Talk: Sentox nerve gas attack on CTU Los Angeles

This is the talk page for a featured article that has previously been voted for by the Wiki 24 community. We believe it to be one of the best examples of the Wiki 24 community's work. Even so, if you see a way this page can be improved even further, we invite you to contribute.

Status

Thanks you to whomever removed the "Status" field in the fatalities chart. But should we not remove it from the survivor's chart, as well? Even changing it to "Current status" doesn't mean that it has anything to do with the the sentox nerve gas attack on CTU Los Angeles. Besides, it seems odd to see a chart of "survivors" where some of them are listed as "deceased." --Proudhug 18:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Links

Signor, you can leave behind any of the Unnamed survivors with lines over on the Unnamed CTU page, and then link to them from here (didn't have to take them all down, just the extras without lines). – Blue Rook 22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)_talkcontribs

There doesn't have to be any "status" column for the known casualties...they're obviously dead.

But I don't know the actor's names and I'm pretty sure they weren't in the credits. Does that matter? SignorSimon 06:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't matter: if they had lines, they can be included. Even if we don't know the actors or if they were credited. Proudhug and I have both made entries like this for unnamed characters with lines but no actors... see all the Unnamed CTU agents from Day 1 and terrorists like Morrison's hitman and Nathanson's subordinate conspirator. Since they are eligible for inclusion, feel free to insert the ones with lines back in there, and what they said, and link them to this Gassing article. – Blue Rook 06:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)_talkcontribs

I kinda agree with Blue Rook on this one. If these characters have no names, but have spoken at least 1 line, they should be in the appropriate unnamed characters category.--Makarov29 12:32, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Rename to smaller title?

Always thought this should have a smaller page title. Would anyone care if I moved this to "Sentox gassing of CTU LA" and updated all the redirects? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 23:58, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

I think "attack" sounds better than "gassing". --proudhug 00:00, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Smaller title would be good. I agree attack is nicer than gassing and "sentox attack" implies it is a gassing i think. On a different note, are other Attacks on CTU Los Angeles gonna be split into their own articles (eventually haha)?--Acer4666 00:12, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

If someone creates them. There's no rule against it. SignorSimon decided to make this page, so perhaps someone will want to make others. --proudhug 00:18, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking about visitors who don't know what "Sentox" is. Everyone needs to remember we can't just only preach to the choir: some fans didn't see all the seasons, etc. I still prefer "gassing" because it is unarguably more illustrative and specific. And, that's what it was: a gassing. Options:

1. Sentox gassing of CTU LA (my words)
2. Sentox attack on CTU LA (Proudhug's words)
3. Sentox gas attack on CTU LA (compromise? meh..)
   

Blue Rook  talk  contribs 00:24, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

I guess that begs the question, what's your reason for wanting to shorten it? Would redirects of the above suggestions suffice, or is there some other practicality? --proudhug 00:27, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

I find this current page title to be unique in that it is quite needlessly long. There is also the worry that it might be used as precedent for something even longer in the future. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 00:32, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, there's no inherent problem with a long article title (Wikipedia has lots of them). I'd rather have a title that's needlessly long than insufficiently short. If shortening the title causes problems with clarity, as possibly evidenced above, then it's not a good idea. If a title can be shortened and be equally as clear and accurate, only then would I recommend it. --proudhug 00:40, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

You haven't explicitly said that you find any of those options to be "insufficiently short". Do you?

It's odd that you'd prefer "attack" over "gassing" since the latter is clear and accurate for any reader, and definitely more precise than just the former word. What about the fans who aren't familiar with Season 5? The word "sentox" is meaningless to more visitors than you might think. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 01:18, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're saying one of the options is insufficiently short. I haven't really thought about it either way, since I know the current title obviously isn't too short.

I think "attack" sounds better than "gassing" because A) "gassing" just plain sounds funny to me, and B) "sentox attack" already implies that it was a gassing. I don't understand your argument about people not knowing what sentox is, though. Isn't that why Wiki 24 exists? To provide information? This article explains that it's a nerve gas in the very first sentence and links to the article about the gas. Why does it matter that the term was meaningless before they found the article about it? --proudhug 01:57, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

"Gassing" sounds "funny"? Really? To me it's no funnier than "hanging", "shooting", or any other mode of murdering people. It's a real word and it's specific as possible.

I'll drop this. It's not much of an issue since Wikia implemented that "link suggestion" thing, making linking of larger title articles easier. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 02:25, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for implying that that was meant to be a persuasive argument. I just find it a funny word, that's all. Less funny than "attack". My only point here is really that shortening the title is fine if there's reason to do so and if the shortened title doesn't create ambiguity. --proudhug 02:33, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Certainly I totally and completely agree with you, on both criteria. My reason for doing so is the idea that this title is unnecessarily long, and I believe "gassing" leaves no ambiguity either. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 03:28, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Carrie Bendis

We all know that Carrie Bendis was killed by Ostroff, but shouldn't she be listed as well? She was a fatality, although being stabbed by Ostroff. She wasn't killed by the sentox nerve gas, but still was a fatality. What should we doing with this? --Station7 21:02, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

I agree she should be included, too. I am going to add her at the top of the fatalities list, and the intro sentence to that list will be changed from "The following people were killed as a result of the nerve gas" to something more inclusive. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 21:57, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, she was a victim indeed. --Mistertrouble189 15:12, May 16, 2012 (UTC)