9,415 Pages

This is a place where you can nominate articles for deletion. Place the page link and your reason for the nomination at the top of the list. The link will be removed once the article has been deleted. Articles will remain up for discussion for about a month before the thread is removed. An archive of rejected article deletions is also available. If content is deleted, there may be a leftover talk page; such discussions can be archived here with their original histories preserved. New pages that are obvious examples of spam, vandalism, and the like, should be reported on the Vandal alert project page instead.

Nominated content[edit source]

Saleem Khan Anmol: Not 24-related. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:31, July 24, 2020 (UTC)

Antagonists: Not 24-related, filled with Harry Potter references. --William (talk) 12:49, May 30, 2020 (UTC)

Очень интересно но чичего не понятно: Gibberish and clearly not 24-related. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:32, April 1, 2020 (UTC)

Entertainment News - Celebrity News - Video Songs: Clearly not 24-related. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:11, November 1, 2019 (UTC)

Deleted--Acer4666 (Talk) 12:14, November 2, 2019 (UTC)

Alexis12121: Clearly not 24-related and the user Alexis12121 posted 3 discussion threads that are not 24-related either. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:56, June 6, 2019 (UTC)

Hosting Web: This is clearly not 24 like and it's in a different language. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:52, March 20, 2018 (UTC)

File:Mi5_crest_and_logotype.svg.png and File:Secret_Intelligence_Service_logo.svg.png, per image use policy 1.1.     Nitromancer  (Talk)     07:15, January 15, 2018 (UTC)

Done!--Acer4666 (Talk) 23:57, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

File:S6E2x03.jpg/File:6x02 Wallace house.jpg and File:S6E1x02.jpg/File:6x01 Amar house.jpg Two pairs of duplicate images, but I'm letting whoever works with the articles where they are used (i.e. filming locations) decide which ones to keep. Thief12 (talk) 12:47, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

Actually, since the first couple are identical, I went and deleted one. But since there's a very, very slight difference in the second couple, I'm gonna let someone else decide which one they prefer on their respective articles. Thief12 (talk) 13:16, April 23, 2017 (UTC)
For the second set of shots, I think that the first use (on the episode and character pages) is to show the arrest of Yusuf Amar and the second use (on the filming locations page) is to show a wide shot of the house as best as possible. I replaced the filming locations one with an even wider shot, which also shows the arrest, so if there are no objections I'd say to use that shot on the other pages and delete File:S6E1x02.jpg?--Acer4666 (Talk) 14:06, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

Naseri's accomplice: Since the article of Juliana Mehmeti was created, there is no point of keeping this redirect page. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:48, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

Done--Acer4666 (Talk) 14:06, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

Category:Islamic extremist masterminds: I think that category is repetitive at best and that should be removed. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:30, March 25, 2017 (UTC)

Done--Acer4666 (Talk) 14:06, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

Template:DYK, Template:Fact August 12, Template:Fact August 13, Template:Fact August 14, Template:Fact August 15, Template:Fact August 16, Template:Fact August 17, Template:Fact August 18, Template:Fact August 19, and Category:DYK templates: my attempt at a Wikipedia-style trivia section for the front page. I gave up on it almost immediately. I have no intention of ever finishing it, and from the looks of it, neither does anyone else.     Nitromancer  (Talk)     01:43, January 22, 2017 (UTC)

Do you think you could trim this down to be a fact-of-the-month, or even better: a weekly thing? Instead of daily, which is a tall order. Perhaps it might get some steam behind it, and as more folks add more facts and the community vets them, it could eventually even become daily over time. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 00:51, March 26, 2017 (UTC)
Nitromancer and I discussed this idea on the chat, and one problem we found with it was a duplication of non-static information. For example, the "number of Jack's kills" fact has already changed since and is now incorrect. For a constantly changing and updating encyclopedia, having to keep track of what statistics are duplicated on these facts and exactly which date they're on is a very difficult thing to maintain when editing articles--Acer4666 (Talk) 01:45, March 26, 2017 (UTC)
I agree that is a perennial issue, for sure. As a workaround, would it make sense if these facts were compulsory static information? Meaning, instead of "Jack's kills..." it would be mandatory to ground it within a specified timeframe: "Between Season X and Season Y, Jack's kills..." that sort of thing. It would be fine to leave such a thing alone forever (it would never be out-of-date), or, optionally someone could come after the current season ended, and re-count if they chose (but it would not be necessary to do so). Blue Rook  talk  contribs 15:41, March 27, 2017 (UTC)
Or we could just limit it solely to behind-the-scenes trivia, which would almost never need to be updated. It'd be a lot easier to pull off too if we're only doing 12 or 52 facts, as opposed to 365.     Nitromancer  (Talk)     23:34, March 29, 2017 (UTC)
I like it, I like the idea, and I'm willing to help in any way I can with it. Thief12 (talk) 13:19, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

Act (disambiguation): This is not needed, as per the dab policy, as there are not two or more pages titled simply "Act". Also, the second "act" listed on that page I cannot find a reference to. When the page was made those two "acts" were listed on it, and in "Day 1: 10:00pm-11:00pm" I found the reference to the first one, which strangely is from a body of text that also mentions the second. However, in that episode only the first act can be seen on screen. It may be the case that the text pops up again in a different episode where both are visible but I reckon we can make that page if and when we find that. Either way, the disambiguation page is not needed--Acer4666 (Talk) 23:29, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

Agreed!--Pyramidhead (talk) 04:10, January 19, 2017 (UTC)
Done. For posterity the two acts listed on the page were the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (which we have a page for) and the Immigration and Nationality Act (which can have a page if it's spotted anywhere!)--Acer4666 (Talk) 23:04, January 21, 2017 (UTC)

February 29: A few of the date articles don't have any content, but I think this one is especially unnecessary: For one thing, it's highly unlikely that anything will come up that happened on this date, and if it does then we can restore it; for another, removing it won't create a gap and the calendar will just be listed like a regular 365 day year; for a third thing, the #time mediawiki parser function cannot handle Feb 29 on a non-leap year, so thinks the month is march. That last point is fixable, should the page need to be restored (ie if it gets any content), but I think until it does it'd be better removed.--Acer4666 (Talk) 22:21, January 16, 2017 (UTC)

Hold on. The dates come automatically on the main page and when leap year comes, it might turned up at March 1st, instead of February 29th. That could create an issue for leap years in the future. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:06, January 16, 2017 (UTC)
Oh right yeah, that's a good point, I forgot the Template:Mainpage Box OTD relied on the existence of those pages. I'll fix the #time parser issue then and the page can stick around. Cheers!--Acer4666 (Talk) 23:11, January 16, 2017 (UTC)

Template:BrowserBanner, Template:FeaturedArticle, Template:InterviewMain, Template:QOTD, Template:Ultimate. Unused after Pyramidhead's Main Page update. Though I suppose an admin would rather slap {{defunct}} on these and keep them around for historical purposes. Either is fine I guess.     Nitromancer  (Talk)     05:34, January 7, 2017 (UTC)

Done--Acer4666 (Talk) 22:21, January 16, 2017 (UTC)

Simple Methods To Be Sure That Your Antivirus Application System Is Functioning, Could It Be Worthy Of Having Avast Antivirus Professional Around The F-r-e-e Model?, How Come Most Of Us Need An Antivirus Software Package Plan? these articles were added for advertisement reasons and were created by multiple IP users. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:40, October 24, 2016 (UTC)

