Hi, welcome to Wiki 24! Thanks for your edit to the Jack Bauer page.
Hey there, I noticed in your edits you often "pipe links" (ie when you make a link read as another word with [[PAGENAME|alternate text]]) but with words that are not synonymous with the article you are linking to. Could you try to keep any links like that only for an alternate wording of the article name, rather than on other unrelated phrases? Thanks! Let me know if you don't understand what I'm talking about haha--Acer4666 (talk) 13:16, August 27, 2015 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but I'm usually trying to avoid being too pedantic. Could you refer to one of the examples that's not preferable? (Later): Scratch, that I see what you mean, but I'm usually trying to provide links to describe the events in question. For instance, on my previous season 3 edit, I put Alan and Julia as pipe links for "complicates matters" because I was trying to provide links to what I was referring to (as they were the center of the matters Sherry was complicating). Are you saying pipe links should usually be a little bit less vague? Thanks for the feedback--SuperbowserX (talk) 18:46, August 27, 2015 (UTC)
- A guess a rule of thumb is that the article name and the pipe text should be synonymous - so imagine replacing the pipe text with the alternate name and see if the sentence still makes grammatical sense. So an example of this being ok is: "Jack Bauer tracked down [[Stephen Saunders|the mastermind]]" , because the sentence still makes sense with "Jack Bauer tracked down Stephen Saunders". However, if you have "Jack Bauer [[Mojave desert|disposed of]] the bomb", that doesn't make sense as "Mojave desert" and "dispose of" are not synonymous: the sentence "Jack Bauer Mojave desert the bomb" does not make sense. Better to say "Jack Bauer disposed of the bomb in the Mojave Desert".
- There are exceptions but generally for alternate forms of the same word, e.g. "Jack Bauer [[Amputation|amputated]] Chase's hand" because that is the same word with a different form. But for unrelated phrases that are only related in the context of the particular sentence you're typing, best to use the above rule. If that makes sense! :)--Acer4666 (talk) 19:00, August 27, 2015 (UTC)
- Hey SuperBowser, you seem to be continuing to do this. Your recent edits of all the season pages have added your personal interpretation of what some quotes are referring to - did you understand what I was saying above about seeing whether the sentence still made sense if you remove the pipe?--Acer4666 (talk) 20:41, February 28, 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry Acer, forgot that, but I'll keep it in mind in the future. Feel free to remove the pipez--SuperbowserX (talk) 21:16, February 28, 2016 (UTC)
Impacts of future seasons Edit
I think the "Impact of future seasons" in the format sections on seasons 1-6 articles is questionable since many readers already know in the entire length of the show and what kind of impact those seasons made for the remainder for 24. I have to tell you, I find it it be very questionable and maybe a bit unnecessary because of those reasons. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:41, October 18, 2015 (UTC)
I would disagree, but I wouldn't contest if they were removed. I think it organizes the articles and adds more to them.--SuperbowserX (talk) 05:06, October 19, 2015 (UTC)
- I also disagree with that reason you gave Battleshipman - if readers already knew about everything in the entire length of 24, why put anything on this site?--Acer4666 (talk) 06:58, October 19, 2015 (UTC)
If an edit of yours is reverted Edit
Hey Superbowser, just a quick note: If one of your edits is reverted, rather than putting it back and arguing your case in the edit summary, it's best to start a discussion on the talk page. It's impossible to discuss things while putting an edit back and forth, it leads to edit warring! So on the unnamed terrorists talk page, I've started a discussion about what you tried to change. It will need community consensus on the talk page before the change can be made! Thanks--Acer4666 (talk) 22:34, November 9, 2015 (UTC)
Females killed by Jack BauerEdit
Yet we have the similar information put on the pages of Nina Myers, Dana Walsh, Margot Al-Harazi. What's the difference? She is the only one out of the 5 who's nationality isn't revealed. Other notes are put on the above mentioned characters and there is no problem with that? But if I would write that Margot is the only mother killed by Jack Bauer during the series, would you remove it? (Being a father and being killed by Jack Bauer isn't noteworthy: Victor Drazen, Ryan Chappelle and Edward Vossler). --Station7 (talk) 23:54, November 27, 2015 (UTC)
That's just my judgment -- something like being of an undisclosed nationality doesn't seem to be noteworthy. I don't consider it distinguishing enough a feature. Same with the mother thing, it's not unique enough in the context/world of 24.SuperbowserX (talk) 06:42, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
