FANDOM

9,366 Pages

Check out the main Talk page or the other archives (1, 2).

DVD's Edit

3 questions.

1: Should I remove the Region 4 section I made on the DVD page, or at least the images as they are extremely similar to those in the Region 2 bit?

2: If I keep the Region 4 DVD images, should I scan and add the outer box images as they are different to that of the inner cover for season 5 & 6?

3: Haven't the Season 6 DVD sets come out in America yet?!

--BillBuchanan24 13:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

1. No, that's awesome that you put the table in there. I did some minor tweaking to it, but it's good work.
2. One cover image is enough probably enough, but it's up to you if you want to put both on the individual DVD pages. Are they really that different?
3. Season 6 comes out in December in Region 1.
--Proudhug 13:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! And thanks for th extra editing help, both in the table and in the linked articles.

--BillBuchanan24 15:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Email Edit

I sent a reply a few days ago to the response ya sent not too long ago to my original email. Did it go through? Blue Rook 04:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Not citations Edit

There's nothing wrong with those notes on the discussion pages; they aren't citations. They are just for edification. People will look there to ask the question "where did that last name come from" and their answer will already be there. – Blue Rook 00:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC) In other words, I'd like to leave up those talk pages, for the following reason: when someone questions where the information came from, there will be no need for a dialogue since the topic will already have been addressed. I think this is logical. Yes/no? – Blue Rook 01:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)talkcontribs

Of course, they're citations. What else would you call them? We don't do this with anything else, so why with the TCG? Wiki 24 culls its information from many sources and we don't cite what came from where. Currently, the policy seems to be that unless a citation is specifically requested, one isn't needed. Provided the information is verifiable, of course. If someone needs to know, they can ask, but otherwise, I don't think there's any need to randomly source certain pieces of information from certain locations. Besides, you already cited where it came from in the Edit Summary box, no? --Proudhug
Notes, I guess? My intention isn't to cite, or change/alter policy; I think there is a convenience here to specify stuff from the card game because everything else is easily traceable to its source. Information under Day X is from the TV show, info under Before/After Day X is the all from the appropriate Prequel/spin-off, etc... yet these newly revealed names are data that are not as easily traced. As such, I still think it's useful for it to be noted somewhere, and what better place than the very page the people will go to in order to ask?
My end here is a rational one; those discussion page notes, of course, won't stand up to strict policy scrutiny, so you'll win that every time, but they are not intended to be policy, or analyzed as such, in the first place. Also, it does not harm, right? – Blue Rook 01:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)talkcontribs

Do you seriously expect a lot of people to wonder, or care, where the heck we got Nasir Trabelsi's last name from? And is it really that much of a pain to provide an answer to the first person who does ask? It just seems silly to me to arbitrarily try and preempt possible questions from site users. I'm sure there are TONS of pieces of information on Wiki 24, from the novels, comics and games, that aren't easily traceable (Where did Jack's birthdate come from? How do we know where Teri went to school? How do we know Elizabeth Nash was reading a book about LBJ?). Should we go out of our way to source these facts just in case someone asks? I would say no. I realize it does no harm, but it does no good either, since we'd be answering the question anyway if asked. Scenario 1: Answer two asked questions, vs. Scenario 2: Answer twenty-five unasked questions. I say it makes sense to only provide sources when someone actually wants to know. Unless of course, you do have a desire to change our policy about citations, in which case we can discuss that. --Proudhug 01:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Before I start, rest assured that you're not the only one pissed at Wikia; this evening I've sent more than my share of contribs into that yawning, inaccessible chasm where your text goes when Wikia is all fustigated. Also I haven't been able to load pages properly for a few hours.
Back on topic, since those talk pages suck, what if I did propose a minor appendix to the policy? Something small and unobtrusive, like: whenever we get someone's name from TCG, we note it in BG/notes? I believe this is interesting to note, and also, provides exposure to that new 24 medium out there, which is always exciting and doesn't happen often. – Blue Rook 02:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)talkcontribs