Spam erased Blue Rook  talk  contribs 19:54, October 25, 2016 (UTC)

Russian mafia It's apparent the user who made that page did it for vandalism. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:50, October 20, 2016 (UTC)

Done! Blue Rook  talk  contribs 16:21, October 20, 2016 (UTC)

File:Oiioiiooojjj.jpg, File:Gfgf.jpg, File:7ii7.jpg, File:Hjjip.jpg, File:Jjj.jpg, File:Iiitttt.jpg, File:Trtrf.jpg, violating image policies 2.1, 3.1 and 3.2. Plus the Mandy page has plenty of images imo.     Nitromancer  (Talk)     16:42, September 15, 2016 (UTC)

Done!--Acer4666 (talk) 22:48, September 15, 2016 (UTC)

File:Anna Diop1.png This image is not 24-related. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:21, August 27, 2016 (UTC)

And so, tis deleted--Acer4666 (talk) 08:32, August 28, 2016 (UTC)

File:200px-AnneSaunders.jpg, File:Alex Gansa interview.jpg, File:Book sangster.jpg, File:BrianGrazer.jpg, File:Crew brian.jpg, File:Crew cliff.jpg, File:Danburstein.jpg, File:HollyHenderson.jpg, File:JimSangster.jpg, File:MikePosey.jpg, File:NatalieCasey.jpg, File:Sean2.jpg, File:TaraDilullo.jpg, none of these is sourced from 24.     Nitromancer  (Talk)     23:12, August 10, 2016 (UTC)

Done! On a slightly related point, for the replacement images you have uploaded from special features, would you be able to write in the image description which special feature the image has come from? We just dump em all in Category:Images (special features), but for verification it's handy to know which feature the image is from. Cheers!--Acer4666 (talk) 10:49, August 11, 2016 (UTC)
Whoopsie, done.     Nitromancer  (Talk)     16:50, August 11, 2016 (UTC)

How to Analyze price to move children, Going Organisations Designed for Modest Buildings, How to choose a Going Corporation, ‎Benefit from A complimentary Moving Quote Those four non-24 related pages are clearly added for spam and advertisement. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:31, May 29, 2016 (UTC)

Spam erased by Thief. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 18:36, May 31, 2016 (UTC)

Chinese Embassy This page was added by an IP user for vandalism. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:51, May 6, 2016 (UTC)

Erased by Acer. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 18:36, May 31, 2016 (UTC)

Category:Jack Bauer love interests Although well-intended, I think that category is unnecessary since it feels like a category bloat and it feels out-of-universe at in-universe articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:52, January 8, 2016 (UTC)

First off, am I the only one who thinks discussing deletion is better on that page's talk page since this page is kinda clustered? Anyway, I suppose you have a point with how IU doesn't fit with EU, but I think the category works for categorizing the interests.--SuperbowserX (talk) 07:11, January 8, 2016 (UTC)
Categories are fundamentally oou components of articles. With that being said, I rather do like this category, so far as it isn't used as precedent for identical categories for anyone else (Mandy, Nina, etc.). Visitors could reasonably be curious about the main character's love interests... especially since his relationships carry so much weight in the seasons. With this in mind I'd say let's keep it.
Regarding AFD discussions, at this project we historically conduct them on this page, instead of each individual nomination's talk page. But since SuperbowserX is right about it getting rather cluttered, I'll do a pagemove soon to archive this and prior discussions. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 05:21, January 9, 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess your right to a point, Blue Rook. I should've thought about this. My argument over that category is slightly invalid as Acer stated to me. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:14, January 9, 2016 (UTC)

full episodes of the Indian 24 series. I dunno, something tells me they might not belong on this site.     Nitromancer  (Talk)     02:17, January 7, 2016 (UTC)

Ug, yeah. Not sure how those were overlooked for so long. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 07:38, January 7, 2016 (UTC)

File:The Beygency - Saturday Night Live, SNL skit unrelated to 24. Kiefer Sutherland and Mary Lynn Rajskub make a brief cameo appearance, that's it.     Nitromancer  (Talk)     02:17, January 7, 2016 (UTC)

Done. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 07:38, January 7, 2016 (UTC)

File:How to communicate like Jack Bauer-0, duplicate of File:How to communicate like Jack Bauer.     Nitromancer  (Talk)     02:17, January 7, 2016 (UTC)

Done. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 07:38, January 7, 2016 (UTC)

File:Vaughn-Haynes.jpg, unrelated to 24.     Nitromancer  (Talk)     18:37, January 6, 2016 (UTC)

Done. Nice catch. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 18:48, January 6, 2016 (UTC)

Del Toro's condemned building and Abandoned recycling facility - these were made as per a discussion on the talk page, and they were justified by comparison with Omar Hassan's pen. However we've since established proper criteria for including unnamed things without in-universe proper names, specifically for locations too, and I'm not sure these articles would satisfy those criteria--Acer4666 (talk) 20:43, December 30, 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but first how many missions does each of these appear in? Only asking because perhaps 1 mission could be construed to qualify as The Game equivalent of 1 episode... so if these places appear in more than 1, we could keep em. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 14:58, December 31, 2015 (UTC)
They'd need to appear in at least 3, which Del Toro's building doesn't but the recycling facility does. If we do keep that one, I'd like to change its name to "Madsen's base" or "Madsen's facility" more in line with other conjectural location titles - these titles just look weird to me with the adjectives describing them--Acer4666 (talk) 23:27, January 2, 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! Blue Rook  talk  contribs 19:31, January 5, 2016 (UTC)
Done--Acer4666 (talk) 19:29, July 11, 2016 (UTC)

File:Hulu logo.png and File:Itunes-logo.png, essentially lower-quality duplicates of File:Hulu logo.svg and File:ITunes.png, respectively (the latter two were uploaded first).     Nitromancer  (Talk)     04:04, December 14, 2015 (UTC)

Category:Multi-Season Antagonists - Although well-intentioned, I believe this is an instance of overly-specific category crossover. Also, it would be legitimate precedent for additional overly-specific categ bloat such as: "Multi-season CTU agents", "Multi-season civilians", etc. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 19:43, December 4, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Blue Rook. I find that category to be unnecessary and it should be deleted. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:14, December 5, 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. By 24's standards and how most of the antagonists in 24 are made, there are a very tiny amount (among a massive count of antagonists) that are multi-season; it's not too low/high that it's useless. Multi-season CTU Agents would not work because CTU agents in the show appear in multiple seasons as the norm. 9 in 3s of dozens of villains or so are recurring across seasons. In other words: My counterargument is that the reason this is not precedent for other "Multi-season characters" pages is because of how 24 handles it's villainy with it's villains almost always being single season.--SuperbowserX (talk) 06:23, December 5, 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it wouldn't matter how many villains appeared in multiple seasons. and it would not be precedent to add that category. There are other shows that can have villains appeared in more than one season and it wouldn't matter if that category would be needed. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:10, December 5, 2015 (UTC)
Superbowser, although I could be wrong as I only sampled a small number of the characters found in Category:CTU Field Operations agents, the large bulk of all the CTU agents which I sampled are single-season. If that is accurate, and I believe it is, it means it is not the norm as you say for CTU agents. Blue Rook  talk  contribs Blue Rook (talk) 20:26, December 9, 2015 (UTC)
Given my last reply above, I'll delete soon if there is no further response. Also BattleshipMan would you be willing to rephrase your post? I'm not certain if I understand it, or whose argument it supports. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 14:58, December 31, 2015 (UTC)
I think it should be deleted because that category isn't truly necessary. There's only a very few antagonists who appeared in more in one season and that category wouldn't matter one way or another. I hope that clarifies it. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:38, December 31, 2015 (UTC)
Done. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 19:31, January 5, 2016 (UTC)