- The other notes you mention about Nina, Dana and Margot are relevant to their death (which is what the note was about), like how Jack killed them or the fact he killed a major character in the series. Nationality is kind of completely unrelated to that. If we started picking completely random facts about the people he killed (Dana is the only female killed by Jack to have blonde hair, Russian operative is the only female killed by Jack to be wearing earrings, Margot Al-Harazi is the only female killed by Jack with an H in her name,...) it gets kind of mad! I can kind of see why facts related to the killing can be included, but random in-universe properties of the characters I think is going too far.--Acer4666 (talk) 10:46, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Like you said, not having a revealed nationality and being killed by Jack is not noteworthy: Most of the people he killed didn't ave their nationality revealed--Acer4666 (talk) 10:47, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Still, it's noteworthy. It just depends on your meaning if it's noteworthy or not. The Russian operative doesn't even has a page ;), but still we don't know if the other females ever wear earrings. Dana having blonde hair, OK, but we don't know if other characters ever dyed their hair. If you discount the Dana Walsh nickname, the fact about Margot is then right. --Station7 (talk) 14:58, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
I'm like an elephant...I NEVER FORGET! Edit
Haha just kidding :P but when I missed out some of those unnamed redirects, it wasn't due to forgetfulness - if you take a check of this discussion, you'll see a lot of entries were made in good faith without realising that the characters needed illustrative images. We have a lot of characters without images on those pages, that decent images potentially don't exist for. I'm overdue to go through and check them to see if we should keep. But just so you know, there was method in my madness ;) --Acer4666 (talk) 20:12, March 9, 2016 (UTC)
- Aha nothing to worry about, I was just adding some of the agents, then realized that he's an "unknwon actor", then wondered "Hey wait a minute on the terrorists page..." and just wrote what I was thinking in the edit summary :P Just me blabbing. And I suppose it's no big deal; I checked all the terrorists with no credited actor in their description and added that categ for anyone who didn't have it. :)--SuperbowserX (talk) 06:11, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
Talk page response Edit
Hey, just to let you know I responded to your talk page post (at about the same time you were implementing the change!). I responded pretty much as soon as I saw it as I was out all day. In general, we normally have a rough rule of thumb of 48 hours of no response before "consensus through silence" has been reached (see large edit policy proposal), allowing everyone a chance to chime in. Anyways, just to let you know there has been a response! Thanks--Acer4666 (talk) 17:38, April 12, 2016 (UTC)
- Hey Superbowser, just another quick reminder about this - if you're seeking consensus for a fairly large amount of edits, like the category change for the Dawn Brigade people, make sure to leave it enough time to give everyone the chance to chime in (48 hours is the normal grace period). Just because one or two agree doesn't mean everyone will! It saves having to change everything back in case someone doesn't agree. Thanks!--Acer4666 (talk) 17:11, May 4, 2016 (UTC)
Hey Acer! First off, the fact that you gave go ahead on the Dawn Brigade was the reason I made the edits. Does anyone supersede you? Do you, in spite of your approval, think I still should've waited 2dayz in that case? And I'll try to keep it mind in the future, but in the interest of honesty, I will not claim that I can promise I'll never forget again.
As for your remark below on the D6 edit: I was correcting a lot of poor grammar. I didn't even know about Companion before reading your reply. If anything I wrote in there was wrong or contradictory feel free to delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SuperbowserX (talk • contribs) .
- Hey! In regards to discussion on the wiki - no-one supersedes anyone! Every editor has the chance to voice their opinion and no-one's is held in higher regard than anyone else's. See the admin page explaining that admins are in "no way superior to other users, and their opinions do not necessarily carry more weight". I'm not always right, so even if I agree it's courteous to wait until everyone's had a chance to weigh in that wants to.
- About the D6 edit - I see, I think you changed the meaning of the note rather than just its grammar, so I'll change it back--Acer4666 (talk) 16:14, May 5, 2016 (UTC)
Hi Superbowser, just to check, in this edit you changed a statement of Jon Cassar's opinions that he gave on the audio commentary for the deleted scene. Was your edit about Stephen Saunders something he said on the audio commentary? I unfortunately can't check at the moment, so thought I'd ask--Acer4666 (talk) 14:02, April 15, 2016 (UTC)
- No, I haven't seen the commentary of that scene at all. I'm just throwing around a pretty good reason why the "mastermind's innocent family" trope wasn't used with Marwan: since it was already used in S3. I didn't necessarily mean to word it in a way that insinuated that Cassat said that. I was just making a point against the scene independent of the reason Cassar gave. Kay?--SuperbowserX (talk) 15:24, April 15, 2016 (UTC)
- Right, this is something to watch out for. We don't put editor's views and opinions on articles: but we do list the showmaker's opinions if they have been stated. Similarly, in this edit you removed some stuff based on your opinion (I guess) but it was describing the opinion of the show makers from the Official Companion book. Is that a similar case?--Acer4666 (talk) 15:31, April 15, 2016 (UTC)
- Can I confirm that edit above wasn't based on the Season 6 Official Companion?--Acer4666 (talk) 17:53, May 4, 2016 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminderEdit
It's, with an apostrophe, is actually a contraction of it is (e.g. it's raining outside). it is not the possessive form of it; use its instead (e.g. the missile hit its target).23:33, May 16, 2016 (UTC)