let's have 24 Exile on the air already! – Blue Rook 00:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)contribs

A picture
Hi ! I uploaded a picture on my userpage but its not really where I'd like it positioned. Could you help and put it to the right of all the writing. I wouldn't ask but I'm on holidays and only find a computer occasionally, Thanks a lot if you can ! --2Anthony4 14:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Anthony, I've had a go at it - is that how you wanted it? --SignorSimon (talk • contribs • email me) 15:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And I slid it up a bit more. Go tag-team! – Blue Rook 19:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)contribs

It looks great, thanks, much appreciated, ps I'm not logged in because it sometimes doesn't work here it brings me to a different wiki ! - 2Anthony4 11:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey there
Was just wondering if you could help me with a coding-related issue. We used to have a pretty cool spoiler tag, but it seems with the new facelift we've had it is now gone. As you may remember it was a red, stripy outlined box, which was previously seem on pages e.g. 24: The Official Magazine Issue 11 etc. I think it works better than just the text because it is more attention grabbing. Would you know how to get this back? Thanks! SignorSimon 22:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I do remember that red-box tag, but I haven't a clue on how to make it functional again. Its absence can also be noted on all the Disambig pages, and on the templates for Lockdown, Inuse, and Spoilerdiscussions. I'd tell you if I knew, but generally I'm not interested in getting those back. I prefer a new, Wiki 24-specific red box like over on Template:IncompleteEpisode and the overhauled PNAs I did awhile ago. If we can't get the red box back, how do you feel about the alternative? – Blue Rook 23:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)contribs

Sure that's fine, just needs to be something eye-catching. That's why i think the red box one was good, because its very noticable. In that sense, I'm not sure the PNA one would work. --SignorSimon (talk • contribs • email me) 08:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't think the pna tags are very noticeable? If there is no way to retrieve striped-red one, feel free to whip up an alternative to the pna-variant. – Blue Rook 01:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)contribs

Possible spoiler information
Hi ! Once again, thanks for the dead on award, its much appreciated, I was looking at the 24 related internet media page and I remembered quite a good 24 related website but the problem is that the name of the website itself is a slight spoiler so should I put it down anyway or just wait until season 7 comes out ? -2Anthony4 14:57, 01 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What website is it? Once everyone knows the name, we can have a discussion about it. – Blue Rook 23:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)contribs

WARNING, THE FOLLOWING WEBSITE CONTAINS 24 SPOILERS. Heres a link -, -2Anthony4 09:00, 02 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Aha, I see the website now. Well, we've linked to external websites that contained spoilers before, so I imagine it could be done again. If you feel you really want to link to it, avoid using the actual title, and let the readers know that it is essentially a colossal list of huge spoilers. – Blue Rook 01:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)contribs

Yay !!!
Thanks so much for the dead on award, I'm giddy right now.... Anyway, I'm off to eliminate red-links !!-2Anthony4 08:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Co-Stars / Guest- stars
Hi there ! How do you know whether the actors were guest stars or co- stars or both ? I just add both categories to my pages hoping I'm right or you'll correct it, but so I'll be able to do it in the future, could you tell me ? - 2Anthony4 19:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm really glad you asked! All you have to do is visit the actor's character page, and then click the episodes where the character appeared in. On all those episode pages, scroll down to the Dramatis Personae list for each, and if the actor is credited under Guest Starring, he/she gets that category. If he appeared in another episode but as a Co-star, then he/she gets that category too. Same thing for every other actor category. Even if the actor was credited once as Co-Star but 100 other times as Guest Star, the actor still gets both categories.
 * The standard for arranging the credit categories is by order of significance:


 * 1) Main stars
 * 2) Special guest appearance stars (only Dennis Haysbert has ever received this credit)
 * 3) Special guest stars
 * 4) Guest stars
 * 5) Co-stars
 * 6) Season X actors (as many of these as needed)
 * And then finally, if the actor was ever uncredited, I've been adding that category at the very end after everything else. Let me know if this brings up other questions! – Blue Rook 20:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)contribs

Season 7 page
Is it OK for me to make a Season 7 page as a sepearate part of my User page so that when it comes we can instantly just add it? I'll put a spoiler warning at the top and not upload any spoiler images until Exile airs, but make it clear that if people want to read and edit it, they can? SignorSimon 09:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with that, since user namespace is not subject to the policies that were designed for IU main namespace articles. It is worth mentioning that I don't think Proudhug would find this particularly kosher, but you guys can sort it out when he returns and if he brings it up. Also, you gotta promise to delete it when Exile airs :) – Blue Rook 18:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)– Blue Rook 20:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)contribs

I won't do it if Prodhug will be annoyed by it, I just thought it was something to do and would make things easier when it comes around. I'd put spoiler tags all over the thing, as well as wherever there are links to it. SignorSimon 20:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, since it won't be linked from anywhere in the main namespace (right?) if you have doubts or anything, you could keep the material in a text file on your drive and work on it by Previewing it constantly. About Proudhug, I'm not a mindreader, but I was just deducing from my experience with him. I could be dead wrong, however, and since the active folks here seem to be okay with it, you might as well commence! – Blue Rook 20:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)contribs