File:Chengshooter.png, duplicate of File:9x12 Audrey's murderer (Lukaz Leong).jpg
    Nitromancer  (Talk)     05:52, November 20, 2015 (UTC)

File:Bauer kill list.jpg and File:9x01ConfirmedKills.jpg Pretty much the same image. Thief12 (talk) 01:12, September 21, 2015 (UTC)

Category:Images (Raymond Brown), Category:Images (Tom Chapman), Category:Images (Jenny Dodge), Category:Images (Brad Hammond), Category:Images (Ben Landry), Category:Images (Brian Pierson), Category:Images (Chris Jones), Category:Images (Davis), Category:Images (Derek Huxley), Category:Images (Komar), Category:Images (Luis Annicon), Category:Images (Marcus), Category:Images (Marko), Category:Images (Mikhail), Category:Images (Neil Nagi), Category:Images (Omar - Day 4), Category:Images (Polakov), Category:Images (Remick), Category:Images (Richards), Category:Images (Robert Morrison), Category:Images (Rouse), Category:Images (Ryan- Day 6), Category:Images (Scott Owen), Category:Images (Theo Stoller), Category:Images (Udo), Category:Images (Carla Matheson), Category:Images (Jordan Reed), Category:Images (Samantha Roth), Category:Images (Anatol Stolnavich), Category:Images (Eli Stram).

Well, that was fun to type out. But none of these image categories meet the basic criteria of 4 images laid out here, and they've been around long enough without anymore images appearing to fill them out.--Acer4666 (talk) 15:09, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Hold on a moment. Some of those characters, like Jordan Reed, Anatol Stolnavich and such, could get more images later on. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:18, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
They may, and the categories can be reinstated when and if they do. But in the months that these pages have existed, it hasn't happened yet, so until then the categories shouldn't exist, really--Acer4666 (talk) 15:20, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
I agree most of those are category bloat that do not fit the rules, or purpose, for character image categories. (Cats for the sake of cats = bad.) The good ones in my estimation are: Derek Huxley, Theo Stoller, Carla Matheson, Jordan Reed, Samantha Roth, and Anatol Stolnavich. And, given the inclusion rules, I believe we can let these specifically remain because "must have four images, or be reasonably likely to eventually have four images taken from different scenes". The rest can be erased. Thoughts? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 20:24, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
I see your point but I thought that wording was generally for times during the season when we were expecting to see a character cropping up in more episodes yet to come. I am OK keeping the Live Another Day characters, as there's still a bit of work to be done on LAD stuff on this wiki, but with the other guys, it's been 6 or more years since any of them were in an episode. Given that they haven't hit 4 images on the wiki yet, I'd say it's pretty unlikely they ever will have four haha! As I say I will be happy to reinstate these myself if they ever get 4 images uploaded for them, and as we're only talking about a small number of them seems to me that it would be better to enforce the policy just in case anyone decides to use it as an excuse to keep the whole damn lot ;)--Acer4666 (talk) 21:41, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
I'd also like to add Category:Images (Ted Paulson) to the list as all 4 images are from the same scene, not "different scenes" as required by the inclusion criteria--Acer4666 (talk) 22:37, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
Have now all been deleted except for the two LAD characters--Acer4666 (talk) 00:08, August 16, 2015 (UTC)

User blog:Comprehensiv/Urologist Los Angeles - Completely non 24-related blog. BattleshipMan (talk) 12:48, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

Done, seems like the user was a spambot type account so has been blocked--Acer4666 (talk) 23:01, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

Orlando Ortega - I think we should remove that article that I created in good faith since there isn't any solid evidence of his appearance. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:01, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

Done - we can restore the page if he is spotted in the episode. After watching it again, right now this is my best guess for him if he appears at all, but I don't think you ever properly see that character's face so pretty hard to be sure.--Acer4666 (talk) 00:28, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

This file is blurry and has a fan-made watermark on it: File:S4Prequel2.jpg --Gunman6 (talk) 18:52, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; Done! Blue Rook  talk  contribs 20:28, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

File:Prady.jpg - Very blurry, very dark, terrible image on mobile devices. It's just a leftover from back when it was the main image for the character. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 23:32, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

Sonia - This article is not 24-related and this same IP user who created that article vandalized Day 9: 11:00am-12:00pm. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:54, March 21, 2015 (UTC)

Doneski. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 01:50, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

File:1422080309036.jpg This picture is nothing related to 24. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:01, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

Done!--Acer4666 (talk) 19:13, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

Marc Ostrick: This page was created an IP user and there is no such name of this character in LAD as far as we know. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:22, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

This is a legitimate article, as Marc Ostrick directed several special features from the DVD--Acer4666 (talk) 21:02, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

Eating, Drinking, Sleeping & Restroom Usage on 24 - This article was created by accident by Gunman6 who meant to create it as a blog. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:47, January 4, 2015 (UTC)

Category:Career criminals - Virtually all the antagonists on the show qualify as career criminals, especially when using a common definition found on Wikipedia. Any repeat offender. There are so many dozens and dozens and dozens of characters with rap sheets shown on computer screens and past crimes discussed; a "career criminals" category is simply far too broad to be useful. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 04:01, September 18, 2014 (UTC)

I do kind of agree, but also see what the idea of this category is trying to capture. I have created Category:Arms dealers and Category:Drug dealers that many of the articles in that category belong to, but it would be nice to have a place for the various mobsters where it's unspecified what criminal activity they do, or professional thieves, prostitutes, pimps etc. Would a re-naming work perhaps? I see it as a very general category that many of the antagonists would fit into a subcategory of--Acer4666 (talk) 22:30, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

Category:Organized crime - As terrorist organizations are by definition a form of organized crime, an "Organized crime" category isn't useful. I think the fault here is the assumption that you're either being an antagonist for money ("organized crime"), or for religious/ideological reasons ("terrorists"). Those lines are almost wholly imaginary since they can rarely be unilaterally applied to a group in 24. Even a "traditional terrorist" like Omar had a financial motivation: the enrichment of his family. Max wasn't motivated strictly by the oil money: according to The Game, it was also revenge. As such, I believe our pre-existing antagonist categories are sufficient, and the insertion of an "Organized crime" category muddies things up. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 04:01, September 18, 2014 (UTC)

I agree and have deleted the page now--Acer4666 (talk) 22:30, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

Congressional Spouses Club - This article is completely unrelated to 24. It's completed blanked, created by an IP user and it should be taken down. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:58, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

Done! Blue Rook  talk  contribs 07:10, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

More duplicate images:

  1. File:9x12 Jack devastated.jpg (better quality, without the FOX logo)
  2. File:Jackandkate 9x12.png
  3. File:Jacksreaction9x12.png
  4. File:Jacksreaction2 9x12.png

A crucial moment indeed, but there's no need to have 3 pictures about the same thing (Jack's reaction to Audrey's death). The only reason I'm not deleting two of them is because I want to let whoever comes to edit the related articles chooses which one he finds more suitable. Other factors, they all have the FOX logo (which is more or less unavoidable at this point) and they're all .png format. Thief12 (talk) 20:12, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

Several duplicate/similar images:

