Talk:24 (TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 24 (TV series) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 21, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
May 22, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
July 4, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Television (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States / American Television (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject American television (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject 24 (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject 24, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 24 on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
e·h·w·Stock post message.svg To-do:
Priority 3

What is a good article?[edit]

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    (a) the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:[5]
    (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Not real time[edit]

The incorrect claim that the show uses "the real time method of narration" should be removed. There are constant 4.5 minute gaps. It is not real time. That marketing lie should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the format of the show. Episodes range from 41 minutes to 58 minutes in length, and each depicts 60 minutes of action. They all also take up 60 minutes of broadcast time during their original airing, and events are arranged chronologically and progress at a 1:1 time ratio. This makes it realtime. The gapes in the shorter episodes are for commercial breaks, but the action still occurs throughout the break (that's when the characters go to the toilet, eat food, and sleep), it is just not shown. On return from the break, the time elapsed in the 24 universe is equal to the time you have been watching commercials. If you watch the episodes on home media, or a syndicated channel, the ad-breaks are not present, or may not be the same length. However, the action depicted is still realtime, just with non-synchronous points.  drewmunn  talk  10:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I just timed an episode from the second season, and it was 42:30 long. The clock in the show showed 60 minutes. The real-time claim is a bold-face lie. Why do you people defend Fox this way?

You should really look at the above message. There's an explanation there. Beerest355 Talk 02:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Just watched the first two episodes and noticed that the clock is 1:44 when the Palmer brats show up. The next scene with Teri and Alan, it is 01:42. Going back in time is not real time by any definition. I don't understand the pro-Fox bias here on Wikipedia that supports this nonsense. I guess Jack Bauer and Fox have a time machine in order for this show to do this. Is that really what you're claiming Beerest355? Please get out of here with this sort of bias that is ruining Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I have watched episodes from the first season that I timed and the clock kept being off by as much as 50 seconds at a commercial break. The third season opener does not pause for commercials and yet is only forty-nine minutes. Despite these errors (or as I like to think of them: "poetic licenses") the show is still of a real time format: It does not have flashbacks that pause the present (Revolution (TV series)), it does not show "cool" action sequences in slow motion (any action movie), and its story is not shown out-of-order (Pulp Fiction). Most notably, it does not pause the story for commercial at a tense moment just to pick up a moment later (any other TV drama). Your push for an encyclopedia free from company bias is admirable, but is incorrect this time. ––Ɔ ☎ ℡ ☎ 03:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
And now there's a ninth season that skips time... OMG! Insert more trolling here. Connor Behan (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

US is correct per MOS:ABBR[edit]

