Jump to content

Talk:24 season 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 18:21, 29 March 2024 (Qwerfjkl (bot) moved page Talk:24 (season 1) to Talk:24 season 1 without leaving a redirect: Implementing RfC on TV season article titles (round-robin move part 2) (Task 28)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Timeline

[edit]

Where is the source for the 2002 date. I ask because, absent more specific information, the season must take place in an presidential election year (either 2000 or 2004).

2002 is the only logical date for a number of reasons.

  • One, Jack mentioned that he took Milosovic's right hand Victor Drazen out 2 years before Day I . . . and by 2004 Sloban Milosevic was already in custody himself.
  • Two, in the 24: Declassified series, Operation Hell Gate takes place prior to 9/11, while Veto Power takes place post 9/11 and BOTH take place prior to Day I and after Operation Nightfall.
    • So logically, Day I could only take place in 2002, 2 years after 2000 (when Milosevic was in power) and just after 9/11 (because the Declassified series cover the "just before 9/11" and the "just after 9/11" time periods.)
  • Three, the creators said this before (not sure where but just before the premeire of Day III), that in the 24-Universe, Presidential elections are about two years off.

So 2002, while not entirely accepted, is the only possible logical date.

It is also clear when one reads the Declassified series, President George W. Bush's presidency appears to be non-existant. During the 9/11 time period in the 24-Universe we instead have a President Harold Barnes, who as far as we know, served one term then lost to David Palmer when he ran for President in 2002. (Governor Hodges, the only other opponent mentioned in Day I ran against Palmer in the PRIMARIES, and thus did not run against Palmer in the General Election, making Barnes' existance cooperable)

This is a fictional story. Unless there are citable references otherwise, there is no reason to believe the story is supposed to take place in any particular specific actual year. I think all such references to dates should be deleted from the article (as well as those mention in future seasons, especially those that depend on the ones in this article). --Unflappable 23:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's an interview here[1] that probably has some relevant information. In short, while the date Jan. 23, 2012 is on the set's phones for season 6, show creators have stated about the set designers that "They're technically correct, but they're emotionally and narratively incorrect, so they get to argue by putting it on the phone" and that "we're not really doing a show in the future. We're in the perpetual now." Not to mention: "We avoid dates. You'll never see a date on our show ever." I've mentioned this on another thread, but in short 24 rejects a formal timeline and takes place within a perpetual 20XX. A reference to this effect might be good to include in addition or in place of OR timeline analysis. Bitnine 06:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In rebuttal to 1, that could have happened in 1998, or 1994 even, were Milosivic in power at the time. 2 years before only sets a latest time it could have taken place, not an earliest. Further, this is fiction, albeit fiction set in a familiar world, so what did or did not happen with Milosivic in reality has no bearing on the show, particularly since the creators/producers/writers/etc. couldn't predict when/if Milosivic would be in custody Darquis 04:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the time mentioned in season 7 (the date was on a document signed by Pres Taylor) of November 2, 2007, season one would have to be February 1993 (give or take a couple months). Though this doesn't seem technologically possible since Jack had a relativity modern cellphone, all vehicles were 2001 models and so on. It was likely a screw up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.217.238 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Repeat from above] This is a fictional story. Unless there are citable references otherwise, there is no reason to believe the story is supposed to take place in any particular specific actual year. Format (talk) 07:39,

23 April 2009 (UTC)

  • The first episode in season 1 shows that the petronas twin towers construction hasn't been complete yet (almost complete as a matter of fact), that mean it could only be set between late 1996 to early 1998.

Requested move

[edit]

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 12:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move.

Survey

[edit]
Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

[edit]
  1. Support. Nominator. --Serge 23:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - in opposition to the move