  1. File:HK P30.jpg
  2. File:Jack Bauer (Day 9).jpg
  3. File:Jack Bauer LAD.jpg
  4. maybe even File:Ustv-24-live-another-day-episode-9-2.jpg

Not sure if there's an attempt to have every promotional image, which would justify having #1 and #4 since they are different, albeit almost identical; or if there's the intention to use #1 in the Weapons used by Jack Bauer article, but #2 or #3 can serve the same purpose. Just putting them all here for us to decide. Thief12 (talk) 20:08, July 15, 2014 (UTC)


File:Station7's real identity.jpg, I have replaced it with a clearer picture. So, this one can being deleted. --Station7 (talk) 21:15, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

File:9x03 name list 2.jpg and File:9x03 name list 1.jpg - both pictures are duplicated here and here. In this cases, I usually favor the first upload, but I think the last ones are significantly better in terms of quality, which gives us a better reading of names and whatnot. Thief12 (talk) 13:34, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed--Acer4666 (talk) 15:32, May 18, 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't consider it a problem since I uploaded these to my own userpage. But I do agree that we gonna need a cleanup later as there are many duplicate/unused files around. You can delete these files though. (I know some of my files are going to be deleted because I watched the episodes on my laptop at my college dorm so I'm not able to provide pics of great quality at first hand until weekend) --William (talk) 16:22, May 18, 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that we get duplicate files cluttering up the episode image category. We want to keep them as clutter-free as possible as a gallery of all the shots we have from the episode. All files have to abide by the image policy no matter where they're used on the wiki.
Unfortunately Wikia has had a permanent problem with the "replace file" feature, often it takes ages or never updates in certain places. So in order to make sure the file is replaced properly you have to upload it under a different name. When this is done you can delete the old pictures without discussion, and just replace anywhere they're being used with the higher quality/no logo version.--Acer4666 (talk) 18:23, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

Category:Actors who played Presidents on the show - we don't categorise actors based on in-universe attributes of the characters they played. If we did, we would just be duplicating the in-universe categories, but filling it with the actors instead of characters. There's no connection between the real-world actors in this category--Acer4666 (talk) 17:23, March 8, 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean; it would open the doors for everyone to make a "Vice Presidents actors" category, a "CTU field agent actors" category, "US Senator actors" category... all the way through the in-universe categories. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 19:28, March 8, 2014 (UTC)

Category:Assad's organization - at a real stretch, there could be a maximum of 3 articles in this category, and two of those people (Omar (Day 6) and Abu Fayed) were never working for Assad during the show and were actually part of the Category:Fayed terrorist cell. I don't think this is big enough to warrant a category--Acer4666 (talk) 22:48, January 18, 2014 (UTC)

Support. Not sure why it was in Day 6 antagonists either. --Pyramidhead (talk) 23:21, January 18, 2014 (UTC)
Agree about deletion. --Station7 (talk) 23:43, January 18, 2014 (UTC)
I figured that we could organize his terrorist group and yet this doesn't seem to be considered a needed category. I figured it would work since there's various members of this terror cell unit. --Gunman6 (talk) 07:54, January 19, 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, there aren't enough articles to warrant a category--Acer4666 (talk) 11:46, January 19, 2014 (UTC)
For future reference, how many articles are needed for a category?--Gunman6 (talk) 01:51, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
That's not something that is set in stone - categories are used to group together a lot of articles that share something in common. I'd probably say around 5 would be a bare minimum, but this stuff is always up for debate. I might have been more open to this category if there were 3 people who undoubtedly belonged in it, but as I say 2 of them weren't even working for Assad in Day 6--Acer4666 (talk) 10:52, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag of Argentina.png - as seen on Talk:Argentina, this was uploaded due to a mis-identification of the Nicaraguan flag on the Season 8 cast promo. If the Argentinian flag is found in some other place it can always be re-uploaded, but I can't find it anywhere yet--Acer4666 (talk) 00:06, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

Done--Acer4666 (talk) 17:49, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Handgun - although the word has probably been said somewhere in the 24 canon, it's such a general noun that I think a page for it is a little bit redundant. It's like having a page for "door" describing all the doors seen in 24. The page at the moment is a tiny stub, and any effort to list every time a handgun is seen on the show would just be a duplicate of what the out-of-universe page does, but without any names of guns--Acer4666 (talk) 16:52, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Now been redirected to Handguns on 24--Acer4666 (talk) 17:49, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Weapons - I think this just be redirected to Weapons on 24, for when that page is finished - the current "weapons" page is just a duplicate of what Category:Weapons is supposed to do, and it very confusingly mixes in-universe and out of universe information--Acer4666 (talk) 20:33, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

Now been redirect to Weapons on 24--Acer4666 (talk) 17:49, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Handguns on 24, Assault rifles on 24, Submachine guns on 24 - Although the subpages of the Weapons on 24 article aren't finished, pretty much all the (correct) information from these pages has been transferred over to the new pages. I think these should redirect to the Weapons on 24 page, as people are continuing to edit what is essentially an obselete page.--Acer4666 (talk) 20:33, December 26, 2013 (UTC)

Agree! I don't know about Weapons used by Jack Bauer - that's something of potential interest to casual readers, and it could maybe be updated to be better in line with the new weapons pages. Unrelated, but I'd like to start adding weapons in each episode to the episode BGIN section; the new pages are awesome, but it is hard to track down a particular gun in a particular episode. --Pyramidhead (talk) 20:41, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
Having thought a bit more, I think it might be wise to split up the content that will be on the "weapons on 24" page across different pages for handguns, submachine guns etc. as there are loads of different weapons seen across the entire series! The idea about a list on the episode pages is good, perhaps a collapsible table so it doesn't take up much room?--Acer4666 (talk) 16:52, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

CTU Las Vegas - if what is written on the article is all that was ever mentioned about CTU Las Vegas (ie, nothing at all) then I believe this article should be deleted. The name was never mentioned and its very existence is based on speculation.--Acer4666 (talk) 11:41, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

If we can corroborate that, indeed, CTU Las Vegas was never referenced by name, then delete away. Thief12 (talk) 11:50, May 27, 2013 (UTC)
Yes, delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.172.14.136 (talk) .
C'mon guys, you almost threw a perfectly legit article under the bus without doin' your homework! WhatLinksHere revealed a direct episode reference to it in a guide. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 05:24, November 20, 2013 (UTC)
Oops, sorry! Mustn't have seen it hidden in all the other template links to CTU branches--Acer4666 (talk) 01:38, November 30, 2013 (UTC)

File:24 Day 2 3-4 AM pic 3.jpg and File:24 Day 2 3-4 AM pic 4.jpg - these are unneeded, and are near duplicates of File:24 Day 2 3-4 AM pic 2.jpg illustrating nothing extra. The filenames aren't especially descriptive either--Acer4666 (talk) 12:34, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

I would say, delete those duplicates. --Station7 (talk) 17:19, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
No question about either. Delete away. Thief12 (talk) 21:39, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

File:Untitled.png - as the footage was reused in 3 different episodes, this is just a duplicate of File:F-18-pilot.jpg. Additionally it doesn't have an appropriate name and is in .png format - any objections to deleting this pic?--Acer4666 (talk) 11:59, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with deleting those files. --Station7 (talk) 17:19, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
Same here. Thief12 (talk) 21:39, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