So, if we get someone's last name from the TCG, we put a note, but not if we get it from the TV show or a novel, comic book, board game, website, video game, TV commercial or amusement park ride? How does that seem fair? I guess I just don't understand why we'd center out one medium, but not others. I could see if you were proposing we cite all information, but I don't understand why just this one. I personally think of the 24verse as one big thing; it doesn't matter where the information came from, so long as it did. --Proudhug 02:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the original point wasn't we put a note as a matter of policy (that was only brought up later), it was me (Blue Rook) putting a note for the edification of others in a completely non-obtrusive place, while exercising my own discretion (read: not enforcing policy). Later, I brought up the minor policy idea, and as expected, the argument you put forward against that was coherent and acceptable... since it was never supposed to be a policy consideration in the first place.
First I will address any general statement that "what Blue Rook posted isn't permissible on those Talk pages":
Talk pages are for discussion of the article as it pertains to Wiki 24. Not characters and plots and theories, but matters of the in-universe, factual character/place/thing and matters germane to its article. Those pages simply meet those criteria. You and I have both left up non-germane whole threads on Talk pages, and instead of deleting them, left a note saying essentially "this is not the place for this". Well, I'm saying here that my brief statements were much more germane than some of the crap left on the talk pages, and yet were all deleted wholesale.
In summary, I'm pointing out the strangeness that we can leave non-germane discussions on the Talk pages, but then delete things which are perfectly germane (i.e. my brief statements for clarification).
Second, look the specific claim you made that they are citations. I've already addressed this: if I wanted to cite something, I would have put it in the BG/Notes. But I didn't. It's just helpful for those people out there like you, me, and Deege who care about this type of thing. I wasn't "being an admin who was enforcing policy" either. Just commenting on something in the place where comments go.
Third, this is not a slippery slope. I have no intention or desire to do stuff like this for anything other than "names revealed through TCG". It's not a gateway for some kind of citation-mania, which I (perhaps just as well as you) realize would be foolish, unnecessary, and also utterly impossible to implement.
I'm convinced that if you understood that there is simply no slippery slope here, and with the other two points in mind, you would have no problem with me resurrecting the notes because they are germane and do the two goods of 1 edification without being policy-changing citations and 2 serve to promote awareness of TCG. I also think, more basically, the deletions disregarded a user's right to post comments germane to the articles on the Talk pages. I know you don't like them, but you can't possibly argue that they aren't germane.
This goes both ways: if you, or anyone, set out to open discussion on pertinent Talk pages for, let's say, each time a fact came from a comic book, I wouldn't delete it. Providing answers and opening discussion for a new medium is always a good thing. – Blue Rook 20:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)talkcontribs

You're probably correct that you do have the right to make that notation, and for that reason, I probably shouldn't have removed it. I do understand why you did put the notes there, I just don't agree that there's any real reason for it. To me, it almost seemed like borderline spam, despite your belief that it served a purpose. You weren't posing a question (good or bad... and we do get a lot of bad questions, which is fine), you were just making a comment. Despite the comment being relevant to the article, it was still a seemingly random statement of fact and not a question or suggestion to improve Wiki 24. Personally, I'd rather have an off-topic innocently dumb question posed on a Talk page, than a simple statement of fact that may or may not be common knowledge to some, or unimportant to others, but that's just me. Perhaps you disagree, but I believe the Talk pages should be reserved strictly for things like:

  • Proposing ways of improving the article
  • Questioning anything about the article that may be incorrect or missing
  • Questioning whether or not an article should be deleted
  • Posing questions about sources or unclear aspects of the article or of the show itself
  • Storing FA notices

I know that the TCG information came from a legitimate source and you know that it came from a legitimate source, so why would you go out of our way prove this to anyone, unless requested to do so? I don't see as it's any more "unclear" than lots of other obscure facts on Wiki 24. A better way to promote awareness of the TCG would be to beef up its article and nominate it for FA, no? --Proudhug 14:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That's where we disagree: yes, beefing up the article is great, but it isn't the only way to promote awareness. How's this for a resolution: I bring back 2 of those talk pages and leave the rest deleted, but then beef up the TCG Article itself by making a section describing in a paragraph the list of characters whose names were expanded upon by the cards. – Blue Rook 01:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)talkcontribs

I already started listing the characters whose full names were revealed in the TCG. I've only done Day 0 so far, but I'll get the First Edition up soon. --Proudhug 23:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Aha great, didn't see that down there. I'll bring back just the Rita Brady talk page, then, since it is the most likely one to get someone to ask "where'd the last name come from?", and then curb my desire to make any more. Reasonable? – Blue Rook 01:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)talkcontribs

