Talk:24 season 6

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

DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE WITHOUT HARD FACTS[edit]

Thank you. Kimpire 21:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i bet you that someone is going to add cast rumors/speculations within the week Q5 den 05:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • sigh*. Does wikipedia have a legal death penalty? Kimpire 05:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
an i win!!! Q5 den 04:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is why i proposed this article for deletion. The new season doesn't even air until next year! This article is going to get hit by a hell of alot of speculation, spam, vandalism, ect. dposse 23:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that an article is going to get hit with vandalism is no reason to delete it. How often do articles on famous, important subjects get hit with vandalism? Your argument only implies that this article should be locked for editing only by experienced users. Deleting it lets the terrorists vandals win. Kimpire 21:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion? I don't see any problem, unless this article becomes home to rumors, speculation, and no hard facts. But for starters, we can start posting info on returning characters from TV Guide. If someone wants to start that process that would be great, just ensure you use citations.


Re unknown-authored comment above: This article is *already* home to rumors, speculation, and no hard facts. It should really be wiped clean. Kimpire 22:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is way too early for this page to be here. dposse 15:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone seen the 24 DVD board game, I saw it at the book store yesterday. Theres no Wiki article.

Rumors, 18 months, shorter-delay, better season?[edit]

Whoever wrote the article needs to cite sources; so they won't be viewed as rumors; or else I'd have to agree with the article being deleted or at least shortened.

The article speculates that the season may have another 18 month gap in time. But isn't this highly unlikely? Once Jack is captured; the race to bring him back begins right away; so I wouldn't be surprised if Season 6 begins only 1 day after the disappearance of Jack. But I guess it would make sense for some sort of time gap; assuming no one finds out that they had shipped Jack off to China (and then it is later revealed). But shouldn't the Chinese be a prime suspect? I mean, they were looking for Jack for a full 18 months during his hiding right? So if he disappears; it's probably China. So I doubt it's 18 months -- are there sources that say so?

I remember reading an article that there will be a shorter delay between season 5 and season 6; so that fans of the show won't have to wait as long to catch the next season. But season 6 is airing in January, as usual. What happened?

There's actually a very good chance that there may be an 18 month interval, due to precedcence. Days 1 & 2 had an 18 month gap. Days 3 & 4 had another 18 month gap, and Days 4 & 5 had an 18 month gap.

In the season 4 article, it states that season 4 was considered to be the "best" season based on ratings and fan reaction. So now that season 5 has recently come to an end; how are the ratings and fan-reaction -- could this be crowned the new "best" season? 24.23.51.27 01:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That belongs in the season 5 discussion Q5 den 03:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the 24 HQ, which sites a source on Tv.com, Kiefer says Day 6 takes place more than a year later, possibly two. http://24fan.blogspot.com/


  • According to 24 the Official Magazine, the 6th days will take place 20 months after season 5.Davilaser 18:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can *somebody* please start citing their sources for editing this article?[edit]

Please? I am this close to wiping the entire thing clean and writing stub-like sentences from scratch if we don't stop with the speculation. Kimpire 22:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since someone thought it was a good idea to remove my deletion request, i have removed all speculation from this article. Since this article was created so early, we need to be very careful. The sixth season of 24 does not air until next year. We cannot have "general summaries" or anything of the kind until much later in the year when someone official announces something. dposse 22:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General Summary --> Background make you happy now? Q5 den 23:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is much better. Thank you.dposse 04:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why we're asking about Wayne Palner.[edit]

He went to Buchanan's house, no? It is so unlikely that he went to sleep?