[edit]
  1. Oppose It's not an official name and requires extensive knowledge of the 24 TV series to understand that it's a season of this TV series. Introduces unnecessary amount of required understanding to the article title and you could even say it's 24-slang. WP:TV-NC currently has the season naming guideline under reconsideration (because (season 2) is normally used for dab). There are several other forms of advised article naming under consideration atm, but nothing has been decided. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Creates an impression that timeline for series is that the next season begins the day after the prior season when there has most often been 18 months between seasons. --Bobblehead 05:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose This is a television show, and regardless of its unique episode structure, television shows are understood to be grouped by seasons; (name) (season X) is used by many other television articles. If any one new naming structure is decided on for television program season articles, it is very likely not going to be (name) (day X). Skybunny 06:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose the current naming is clear, accurate and non-ambiguous. This reasoning applies to the other season's articles as well. -- Chuq 14:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - present is unambiguous and works fine. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose people who do not watch the show may not even get it at all, plus Season is consistent with other TV Show articles.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 03:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. Other TV shows typically do not have their seasons named. People do not typically think of each season of most TV shows as a significant distinct entity. For 24, each season is a significant distinct entity and has a name. The title of each article about each significant distinct entity should reflect that name. 24 (season 1), for example, does not do that. --Serge 05:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 24 doesn't have it's season named either. like i said. 24-slang. And per your own example in the previous discussion: [http://www.amazon.com/24-Season-Five-Kiefer-Sutherland/dp/B000ICLRKC] the DVD box doesn't use this supposed 'name' either. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The vast majority of references to the subjects of these articles -- the seasons of 24 -- are made by people familiar with the show (people not familiar with the show are unlikely to refer to the individual seasons): their usage (what you call "slang") should therefore determine how they are named. This use the most common name principle is at the heart of Wikipedia article naming. But people here seem to think "consistency within a category" (in this case "TV seasons") is more important. I don't get it, but whatever. --Serge 19:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Or it could be that people just don't agree that "day 1" is more commonly used than "season 1". Any evidence that it is? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, I suspect Season One is more commonly used than Day One, but I also think 24 - Season One, which would be my first choice, is too similar to 24 (season one) to effectively convey that 24 seasons are different from typical TV series seasons with respect to being commonly thought of, and referred to, as significant independent entities (which 24 seasons are, and seasons for most other TV series are not). So I think 24 - Day One is the best compromise. It at least raises questions that are answered in the first sentence of the article. --Serge 20:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • For a person that's such a huge advocate for WP:NC(CN), you sure are being rather arbitrary in the application of that policy, Serge. The most common name for the various seasons of 24 are season 1, season 2, etc. not Day 1, Day 2, etc. Although, if you've changed your opinion on WP:NC(CN) I'm sure the people over at WP:NC:CITY would be glad to hear about it. The point of the article titles is not to "raise questions", but to accurately name articles. --Bobblehead 00:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose — Day One is a fan and in-universe way of naming a season of television on an encyclopedia. — Deckiller 12:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, although redirects from the proposed target (more likely 24 - Day 1 than 24 - Day One) should be encouraged. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Episode Pages

[edit]

I added pages for all 24 episodes of season 1 with brief description. I also deleted the individual episode summaries on the main page because they are no longer needed and it makes the main page shorter and more organized. It would be nice if someone made the summaries on each page a little longer. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hietanbs (talk • contribs) 20:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Assessment rating

[edit]

I've rated this article as start class because it contains most of the important information about the subject but contains no inline citations. I've rated it as low importance to wikiproject television as series articles are of comparitively low importance compared to article about entire shows.--Opark 77 21:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent tags

[edit]

I put a trivia tag and an unencyclopedic tag on the bottom sections. Trivia, if relevant should be merged into appropriate sections and written as prose. See WP:AVTRIV. Goofs are unencyclopedic in general, even more so when they are not sourced. These need to be removed completely, the same goes for the other seasons. The idea behind them tends to fall in with what "trivia" is. If you wish to keep the information, I suggest transwikiing it to a 24 Wikia (if one exists..if not, then create one).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 episode review (season 1)

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The result of the discussion was to redirect all of the episode articles to this page's list of episodes.

The following is an episode review discussion that is intended to evaluate articles for individual episodes. See WP:TV-REVIEW and WP:EPISODE for more info.

Per WP:EPISODE, not every episode of a TV show should likely have an individual article. This can be for many reasons, such as notability or sources, or even just what format fits best for that show.

One thing to note about 24 is that even if each episode was notable, one-episode-per-article might not be the best format, given the nature of the show. Many episodes were filmed and created at the same time, then later edited for their desired episode format.

I have reviewed all of the following pages, but have not yet done any research off the Wiki regarding the episodes. Aside from basic infobox information, and cast credits on the first article, none of the articles contain real-world information. The first and second episode articles contain expanded plot sections, but all the rest (22 articles) contain very short summaries, all of which would fit easily into a list of episodes.