"...use "US" in articles with other national abbreviations, e.g. "UK" or "UAE"." The end. Nothing to do with personal preference whatsoever, just the rules guidelines. Jimthing (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia has no rules, Second, there is a clear exception for the correct American English acronym, U.S. as has been pointed out to you by a couple of editors. Rather than telling everyone what to do, which will get you nowhere but blocked for edit warring, why don't you try calmly and civilly making a case for your change, then trying to gain consensus for it. In this article, it's been U.S. since it was written, and that's considered standing consensus. --Drmargi (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I have made my case clearly and calmly a number of times now, so do stop patronising me. I'm a longterm editor and follow the MOS as they are defined, and not by what I personally feel like. And what you said is simply untrue; there is absolutely no "clear exception for the correct American English acronym", as the MOS states the US vs. U.S. quite clearly above (I quoted a gazillion times on my edits that have been completely ignored by your reversions!), no matter whether the article is about an American subject matter or not, the guideline above it absolutely clear. I and other editors have been making such edits per these guidelines for YEARS now accordingly. Jimthing (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Take a deep breath and stop taking things so personally. This isn't about you. This is about your blinkered ignoring of a number of policies, and failure to observe revert and talk page practices in order to push a single edit. There is a clear exception in the MOS that allows for use of the correct U.S. acronym, as has been pointed out to you by I believe it's four editors. Given that, the burden is on you to establish consensus for the change you want to make. If you're a long-term editor, you should know that. Please step away and calm down, then return when you're prepared to discuss in good faith and in a calm manner. --Drmargi (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Drmargi, you say "this" isn't about Jimthing, but your comments to and about him here and on other talk pages say otherwise. Time to start talking about edits rather than editors if you want to see anything constructive come of discussion on the dispute. Because, after all, the discussion is supposed to be about the disputed content not editors disputing the content. -- WV 18:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Et tu? You might want to review the editor's history today before taking me to task. --Drmargi (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not necessary for me to review his history. Personal comments are always unnecessary and "talk about edits not editors" is standard advice when these types of situations occur. -- WV 18:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Drmargi again, there is NO EXCEPTION but the one you keep making up. If the article uses another country that is acronymic, then this stands: "...use "US" in articles with other national abbreviations, e.g. "UK" or "UAE"." So can you please just stop ignoring the guideline I quoted to favour your own which doesn't apply for the edit I have made, and listen to WHY something has actually been done instead. Jimthing (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm not making anything up. Formatting follows the guidelines for American English. Period. --Drmargi (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Jimthing: It's obvious you are upset about this, but making personal comments about editors opposing your edits and rationale isn't helping your argument. -- WV 18:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not upset and I have not made any personal comments about other editors either, so i don't know where you got that from. What I am, is annoyed that the guidelines here are being entirely ignored by this editor who instead pushes the American English line, that is NOT relevant to the edit I did. The guidelines stipulates that "US" should be used when another country is acronymic –as they do not have stops in them– in order to have uniformity. Saying "this is an American article, so we can just ignore that" is flatly not correct. Jimthing (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I happen to agree with your reasoning on the edits. Your tone, however, and use of all caps is less than "friendly". Just take care to not be the one returning fire with fire. It's not worth it and can be used against you in the Wikipedia "court of law". That's all I'm saying. -- WV 19:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Opinion. As a completely uninvolved party Drmargi stop being a jerk. If can't stand for one moment that articles will get tinkered with, whether you like the changes or not, you don't get Wikipedia. Besides it's you being the protectionist editor with WP:OWN issues and the trump card in this is Jimthing applying WP:BOLD. But you are just another one of those who likes to play Rules lawyer but when the rules work against you, the classic line Wikipedia fallacy is played which is WP has no rules (if rules are not important - why spout them as the reason to why you don't like the changes? You can't have it both ways LOL). Please stop trying to hide what Wikipedia is: a club of POV cartels; each one is made up of sockpuppets and meatpuppets. All that Jimthing has done is try and do something he liked. Without first checking with the page keepers. Furthermore his changes were in keeping with WP's own style; he didn't make it up (US is preferred to U.S./I didn't make the rules but they seem preferable to me, this isn't a site for 19th Century grammar). Which in its own right makes you appear even more ridiculous. They were doing exactly what the site states and you throw it back at them that there are no rules. GTFOOH. (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC) (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
See WP:NOTUSA. Periods it is, --Drmargi (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