I don't know if he went to Bill's house for sure. It wasn't clearly stated in the episode. I reckon he's okay. Now Evelyn and her daughter, on the other hand... Peanutbuttercups 04:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation[edit]

Whoever put up the "citation needed"s has a good point. The entire article was pure speculative bull until the general summary was cleaned up; but I'm wondering where the "confirmed to return"s came from and how much speculation those are as well. Given that Kiefer Sutherland does have a three-year contract, I know his at least is fact (though I don't know where to find the citation for that, because I saw the article a long time a go). The other characters, though... unless somebody puts up a source in a week I suggest they be removed. Kimpire 22:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers[edit]

"Executive Producer Howard Gordon has said in interviews that Jack will escape the Chinese in the first episode." Did he really? I don't recall him ever saying that. I do know he said that the season won't take place in China (due to the time zone difference between Los Angeles and China). So I don't think he necessarily escapes, per se. The show just won't be set there. Does anybody have any links to Gordon stating that Jack escapes? Peanutbuttercups 04:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great point. I've tried pretty hard to find corroborating information for that assertion but haven't had any success. --

Huysmantalk 11:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard a recording where Howard Gordon said that Season 6 wont be set in china however they are considering doing a prequel to Season 6 which would deal with Jacks escape from China. i think i found the site from a link on www.24.tvheaven.com

Pat 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't present the citation, we can't allow it; otherwise this article will be overrun by speculation from any number of sources. Kimpire 21:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jack doesn't escape, he is traded as seen in the Promo's. In one Promo Cheng Zhi says "Your president has paid a high price for Mr. Bauer's freedom, what he wants from him must be very important." implying that Mr. Bauer's release must have cost a real arm and a leg. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.154.21.124 (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What happened to...[edit]

I removed the bits about Kim Bauer and President Keeler because they don't seem to have any bearing on the plot of season 6. Kim Bauer just leaves, without any explanation necessary; President Keeler's death or permanent incapacitation is probably irrelevant. Wayne Palmer should stay, however, because they made a point of not being able to find him in the final episode and that might be relevant; similarly, James Heller was left alive for a reason, one would assume.

If anyone disagrees with any of those choices let me know. Kimpire 21:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Okay, everybody keeps bringing back the German agent. For frell's sake, he was a minor character. Why not ask if we've seen the last of every single character seen since episode one, day one? Kimpire 21:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of God. Bauer and the German agent have finalized their divorce and are working on custody issues of their children. For god's sake, he appeared in two episodes! Get over it! Kimpire 21:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think this is the case at all, and is worthy of discussion. Previous events in 24 would suggest that this agent will play a future part - Jack clearly offers to get this agent something of value in the future. Kyle, 23:53 28 June 2006 (GMT)

I was just wondering about Mandy. Will she be in this next season? You would think they would eventually give her a more important role in a season. She always appears in 1 or 2 episodes. She's definetly at large because she got immunity in season 4. I have not seen anything to prove she will be in it, and I was just wondering if anybody else has seen anything.

Add a Rumors Section[edit]

Just add a section for rumors, also possibly asking for a source so no one makes random crap up.

No.--DethFromAbove 01:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

All the news which is cited as being found at the heritage foundation is no longer available, as when you follow the link their site says they cannot find the page, and for the terrorists this should not have the 24 insider messenger board as a source as it requires a username and password to access the required information


17:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


24 Insider[edit]

Why don't people get that 24 Insider(fan site) is a respected source? --Jasonflare 19:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it's a fan site. It is not a source, and it should not be used as a source. Unless you can provide a better source for infomation, all infomation gained from that website will be deleted. dposse 22:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Palmer as President[edit]

It doesn't make any sense at all, I like his character but come on.

Yeah, I agree, Heller should definitely be President.
Point is moot, watch the trailer.

semi protection.[edit]

I have requested that this page be Semi Protected because of the vandals who think that a fan site is a good source for infomation, per WP:V, WP:RS. dposse 18:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New POTUS[edit]

the 24 insider as well as the new york times have confirmed that Wayne Palmer is not the President in season 6, and that negotiations for Jon Tenney to play this role has fallen through.