Deal-e-o. --Proudhug 01:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

New Article Edit

Hey again... I made a new article on the explosive C5 used by Andre Drazen in Season 1, and I got a note thingy at the top of the page about a real world point of view or something... could you please read the article and say what it is I need to change or do it for me... Thanx. Also, how do you make a new category? BillBuchanan24 06:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to be careful to distinguish between in-universe statements (IU) and out-of-universe statements (OOU). IU is the perspective of the characters, while OOU is the perspective of the audience. Check out the Manual of Style for more information. Here are some explanations of what was incorrectly OOU in the article:
  • "fictional" - How could they have used it if it was fictional? This isn't IU.
  • "It has only been used once" - Unless you have evidence that Andre Drazen is the only person ever to have used C5, this is an OOU statement.
  • "Season 1" - Unless you're talking about Spring, Summer, Winter or Fall, the characters on the show would likely not know what a "Season" is.
  • "Surprisingly" - Who was surprised by this? Certainly no one on the show expressed surprise at this fact.
To make new categories, you simply add the desired category to the bottom of the articles you want to be in the category, then click on the red link and add some descriptive text.
Also, I deleted your "Episode X" redirects as I can't see them being useful at all.
And lastly, unless you have an IU source for the names of all those handguns, the information doesn't belong on the handgun page. Instead, we have an OOU page entitled "Handguns on 24." Let me know if you require any further clarification. --Proudhug 14:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Shortcut Edit

I figured out a way you can save some time with those Templates pics you've been working on:

Day2 joseph

JosephWald

Take a look at the pics, I sized the other one to fit the needs of the template appearances. Should work for a bunch of them. – Blue Rook 06:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)talkcontribs

I'm aware of resizing images, however I'm re-uploading all of the birthdate images to A) make them all square, rather than different shapes, and B) give them consistent file names. --Proudhug 14:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Collateral Damage Article Edit

I made the collateral damage article by removing the redirect to the Declassified novel. But when you type in a search, it is still redirected, but if you click on a link to it, it isn't redirected. Why is it doing this? BillBuchanan24 23:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Pay attention to capitalization. Capital letters are used for proper nouns and titles. "Collateral Damage" is the name of a book, while "collateral damage" is a term. WikiMedia automatically capitalizes the first letter of all articles unfortunately, but we can still distinguish the two articles by capitalizing "Damage." In the future, be careful to pay attention to capitalization of words. For example, "real time" isn't a proper noun, so it doesn't get capitalized. I hope this helps. --Proudhug 16:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes that helps heaps! Thanks!

BillBuchanan24 00:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a picky issue... Edit

After periods, do we double space or single space? I've seen it both ways.

Also, any grammar stuff could go in this topic, I guess. For continuity of our encyclopedia.

I was always taught in school to type two spaces after a sentence, but I don't know if it's an absolute rule or anything. I tend to change any single spaces I find, but I'd hardly consider it bad grammar or style or anything.
Also, don't forget to post new topics at the top of the page, not the bottom, and please sign your posts. --Proudhug 21:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, so this is a thing of mine, but the double spacing issue is something that was created for typewriters to have correct place setting. Computers, however, can do it automatically, and therefore, using double spaces does nothing but create extra code. I didn't learn this until college when it was pounded into my head in English and journalism classes. It does absolutely nothing on a computer, and if the default font is something monospaced, it looks quite odd. It is antique, caused by too many teachers not being taught about computers.    CANADA DRY    talk    contribs    email   05:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Deaths on 24 Edit

Hi, is there anything I can do with this page without re-watching the 4th-6th seasons, like look things up on Fox.com? OneWeirdDude 00:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally going through every episode and assuring the accuracy of each and every death (I'm only up to Day 2 3:00pm so far), but if you feel there's a rush to fill things in, you can add whatever you like to the article, so long as it's correct info, of course. --Proudhug 03:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I figured out why people keep posting at the bottom of Talk pages: they're clicking on the little + tab next to the edit tab, which automatically adds material to the very bottom. I doubt they're clicking Edit, and then scrolling all the way down, and then ignoring the warning that's clearly there. When they click the + (plus) sign, they never see the warning, so they have no clue what they're doing. It's annoying, to be sure! – Blue Rook 05:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)talkcontribs
Ah, thanks for solving the mystery, Blue Rook. I didn't even realize that tab was there. Stupid +. --Proudhug 14:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