File:Sarah clarke18.jpg - although it is two 24 stars together, I think this picture is just from a random film premiere that isn't to do with 24. It's a holdover from when we had cast pictures sourced from anywhere, so should probably be replaced with a character shot for Xander Berkeley--Acer4666 (talk) 19:27, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Ditto! Blue Rook  talk  contribs 21:56, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
Agree. --Station7 (talk) 22:05, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
I kinda like it, mostly because it shows them together. But I agree. It doesn't comply with the policy. Thief12 (talk) 12:54, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, how about this - I replaced the shot with a pic of them together attending the "24" series finale party on April 30 2010. This is from a 24 event, so it would seem from the discussion had on Forum:Actor_pictures that this would be permissible. Anyone agree/disagree?--Acer4666 (talk) 17:35, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's a good replacement. :) --Station7 (talk) 18:24, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
Way better and more appropriate. Thanks! Thief12 (talk) 01:17, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

File:People%27s_Choice_Magazine_Ad_for_Marci_Michelle_with_Jon_Cassar_foreword.jpg - this isn't a screenshot or behind the scenes pic, it's rather an advert for Marci Michelle which happens to quote a member of the 24 crew on it. I don't see how this qualifies under the image policy--Acer4666 (talk) 00:04, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Delete please. It makes no sense at all. --Station7 (talk) 05:36, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
Just for argument's sake, since it does mention 24 perhaps it could go on her crew article? I don't mind much either way. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 16:38, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
(moved from the file page) I really don't thnk this is any different than if you were to use a magazine article interview with Jon Cassar, unless you would rather it be on another user's page.--Gunman6 (talk) 03:04, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the image policy would allow a magazine interview with Jon Cassar, unless it was from 24: The Official Magazine (an official 24 product). If we allow images that merely have to mention 24, it seems like it would open up all sorts of potential abuse of the image policy.--Acer4666 (talk) 14:23, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
My issue with this is that it's sorta inconsistent with other unofficial pictures that are on here from parodies of "24" to the images of certain "24" actors attending movie premieres (e.g. Xander Berkeley). Plus, again, it's not like it's a sin and it had to do with "24" in that it was advertising the dialogue consultant on the show and the fact that Jon Cassar was promoting her.
The show in and of itself encouraged them to display this person's talent to other references and businesses.--Gunman6 (talk) 15:15, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
The Xander Berkeley pic is indeed none 24-related, so I've nominated it for deletion above. As for the 24 references, the simpsons pic comes from the Season 6 (24) DVD, the south park shot is of 24 merchandise from production, and the muppets one I guess is a grey area. As is this picture, but what strikes me about it is - is it really necessary to have this as an uploaded image? Would it not be better to just transcribe the quote, as that seems to be the main thrust of having the image on Jon Cassar's article?
There is an argument either way, as it is tangentially 24-related, and I assure you I'm not having a go at you or saying uploading the picture was a sin, just discussing whether we can keep it or not.--Acer4666 (talk) 19:27, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
Agreed that the transcribed quote is better (for her crew article), no need for the pic actually. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 21:56, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

File:The-Pitch.jpg - this picture has nothing to do with 24, so in accordance with the image policy I'd like to nominate it for deletion. I post here because it's been around for ages - any objections?--Acer4666 (talk) 23:23, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

No objections at all. --Station7 (talk) 05:27, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 16:38, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
Agreed as well. Thief12 (talk) 20:21, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
Done--Acer4666 (talk) 19:27, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Treason - Although I have problems with a number of the "common noun" encyclopedia entries we have here, this one has bothered me for a long time, and much more than the others. Yeah, Brad Hammond said the word "treason" in reference to Tony once, and yeah I'm sure the word was spoken by Jack a few times, but it's a common English noun. Perhaps 95% of the antagonists on the show can be construed as treasonous, and there's no need for an article listing them all with haggard little bullet-points. To me it just seems so pointless and so broad, and I will assert that the project will suffer not at all if it is deleted. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 04:35, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

I think this should be kept, as long as it's trimmed down to only the times someone's actions were explicitly stated to be treasonous.--Acer4666 (talk) 23:23, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
Yep that's a better idea. I have a small proposal for how to clean it up over time, gonna post it over on the talk page. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 16:38, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Edward Conna - although his name is on imdb for a couple of early Day 8 episodes, imdb is often wrong and until we have verified that he's in the episodes we have nothing to put on this article. It can always be restored if/when we verify his involvement on the show--Acer4666 (talk) 22:01, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, too. The creator is encouraged to put his work-in-progress in a user-space page in the interim of course. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 04:15, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
I've moved it to a talk namespace, to preserve the discussion for if the guy is found. If we don't hear anything about him being in the show, I'll delete the talk page/move it again accordingly--Acer4666 (talk) 08:07, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

P90 - as far as I know, there isn't an iu reference to this term - if one is found, the article can always be ressurected--Acer4666 (talk) 21:53, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

If you're confident, feel free to toss it. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 04:54, December 15, 2011 (UTC)
Just a question, since I don't dabble that much on those weapons/guns articles. Is it necessary for the weapon to be referenced by name? Isn't it enough if it's seen? I mean, there are a lot of articles here on different guns and rifles and I doubt any of them has been referenced by name. If it's enough with it being seen, the article on P90 mentions the instance when it is allegedly seen. Thief12 20:44, December 15, 2011 (UTC)
I forgot about this nomination so I'm bumping it up to the top - to answer Thief's question, a weapon does indeed need to be referenced by name in the show, or a book, to have an article. I'm fairly sure the other weapon articles do fit this criteria, except for AA-12 Shotgun which I can't find mention of. I'd like to re-suggest P90 for deletion, along with AA-12, as the information can go on Weapons on 24/Season 7.--Acer4666 (talk) 14:19, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
Both now deleted--Acer4666 (talk) 22:50, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

"Events occur in real time" title card - I don't think an article for one small part of the title sequence that occasionally appeared is necessary. At the moment it is just a little paragraph and a large sparse appearance template which I think would fit much better as a section of the real time article and a simple list of episodes instead of the appearances template. I propose moving the information to the real time article--Acer4666 (talk) 17:44, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

No objections; done--Acer4666 (talk) 14:19, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

File:S1e13f1.jpg or File:JackAiming.jpg - Yet another instance of almost identical images. The only "advantage" I see for the latter is that Jack has his gun drawn out. Thief12 23:50, January 18, 2012 (UTC)

Generally we defer to the older one, but in this case the newer one does happen to be clearer. My opinion is we delete the old one and then move the new one to that file name (updating the categories of course). Blue Rook  talk  contribs 05:48, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what to think about this set:

I think an argument could be made for each, but I don't think so many pictures for a single event/scene are necessary. Thief12 19:24, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

The last 2 pictures are featured on a page, so I think it's the best if they weren't deleted. The first 2 is the best if they are gone, becvause they aren't on a page. --Station7 20:25, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
Quality is probably the best criteria here. Tedcofellkill.JPG is the blurriest, let's replace it with File:Jack-punches-cofell.jpg. File:CofellAttack.jpg does not demonstrate anything useful, I don't see any reason to keep. I suppose File:CofellDead.jpg could be the one that remains for the user content. (If nobody contests this, and if another admin implements this before I do, please notify BauerPhillip24 since he is the uploader of two of these.) Blue Rook  talk  contribs 05:48, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
Done--Acer4666 (talk) 22:54, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

File:CTUShadowanimal.jpg or File:S1e19f2.jpg - Again, duplicate pictures. But I'm putting it here for consensus since one is bigger than the other. I do think the bigger one is blurrier. Looks like a resized image. Thief12 19:21, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