(Firstly, Drmargi regardless of it being an IP address, do not remove other users' additions –in this case's– to discussions as you feel like it: they stay as a record of the conversation regardless of being for or against you/your POV. Hence restored in-line accordingly.) More importantly, again, to just quote a WP link without the specific part you say defines your point, is pretty poor for a PhD graduate. I'm sure you know you need to qualify your points, not simply expect everyone to go along with an link containing many separate factors within it. And that link certainly does make it clear that BOTH are used in various style guides within the US itself, with more modern version depreciating the historical period version to non-period, hence the guideline I quote MOS:ABBR comes into effect when this has already been dealt with, to quote (yet again) "...use "US" in articles with other national abbreviations, e.g. "UK" or "UAE"." – i.e. whether using US with/without periods is not the point here, the point is what other countries are listed within the article containing acronyms. A subtle, yet defining point of my edits. Jimthing (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I have no obligation to let a sock/meatpuppet's (and we both know which it is, quack, quack!) attack post stay per WP:NPA, as I've pointed out before. Second, WP:NOTUSA was written to address issues exactly such as this; the periods stay in and American English article because that is correct American English. Formatting in another country's style does not supersede that simply because it's different. MOS:ABBR addresses contingencies when NOTUSA doesn't apply. American English = American formatting = WP:NOTUSA applies. The periods go back. --Drmargi (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'd be careful making such inferences and accusations about socks and meatpuppets, Drmargi. If you have reasonable suspicions and credible evidence to support your suspicions and claims, file an WP:SPI. But also be sure to read WP:NOTFISHING, WP:NPA, and WP:ACCUSE as a reminder of what's appropriate, what's not, and that such aspersions are very strongly frowned upon. Right now, you're coming off as someone who is only interested in winning and using sock/meat accusations as a way to reach that end rather than an editor who just wants what's best for the article. -- WV 19:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Yadda, yadda. Pull the other one; it's got bells on it. You guys set the bar this low. Don't be surprised when it comes back at you. --Drmargi (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Nothing's coming back at me, I'm just trying to keep things civil with this "discussion". Frankly, with someone who has your (claimed) credentials, I would expect more than what you're showing here. And your strange implication that I'm somehow involved in any socking or meatpuppet activity that might be going on is (sadly) noted. -- WV 19:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, well your buddy made civil discussion impossible. The blinkered approach to policy is fascinating; you'll defend an obvious attack post in clear violation of WP:NPA, then come at me for removing it. Incredible. But that's OK. You just strengthen my position. --Drmargi (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
That's because YOU are not supposed to remove other users comments regardless of what they may say however insulting you think they may be. Jimthing (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Jimthing is hardly my "buddy". Before yesterday, I hadn't even heard of him. More importantly, I didn't defend the wording of the post, I was defending policy that states removal of another's article talk page comments is not allowed. What I've said here may or may not strengthen your position, but your behavior and words here certainly do not. In the mathematical sense, I guess that makes your position pretty much a wash. -- WV 19:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Drmargi Accusing others around here of sock/meatpuppetry is pretty low without having factual evidence for either of us doing so – better get your facts straight before doing that type of thing, and removing other users' comments as well is not done on WP in order for you to "win" discussions – and will always be re-added back by others who see you do it regardless of your attempts to skew discussions in your favour (and likely reported too). You keep stating YOUR personal opinion here time and time again without even reading or checking the facts of what the WP guidelines set down in policy. "your buddy made civil discussion impossible" basically is you insulting me just because your points are invalid, so you ad hominem attack instead. How cheap. Again, it's got NOTHING to do with US English vs any other English, it's to do with acronyms of other countries to keep consistency within articles. Every time you get all "my way or the highway" about it being about your interpretation of US English, it shows you completely fail to comprehend the actual point others here are making. Jimthing (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to spell it out for people who cannot read and follow appropriate guidelines, despite them being VERY clear here. They work as such:
  • WP:NOTUSA states U.S. is the most common usage in N.America, however it also states "Use of periods for abbreviations and acronyms should be consistent within any given article and congruent with the variety of English used by that article." This can be read as use U.S. if article is American-based, though the original author has the choice at time of submission. But it also states "consistent within any given article".
  • Hence MOS:ABBR also comes into effect, "However, use a consistent style within the same article; use "US" in articles with other national abbreviations, e.g. "UK" or "UAE"." meaning any article with another acronym country should then use US without periods.
That's quite clear; articles with other acronym countries should then use US. The end. If you don't like that guideline then attempt to get it changed, but that doesn't give users the right to simply ignore it as it is now. Jimthing (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── According to you, given you want to prioritize the acronym policy. The trouble is, you refuse to recognize that WP:NOTUSA was written to address issues exactly like this. Further, as Drovethrughosts pointed out, this was a GA with the abbreviation U.S., and you have not gained consensus to make any change from status quo. You can dodge that responsibility by edit warring until the sun goes down, but that burden is on you to gain consensus before you make a change from a long-standing version of the article. --Drmargi (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Being a GA is entirely irrelevant, yet again. A DRN against your reversions has been opened against you, comment there. Jimthing (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
OFFS, you don't open a DRN against someone. You might want to read up on what DRN is actually designed to do. --Drmargi (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I know what it's designed to do, but clearly you don't, given you haven't even bothered to comment about your actions in editing against guidelines properly explained to you several times now. As well as removing commentary from your talk page that argues against you, by instead only keeping the positive comments – very uncivilised non-WP way of discussing subjects by silencing opinion you don't agree with. Jimthing (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.