DVD Article Edit

Hey, I know this is a bit late seeing I did this article ages ago, but on the Season 5 dvd covers for region 4 it says there are 6 discs, but there are actually 7. I put it on the table as having 7 and you undid it.... which is the correct thing to do as I am not sure...? BillBuchanan24 12:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I only undid it because I thought you'd made a mistake. I don't have any R4 DVDs, so if you say it's a mistake, I'll have to believe you. I'm sorry if you thought I was being mean. --Proudhug 18:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
My dilemma is that for all of the R4 DVD's, excluding Season 1 and 6, are marked as having only 6 discs, but in the collection I have, they have a limited time only seventh disc. That's why I didn't put it in the actual articles as having a seperate sub-heading for Disc 7, as the people who didn't buy them in time would only have 6, therefore rendering the info as incorrect. What would be the proper thing to have in the article and the table in the DVD article? BillBuchanan24 06:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, okay, I see now. Well then the main DVD page should list only the normal number of DVDs, while the information about the bonus discs can go on the pages for the individual sets. The R1 Season 5 set came with three different exclusive bonus discs at three different stores, so there are ten total discs available, however, any given set only included 7 or 8. --Proudhug 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki defaultsort Edit

In early October you removed the defaultsort from the Jack Bauer article, but dropped one in for Marcy today. Can it be inferred that you now consider this an option for alphabetizing categories? I think it's a great feature for those characters who have a large number of categs, but that it shouldn't be necessary for all articles. – Blue Rook 02:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC) talkcontribs

Of course it's an option. I likely reverted it back then because I wasn't aware of the feature, or I wasn't paying attention, I dunno. I recently thanked Jack Phoenix for the tip. It's a neat feature for those characters who have massive lists of categories. --Proudhug 09:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Primary Weapon article Edit

I know it's a bit weird to ask this after I put in the effort to make them page, but I'm not sure whether its necessary for the site. And if you think it is needed, could please take a look at the "See Also" section of it. Should I have put all of those in, or just a few of the more important ones...? Thanks again, BillBuchanan24 14:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, this is a fan term, not something actually used on the show, and not even a fan term I've ever heard before. As such, it really doesn't belong on Wiki 24. --Proudhug 15:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. BillBuchanan24 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Whane and Mandy Edit

It's too difficult for me to add new topics on the top of the page, so just deal with it. I think we should add on the trivia sections that while Whane has only appeared in seasons 3,5, and 6, Mandy has only appeared in seasons 1,2, and 4. What do you think?--Black Kirby 22:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well then, here's what you need to deal with. Since you have yet to make any significant contributions to this site, only rude and senseless arguments and suggestions, I'm no longer interested in communicating with you on any level, about any issues. Additionally, any further disruption of this or any other talk page, without clearly constructive intent, will be reverted and you will be banned from editing Wiki 24. Have a nice day. --Proudhug 18:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

PNA/AFD article maintenance tags & other question Edit

Two bits: how come the AFD template tag isn't a pna? Sometime back you moved it from "pna-afd" to just "afd." If a page being nominated for deletion can't be called "a page that needs attention," I don't know what is. I ask primarily because I have a Merge and a Move tag ready to post for use, but now I'm not sure if I should call them pna's or leave them naked like afd.

On a second topic while I'm here, I'm curious as to why you removed the === After Day 2 === subheading from above the Stories link in Hector's and Ramon's articles. That's taking a step backwards, since very few visitors are likely to know when exactly Stories took place before Day 3. – Blue Rook 00:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)talkcontribs

I guess I view a "page needing attention" as a page that needs to be fixed up or worked on. Something that's possibly going to be deleted will get no work. I guess it depends on your interpretation of "attention."
The heading removal was an accident. I was removing the redirect to a redirect. I put "Before Day 3" instead, since that's the only reference point for the characters.
Let me know if you disagree with me on anything. --Proudhug 03:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
That rationale for not labeling it a "pna" is definitely a reasonable one, so it can go either way. I was thinking of renaming it {{Pna-delete}} for consistency, however, and also because it follows the broader definition of "attention". After mulling that over, do you think the upcoming {{Pna-merge}} and {{Pna-move}} templates should be preceded by pna as seen here, or no? Third question: also on that topic and more basically, do you think we actually even need Move and Merge templates (I'll say yes, otherwise I wouldn't have gone and created them).
Regarding the Salazar Bros. appearances, I think it's pretty obvious that "Stories" occurs Before Day 3 because it's listed before it, so saying that in a sub-heading is redundant and not particularly informative. But, those two men had nothing to do with Day 2, so restoring "After Day 2" isn't more convincing, either. I'm seeing both sides on this one, yet I'm favoring the latter, simply because it's consistent with every other time Stories is given a sub-heading, and also slightly more informative. Less importantly, if we go with "Before Day 3", it's precedent for making those subheadings relative/changeable instead of static, which I believe a timeline should clearly be. – Blue Rook 06:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)talkcontribs