You can kill File:CTUShadowanimal.jpg. Sorry.--BauerPhillip24 13:42, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

File:TACVan.jpg or File:BauerCTUSWAT-ep10.jpg - Delete either. They're practically the same. I know I can do it, but wanted to bring it here for some "consensus". Thief12 18:32, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

I'd say get rid of the first, keep the second cos it's larger and has an (alleged) episode where it came from. However, the names of files from imfdb can't be trusted for episodes, as they make mistakes all over the place. Dunno if it's possible to verify.--Acer4666 (talk) 18:58, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the episode is correct, cause it's the same when I took this picture. Thief12 19:24, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd get rid of the frst one.Sorry about that--BauerPhillip24 20:24, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
Hey, sorry, did a switcheroo, you can just delete File:Season8Ep10Part2.jpg, which is a production photo anyway. I had to replace it with File:TACVan.jpg.--BauerPhillip24 02:40, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason to keep both File:TACVan.jpg and File:8x10_Jack_Team.jpg since they are from pretty much the exact same moment. The 8x10_Jack_Team version is not only the original established one, but it's certainly brighter and more clear. Any opposition to keeping that one? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 06:59, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
Agreed - keep the established one, and delete TACVan, as they're the same but one is of poorer quality--Acer4666 (talk) 13:59, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
No problem, go ahead.--BauerPhillip24 15:11, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Images:

  • File:7x09.jpg - Recently a user uploaded a version which I think is superior: File:Season7Ep9.jpg. You can see Jack better in the newer one. I am proposing the idea on that episode guide's Talk page to conform to the main image policy.
  • File:TACteam_five.jpg - Only thing recognizably discernible in this image is the firearm. I don't think it warrants inclusion on Nina's page; you can barely see her head.
  • File:NinaCaptured.jpg - This image showcases a random CTU guy. Jack is cut off and once more Nina isn't usefully discernible.
  • File:CustomsEp6.jpg - This one is really just an excuse to get a picture of that gun on the wiki.
  • File:Season2_2-3pmPart2.jpg - Can't see this one on my handheld browsers, it's too dark; the good news is that the user who uploaded has put a superior alternative, which can used instead: File:Season2_2-3pm.jpg. No need for this darker one. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 04:54, December 15, 2011 (UTC)
I think those are all part of the images BauerPhillip kept talking about from the IMFDB, which he uploaded recently. Since they come from a wiki focused on firearms and guns, they aren't focused on characters. I think they are best suited for articles about guns and such and not much else. Thief12 20:44, December 15, 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Thief. Only, I'm not sure if we could use all the images. --Station7 21:27, December 15, 2011 (UTC)
Okay nevermind the first one, it stays. The replacement I proposed came from the Previously sequence of the next episode. That particular scene wasn't even used in 7x9. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 08:56, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Category:Moles - After thinking about it for a moment, a huge majority of antagonists are "moles" on this show. The only ones who don't fit the usual definition of that word are random people like Gary Matheson, Peel, and Stan Miller. Every season has government moles (think about all those involved in the Season 7 conspiracy). Almost anyone who goes about with an alternate identity for the purpose of deception is a mole. Even Jack Bauer. As such, I no longer believe this to be a functionally useful category. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 07:02, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the deletion. --Station7 10:18, November 20, 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. I think "mole" clearly distinguishes someone who is pretending to be something else, while having other intentions. It separates people like Brian Gedge, Nina Myers, or Dana Walsh, from more upfront antagonists like Benjamin Juma, Samir Mehran, Andre Drazen, etc. Thief12 14:00, November 20, 2011 (UTC)
I see it as an oou category for people who are presented to the audience as a good guy, and then in a storyline twist is revealed to be a bad guy. As such, some people in the category would have to go, but I think it's a useful category as that thing (those sorts of twists is what 24 is known for, and collect together the people who that happens to is noteworthy imo)--Acer4666 (talk) 02:23, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

With Acer's oou definition of the term, the category begins to make sense. It would exclude Alexis however since he was never seen by the audience as anything but an antagonist. Right? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 21:45, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

Hmm it's really bothering me that guys like Alexis and Ryan Burnett can't be added to this category under those criteria, because they were first seen as antagonists and then revealed to be moles. What can we do about this? Also what about people like Eddie Grant and Ostroff who became moles on-screen to do infiltration? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 23:56, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
It seems there may be a difference of opinion on the term "mole". I assumed it referred to someone who was employed (through the usual process) in an organisation, but was secretly working against that organisation. Alexis Drazen merely lied to sleep with someone (what guy hasn't done that ;) ) and get info, Eddie Grant and Ostroff merely dressed up as other people. To me, a "mole" is employed in a completely normal way, but is secretly working against the organisation on the sly. Seems like Mark Bishop might be the only grey area - haven't seen those scenes in a long time though.
But coupled with the page mole, is the category necessary? Should they contain the same people?--Acer4666 (talk) 01:45, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
Good; we would have to add that clarification to the category and the page. And although I dislike articles about English-language common nouns such as mole, we probably should keep the article along with the categ too because I always ask myself the following question, as if from the mouth of someone who just learned... "There's a wiki for 24 out there? Huh, I bet they have a lot to say about [afd]." If the quote sounds reasonable, then we probably keep the article. We really should have at least a summary page about moles.
On these criteria Bishop is easily a mole (a legitimately-employed lobbyist). Should we be strict about when the revelation was made to the audience? I vote no: it seems arbitrary and would exclude backwards-revealed-moles like Burnett. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 11:52, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
Oop - sorry forgot about this. No, I don't see any need to be strict about audience revelation - only that they are legitimately employed for the person they are working against, I think--Acer4666 (talk) 21:53, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

Natalia K-524 gassing - I don't see a need for it, since it was a relatively short event, and all of the necessary details can go right onto the Natalia article itself. The fact that no one has adopted it to bring it to standard for so long seems to support the idea that nobody else feels it's necessary anyway. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 19:27, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Uncontested. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 02:31, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

All Episodes - this has been marked for deletion and the consensus seems to be that it would just be a duplication of the individual season pages. If there are no defending arguments from the original author or anyone else in the next few days I'll delete--Acer4666 17:52, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

The original editor seems to have abandoned it anyway (as happens in most cases with things like this), I say toss it too. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 20:10, July 7, 2011 (UTC)
I agree for the reasons given in the talk page. Thief12 03:48, July 8, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot about this one, proudhug has now deleted--Acer4666 23:03, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

File:TarinFaroush.jpg - This image is of quite poor quality and shows some bad cropping. I did figure out where it came from (this split screen) but I don't think it's useful as a standalone shot. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 15:48, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

File:Tarin5-6.jpg - An unused image of Tarin as well. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 15:53, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

File:Chappelle.jpg - Nominated because I've replaced it as the main image for the character and on other articles. As of this post, it's unlinked and I don't think it's of good enough quality for use elsewhere. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 08:09, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

Orlani - This name appears on the door which the lumber store foreman says is his office to Marie Warner. I don't believe this is sufficient evidence to say it his the guy's name. A foreman is not a store owner, and might share the same office of the owner when the latter isn't around, etc. We really don't know what "Orlani" refers to, it could just be an old door that they recycled for use in that place. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 05:23, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