I support merging to a single season article, such as 24 (season 1). Anything you can generally say about a single episode will be true for all of the episodes, or at least more than one. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

I have just read all of the above articles and concur with Ned's assessment. I frankly expected to see much longer plot summaries - most are about three short lines of text and are not even wiki-linked to obvious related articles. I suggest that anyone who cares about these to merge the plot summaries into a list of episodes article (which seems to not exist) or 24 (season 1). The above episode articles should then be redirected as appropriate. --Jack Merridew 07:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - anyone interested may want to see these: diff oldid - a list of episodes used to exist and seems to have been broken-out to the above articles. --Jack Merridew 08:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't even bother to cite any of the non-reliable sources episode articles usually do, like Imdb or Tv.com. Most of them, like Jack said, have less than a paragraph of information on the plot. Should not be their own article. I  (said) (did) 07:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping all these articles, they all establish notability (that they're episodes of 24). And they're all decent stubs, with some OOU information. Matthew 09:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you don't understand what notability is. It's not that people know what it is, or discuss it. Its:
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
These articles do not establish that. I  (said) (did) 10:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's watched by millions, ergo significant coverage. Ratings are published by ratings trackers like Nielsen, thus reliable sources. Matthew 10:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with I — merely having been seen by however many people does not establish notability. You should stop trotting this invalid argument out and seek a valid one. --Jack Merridew 10:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To pull a TTN: Your opinion doesn't matter as it's wrong (*grin*). You just appear to be disgruntled that your charity article was deleted (for what it's worth, I'd of supported keeping it). Matthew 10:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe my opinion is wrong and I don't know what charity article you're referring to. --Jack Merridew 10:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Not a single one of those episodes had anything other than a plot and an image. No Nielsen Rating, no nothing. You say they are watched by millions, but you have no verifiable evidence. Since when did we start citing Wikipedians as reliable sources of information? You want significant coverage, I'd like to see not only Nielsen ratings, but awards, and at least 1 review from a professional writer. Ergo, significant coverage in reliable sources. Neilsen ratings isn't "coverage", they job is to keep track of who watches television. This is why film pages have a criticism section, because it shows the film have had significant coverage. Coverage is people talking about it, coverage is the reporting of data. It seems to me these articles are skating the consensus to not have images on the LOE page, by creating separate articles. They still don't pass non-free image guidelines. The images were not allowed on LOE pages, even ones with synopses. So, a page that is nothing but a plot, would technically be the same as the LOE page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bignole (talk • contribs) [2]

I thought it looked better when there was an episode list on this page. --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be against a list of episodes per season, though you couldn't have those images that in there in the link you provided. But right now, the list you provided looks identical to the articles above, except for the fact that there are 20+ articles that say what the one article already said.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with thedemonhog, but also with Bignole since the pictures aren't necessary, and fair use images is a heated topic at this time. Cliff smith 20:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just revisited all of the above listed episode articles and find that there has only been one edit to any of them since User:TTN added the notability tags on June 23 (almost three weeks ago); this is also five days into this discussion. The single edit did not address the notability issue, it added a lot of plot summary. This is not progress. --Jack Merridew 13:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

[edit]

This does not seem to be going any further, so we should close it. --Jack Merridew 14:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. No discussion in a week. Time to close. I  (said) (did) 17:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have resurrected the prior LOE from the season 1 history and redirected these pages to it. The plot summaries, for the most part, seem to be copied from what I've just restored. I'm not sure about the screenshots — comments? --Jack Merridew 10:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the screenshots, too: diff. They can easily be restored. --Jack Merridew 11:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fair use rationale for Image:24Day1.jpg

[edit]

Image:24Day1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:24-cast-season1.jpg

[edit]

Image:24-cast-season1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I don't think that we need a link for Operation Nightfall, because if you click it, choose between the Star Wars or 24 Link, it just redirects you back to 24 Season 1, where you just were. What's the purpose? Or it would be cool to have a page actually about the episode instead of just a redirect. Mr. moose (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Both links removed, amended to body text. Julianhall (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SERBIAN PEOPLE!!

[edit]

There is no WORD about Serbia, Kosovo or Belgrade, but THEY did it all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.154.140 (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:24_season_1&oldid=1216202972"