I don't think Wiki 24 is big enough to need the merge and move templates, but if you want to have them and use them, that's fine. You can change the AFD to PNA-DELETE, too, if you like. I have no problem with that. I think it's fine the way it is, but you probably have a stronger opinion about it than I do. I also don't have a preference about the appearances headings, so feel free to do what you think is best there, until someone else objects. --Proudhug 13:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the afd- it's not a notice about the content, but the whole article itself, which does make it different than the other PNAs. Which makes me think it might be useful to make content maintenance PNAs (those which already exist) and article maintenance PNAs (such as delete, merge, and move). They're all for pages that need input, but for two different reasons. I'll add them to the Bullpen, noting those two categories, let me know what you think.
Also, like we have a Template:Welcome for new users, we also have a Template:Status for users who make the common error of screwing up statuses. I've recently modified two more for our little arsenal against frequent offenses: Template:Spoilers for users who post spoilers (the warning might be a better first step than a ban, which I think could be saved for strike two), and a Template:Ineligiblevote for folks who add votes which are invalid for any reason on the Featured page. Good idea, or overkill? – Blue Rook 02:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)talkcontribs

Not a question, just a comment Edit

Thanks for helping keep all the article edits that I make, not matter how small, up to the high standards that you work at. BillBuchanan24 09:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please Delete Page Edit

I was looking through the Latest Intel and I noticed a page titled Free lesbian movie trailer. The page was just a list of keywords related to pornography. I have deleted the text from it, but cannot delete the page. I was wondering whether you could do this. If so thanks. BillBuchanan24 11:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks for deleting the content Bill! Feel free to report the IPs of vandals if you catch them before we do at Wiki 24:Vandal Alert. – Blue Rook 15:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)talkcontribs

Community Involvement Edit

I had an idea, which was to have an open poll on the front page of Wiki24, or just a link and people could vote on things like for example "The Best Action Scene" or "Saddest Moment" and give 5 or so options to choose from. I know this doesnt aid in the furthering of the actual 24 encyclopedia, but I thought it would just be interesting. BillBuchanan24 05:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

delition Edit

why did you delite my article i think it would be a good idea to have a list of transcripts hare it is not like there is any thin illgal about them 64.223.80.231 00:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We include in our encyclopedia some clips of dialogue (such as the Memorable Quotes sections) but keeping entire episode transcripts strikes me as an obvious case of copyright violation. Nearly everything here is copyrighted, and we use it all under fair-use claims, but I can't summon a similar reason for posting entire transcripts. If FOX ever lets their transcripts be posted legally, then I imagine it would be permissible to post here.
Also, it's difficult to say how serious you were about the effort. The page was riddled with rudimentary spelling errors and written in a tone unsuited for an encyclopedia. We remove material like that, and post some advice on the creator's talk page (see yours!), to give users time to consider whether they would like to seriously go forward with it. - Blue Rook 02:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Random bits Edit

  1. I've noticed that at least three times I've answered other people's questions to you on your own talk page. I assumed that since I wouldn't mind if someone it did over on my page, other folks wouldn't mind either, but I see now that's just an assumption. Is that annoying, should I stop?
  2. Whenever I find a very minor background appearance for Secret Service agents like Cole and the others, I have been putting in brief statements describing where they were. Would it be advisable to do the same kind of thing for Berkin, or not since it would be too large an endeavor for such an insignificant character?
  3. A user named Ggjk has come along and started filling out the Deaths on 24 page. If I remember correctly you had a running tally of parts to update to that page eventually. Is his work consistent with yours? From what I can tell, it looks good so far, except I think the time of Keeler's son's death (and the fight pilot that Anderson hit directly, whom I added in there) is off by a few minutes. – Blue Rook 02:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)talkcontribs
  1. It's not annoying at all. If anything, it's annoying to have people ask general questions about the site on my talk page, as opposed to in the Situation Room. As I said on Markdanielmiller's talk page, you're usually more articulate than I am, so feel free to jump in, even if it's not a general topic. If I have anything to add to your comments, either complimentary or contradictory, I'll do so. I thank you for your initiative.
  2. Berkin has so many appearances, it might not be feasible to put anything noteworthy for every appearance, but I'm sure general statements like "Berkin was present with Palmer at the OC during Day 2" might suffice. I might go back later and make more specific notes about his appearances and what information might be worth putting on his page.
  3. I'm not paying any attention to the work done on the page for episodes past the point that I've worked on. As I get to each episode, I'm changing/fixing/removing/adding to the current content. The only inconsistency I've noticed is the inclusion of "unknown" amounts of people. The page is specifically for confirmed deaths, so these belong in the "Not included" section. --Proudhug 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.