This is a tough call because you don't seem to dispute the fact that Orlani is a name - meaning that for the sake of completeness it should have an article! We could change the article to just 'was a name seen on a door', to avoid any assumption, but then as you say it doesn't make for a good article and probably should be deleted! I'm not sure how I feel about it - I think it's the same sort of thing as Macys' Plaza, which it would be cool to discuss how relevant a proper noun has to be before it is included. So I'm sitting on the fence for this one for now I'm afraid haha!--Acer4666 10:42, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
True! Let's wait for consensus over at Forum:2 small policy ideas and Talk:Macys' Plaza before proceeding with this. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 07:21, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
The discussion came to a consensus and closed, so I wrote the conclusion over at Inclusion policy. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 11:43, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Light machine guns - this could possibly be a grey area but I'd like to put forward an argument for this page's deletion. Although some could argue it is a technical term, and is used by Jack in the episode, it's like having an article for 'automatic weapons', it's so much part of common parlance that it doesn't really seem deserving of an article, for me anyway. The content on the article is so limited to the fact Jack once used the term, I think this article should be deleted in an effort to clean up the weapons content we have on the wiki.--Acer4666 16:12, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

Oh and add to this the fact that the technical term 'Light machine gun' is not what the people in the Drazen compound are carrying, indicating that Jack was not using the technical term, and merely saying they had guns that were light.--Acer4666 16:15, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
Ok I have just realised that I have misunderstood what this article is about. I thought it was about the guards at the Gaines compound, realised that it is actually probs mentioned in Nightfall comic. Please excuse me while I retract my nomination for deletion and wipe the egg from my face--Acer4666 16:26, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

Bishkeh - the real city is spelled Bishkek, I had a look at the episode and on Stenger's file it definitely says Bishkek. Not sure if 'bishkeh' comes up later in the episode, but I think in that case we would have a conflict and should probably go with the real-life spelling. Have moved the page, just need to delete the redirect--Acer4666 13:44, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

While I'm on, Krygyzstan as well - am I right to be nominating these spelling mistake redirects for deletion, or do we keep them in case someone does a mistake when searching for it?--Acer4666 13:50, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
I generally always delete misspelled redirects when they are AFD'd. There is that bit about redirects in the policy, but that's not specific and probably pertinent to important characters and major places. I agree with you: it honestly looks bad when we have misspelled country names floating around in our content, even if it's just a minor mention. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 17:27, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Category:Catholic schimsmatics - this category was a spelling mistake, so I've moved everything over to Category:Catholic schismatics. Whether or not it should be renamed 'catholic fundamentalists', or 'trinity antagonists', or is even worth keeping, is another question?--Acer4666 12:43, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Was "schismatics" or fundamentalists used in the media? if both, which was more common? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 17:27, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I never saw this question when you first posted it. Unfortunately I never read the books or have them, so can't check? Hopefully someone else can offer the answer? It's becoming more apparent that, against my better judgement, I'm gonna probably have to buy some of these 24 books if I wanna do some decent editing on the wiki!--Acer4666 23:32, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
Nonsense! Only buy them if you want to read em. I'll probably never fully read those, but that's because I'm very judgmental of the writing style for Declassified, and primarily because I'm a purist: I don't consider the comics, books, playstation game, etc to be "real" stuff that happened in the 24 world. I still respect their place in this project, however.
Also, you don't need to own the books to verify this stuff, I was just being lazy when I asked instead of checking myself. I just took the moment and went to Amazon.com "Look Inside This Book" feature and found that "schismatic" is the iu term used most often, and it's specifically discussed in a spear-carrier conversation between 2 characters. "Fundamentalist" doesn't appear as often. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 07:30, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

File:John.jpg and File:George.jpg - None-24 related pictures--Acer4666 21:10, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Done. And thanks for taking the time to explain to the user about the reverts! Blue Rook  talk  contribs 06:21, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Military Intelligence 5 - A separate article was set up called MI5 Security Service, so I moved the info from the old MI5 page onto it to be consistent with MI6, I think the MI5 page should be deleted and redirects made for 'MI5' and 'Military Intelligence 5'--Acer4666 11:08, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

What on earth am I saying? This doesn't need to be deleted at all, I've just changed the pages into redirects. Silly me, sorry ignore this--Acer4666 12:18, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Template:Spoiler - Instead of making exceptions for spoilers, we should be proud of the anti-spoiler policy that has been in place at this wiki since its inception. Back when 24 aired, this project was a safe haven for everyone who wanted a spoiler-free experience. Now, if there is a movie coming out at some point, we hold to the same policy again. There isn't a need for this template. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 06:46, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Robert Joseph- why is there a page about this guy? He doesn't even say a goddamn thing! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Makarov29 on 08:37, 2010 December 22

Any character with a name can have an independent article. Carl and Adamson have articles, and they don't even appear at all, much less have lines. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 13:15, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Death of main cast member - The relevant information can be added to Main cast. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 15:14, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Unknown performers - I'm flabbergasted as to why Proudhug created this page. It is nothing more than the article form of a pre-existing category that has a few bits of added information, and the stuff is organized by day. I don't see the significance. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 04:10, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Image nomination:

  1. File:S8DVD.png - I tried uploading a transparent version of the cover but it ended up looking terrible against the dark background on here. Please delete. Drovethrughosts 15:43, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
No problemo. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 03:48, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

More image nominations:

  1. File:24-Season-6-Nuclear-Explosion.jpg - It's a duplicate of File:Valenciamushroom2.jpg Thief12 03:42, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Done! nice catch. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 05:09, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Two image nominations:

  1. File:PDVD 209.jpg - A less compelling and inferior version of File:S1e22f2.jpg.
  2. File:S1e22f3.jpg - In my opinion this should be deleted and swapped out with File:Sherry1x22.jpg, see the fuller explanation over at Talk:Day 1 9:00pm-10:00pm. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 16:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Purview of CTU - See its talk page. It's an oou disaster that pretty much can't be resurrected to fit with the other articles and is plagiarized to boot. Off with its head! Blue Rook  talk  contribs 17:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Images (Lonnie McRae) - This character doesn't meet all the requirements established on User talk:Wtl7 for having his own image category. We'd have to bend over backwards to get more images of him, which is silly. I say we delete this. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 19:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Uncontested... gone! Blue Rook  talk  contribs 17:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

File:7x24i.jpg - It is a near duplicate of File:7x24main.jpg. I say we keep the "main", since the afd image is the less useful of the two, and in the afd nom the only difference is that they're just standing around. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 00:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No objections; done. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 19:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:24Trivia and Wiki 24:Trivia archive - These are the remnants of a repeatedly abortive effort to get random facts on the Main Page. Even I wanted this to work... for awhile. But nobody has ever tried to get this going, and to be honest, I wouldn't support any new attempts either (we wouldn't want to invite new users into thinking this project is a warehouse for random trivia). Blue Rook  talk  contribs 06:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Before we delete it lets make sure that all the trivia from that page is posted onto other, appropriate pages. There's some good stuff on there that I don't think is listed anywhere else. Ramirez2.jpg  SignorSimon  talk  contribs 06:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:MainPage R and Template:MainPage L: No longer used, unnecessary templates. --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 06:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I hate old junk like that, especially when it sneaks by me for so long. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 11:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Also how about Template:MainPageL2? It's only linked in a test page and a forum discussion (I'll unlink it in the latter if it gets deleted). And, yeesh! Look at Template:MainPage. What an old bugger; it's as old as the hills. Looks like another page that is no longer useful. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 06:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Characters by groups - regardless of the fact that this article was created within the first 24 hours of Wiki 24's creation, it's terribly arbitrary and impossible to keep up. --proudhug 20:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, to prepare I have removed it from the 2 encyclopedic areas where it was linked. However, it remains linked in a number of old discussions and archives. Should we blank and redirect it to the main page to prevent the ugly red-linking which would occur in those locations? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 18:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Would simply bolding them, as we do on this page, be too much work? --proudhug 00:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Nope :P but it is a kind of "historical revisionism" to go and alter those. It's acceptable though I guess, since we're not changing the content of someone's post, just de-activating a link. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 01:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see a problem with it. There's definitely precedent. --proudhug 01:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Annnnnd... it's dead. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 18:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Image:Jack Bauer 5.JPG - User:Tony Almeida 24 uploaded this for his userspace. Despite the bad file extension and lack of use anywhere else on Wiki 24, it was not deleted because it appeared on his userpage. He has since uploaded another image, so now one of them needs to be deleted. Since this one already has a bad file extension, it needs to be deleted anyway. --proudhug 17:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Seconded (& talk page too). Blue Rook  talk  contribs 21:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Gone. --proudhug 23:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A few nominations:

  1. Do we delete Image:MarieWarner1.jpg or Image:Marie.jpg? I say we delete the first one and swap out wherever necessary.
  2. Any of the "Day Galleries" in Category:Galleries, at the moment I count ten in there. They are outmoded now. The place where they are currently linked - at the top of their Guides - can just be edited to link to the new categories. The only sacrifice is that we lose the blurbs but who cares?
  3. Category:Images (CNB) - I recommend we replace this with a larger category, like "Images (news reports)" instead of something so specific. Then we can put them all together, no real need for a bunch of separate ones.
  4. Category:Images (timer) - a good idea but in practice it's kind of just category clutter. Hasn't even been used for that very reason, it seems.

Blue Rook  talk  contribs 20:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

  1. Agreed.
  2. Agreed.
  3. Agreed.
  4. Agreed.
That was easy. --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 21:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Ditto across the board. --proudhug 21:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Very cool. I'll get to work on the galleries today and this will finally be finished. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 12:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just realized there actually may be a purpose for the galleries that I nominated for deletion in #2 above. Aside from the blurbs, which aren't that important, those galleries offer a chronological order for their images, and additionally they ensure that the images which are not linked on the Guide do not turn up in "Special:UnusedImages". I'm completely confused now as to whether they should co-exist with the new categs or still be deleted. Thoughts? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 20:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, SignorSimon did bring this up when proposing the category galleries: "Could leave the current galleries so that images that are only on there are not orphaned, but otherwise make no more gallery pages from now on." Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to have them though, so the question is what to do with the orphaned images. I'd lean more towards deleting the ones that can't be moved to another page. Wiki 24 is meant to provide information on 24, and images are merely used to illustrate and emphasize the text. This site was created to be an encyclopedia, not a photo gallery. --proudhug 23:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been slowly getting to deleting these galleries, and also the images that appear nowhere else but on the galleries as well. It's taking awhile but I will have it completed soon. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 18:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Image:Inauguration.jpg - I think it can be swapped out with the pre-existing Image:RedemptGuide6.jpg which is the better shot of the two. Also there is that random dude! Blue Rook  talk  contribs 20:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I can't decide if that guy makes the picture totally awesome or if it makes it totally suck! I won't be upset if you delete it, but I also won't be upset if you want to nominate it for Picture of the Year! Any chance of this guy getting on your forbidden characters list? --proudhug 03:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Rook, why the change of heart? On 22 January 2009 you added the image yourself to Edwin Ross' page and wrote "recyc good image" as the edit description! --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 07:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Simon I probably thought I was adding the one I uploaded (sorry that sounds kind of dickish lol). They both represent two angles of the same thing, and I think RedemptGuide6 is clearer shot of the main characters. Also Proudhug, at this point its a matter of inevitability that this guy will be added to the Forbidden characters! Anyway let's keep it. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 13:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
He's just so right there and more in focus than the main characters, it's hilarious! --proudhug 15:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Major lols. I want to save this convo, maybe over on the talk page for that image. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 20:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Jack Bauer as a fugitive - It's showing no signs of improvement. I don't see much of a future for this one. Even if someone came along and adopted it, I suspect they would be prolonging the inevitable. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 06:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 08:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Ditto. --proudhug 03:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Main - Unlinked, incomplete, also I agree with Proudhug on the Template Talk page that it's additionally unusable. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 21:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Jack Bauer - Any plans for this? it's currently only transcluded onto 1 Main namespace page. If no one has any ideas, let's delete it since Simon has a template that functionally supersedes this. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 21:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No attachment here. --Proudhug 17:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiki 24:Sandbox/MainPageNext - Completed sandbox content. Could be moved to user space if someone wants to archive the conversation. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 13:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy for a deletion. --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 11:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


Region encoding - I have no idea why this was even made in the first place. --Proudhug 19:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Looks like Dan made that back in '06. Silly seldom-seen Dan! Just realized: is it permissible to move the DVD region half of the page to the DVD article, and the other half to the BD article? Perhaps in a notes section, it might be a useful reference. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 19:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd say no, since it's still not 24-related. A Wikipedia link would suffice, if you think the information is useful. --Proudhug 20:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I unlinked it, feel free to make the kill. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 13:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


Benjamin Jumanji; vandalism redirect. -- Matthew R Dunn 10:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


Guest characters - There are 3 problems with this page. First, it has arbitrary inclusion criteria (characters with up to two appearances? why not 3? or 1?). Second is the arbitrary and potentially confusing usage of the term "guest" in the title. Third and least important is the fact that it's horribly out-of-date. I'd like to note here that as per Talk:Main characters, the page Recurring characters has been overhauled and includes all characters with 2 or more appearances. Guest characters really doesn't have a point. There are only 2 reasons I can imagine why someone would want to keep this. First, it has a large edit history and was created in the wiki's first month. My response to this is seen in this Wikipedia reply (in summary, too bad, that's a non sequitur argument). Second, someone might think this would be a decent starting point if someone wanted to create a "one-episode-only" characters page; one could conceivably just move the page and shave off the 2x-appearance characters. This is a bad idea, however, as the page in its current state wouldn't even suffice as a skeleton for such an effort. Plus, a "one-shot characters" page is a horrific idea to begin with in my opinion. I say delete. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 14:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I say delete. --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 18:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Done. That page was like a 3-year-4-month-old bloated tick on the wiki. Lol! Blue Rook  talk  contribs 04:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Avenue - The page is blank, other than a stub template. If there's another article related to this, please kindly redirect it to that page.

Thanks, MaintenanceRequired.


As for the earlier Career Criminals category discussion, if this term is going to continue to cause issues with anyone's definition, then can we simply replace it with any other terms to distinguish all the various criminals and terrorists apart? This works for many articles which is what we need in order for there to be a category to begin with. If we want more subcategories like "drug dealers," "pimps," "loan sharks," "gangsters," "prostitutes," "thieves," "hackers" and so forth then we can definitely vote on making that more layered.

Also, can we add a category for "MI5" agents. There's not a huge abundance of them always seen but much like the CIA, it is often mentioned on various characters' profiles on the show so I think it could apply in much of the same vein.--Gunman6 (talk) 17:36, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

This file hasn't been used so far: File: Hulu logo.svg

--Gunman6 (talk) 02:57, November 24, 2014 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.