The 24 Insider is not a source, as i've stated above. dposse 16:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hertiage Foundation and other notes[edit]

First, I added a couple things, including a link to the Hertiage Foundation transcript. I contains several notes used in this summery, and also promised the return of Aaron Pierce. Secondly, while I understand the hesitation of members of this site to use spoilers from The 24 Community (renamed version of the Insider), I should note that the site has a better track record than some of the actual sources used in this article. I'm not going to post unconfirmed stuff from there, but I'm just saying, they're pretty freaking accuriate. --WhoIsWillo 20:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheng Zhi[edit]

I noticed someone put down that cheng Zhi dies and as such this needs to be verified so im putting in "Citation needed". Pat 16:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I think you are referring to someone else, Cheng Zhi doesn't die in Day 6. In the Prequel, a Chinese Double Agent dies because Jack was tricked in ratting him out. Where you get this is possible, but I am 100% certain that he will be present in Day 6's first episode. In one of the promo's you think that he's going to get shot by a CTU agent, but it's not the case.
Speaking of which, it seems that Cheng Zhi ought to be listed under the 'antagonists and terrorists' category, rather than 'civilians and others', given the turn of events during 10:00PM-11:00PM. 66.24.227.212 19:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheng Zhi crossed the line between a neutral party and an enemy in day 6. I only say he was neutral before as China was not engaged in any terrorism agasint the United States, and Bauer technically committed an act of war when he invaded the embassy. After Cheng commited acts of war against the US (such as the invasion of CTU), he became an enemy.

James Heller!!!!!!!!!!!![edit]

who keep putting in the SecDef Jim Heller will be next president, there are no sources indicating this and as such if you cannot find one this piece of info will be removed

Pat 14:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a page linking Wayne Palmer as the next president, so I've changed the information. I'm pasting the original Heller post here for safekeeping. "* Hal Gardner has since died, and former secretary of defence James Heller wins the election and takes over the presidency, he appoints Audrey Raines (Kim Raver), his daughter, as his chief of staff." 63.88.58.254 16:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Head of CTU?[edit]

Who's the Head? Is it still Bill Buchanan(James Morrison), or this new actress, Marisol Nichols? Or is Nichols going to be head of ALL of CTU, meaning nationally?? Or is there just to few information out there too even guess?


Kim Bauer?[edit]

Why did someone write Kim was on there, I watched Jimmy Kimmel last night and Elisha was on, she said she is still waiting for a call to return. Plus the link provided had nothing to do with Kim, so I removed that until evidence appears.- Puppet125

Unconfirmed reports[edit]

There is an unconfirmed report from a reliable source that Paul McCrane will return to play Graham and we will meet the Graham family.

James Heller[edit]

Why didn't they make James Heller President?

Because they didn't want to. WhoIsWillo 15:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wow, what an insightful reply genius.
why didn't they make Jack Bauer president? Or Bill Buchanan? BECAUSE their storyline requires Palmer being Pres. 71.54.90.110 02:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction[edit]

In the known details section, it says Jack's "two months into his Chinese incarceration", yet later says the series begins 20 months after the last. I doubt the Chinese would take 1 1/2 years to put Jack away. 84.65.102.19 18:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Novick????[edit]

Any news on the return of Jude Ciccolella (Mike Novick)? I know it's a long shot but we can all hope, right? Spebudmak 21:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • None so far from any spoiler site, fansite, or other web media citing reliable sources. 147.70.244.134 20:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Bauer[edit]

I erased where it said that Josh Bauer would be a character on the show. A myspace conversation isn't exactly a reliable source.

Jet Li???[edit]

Where's the reference for Jet Li's appearance? There's nothing on the Jet Li article, and I can't find any references via google. Is this just a rumor? --TimPendragon 06:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait until we get an official announcement before posting anything. --Order_66 08:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign premieres[edit]

Any news on when the season will be shown outside the US? Battle Ape 15:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Far As I am aware Sky One will Show Season 6 In the UK on Sunday February 11 [1] Pat 12:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about Australia? Battle Ape 15:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The australian Premiere is on Tuesday 30 January at 8:30. It will be the first 2 episodes, it will then move to 10:30 wednesday nights

    • Stop deleting the australian premier information. The Article contains information about the UK premier and tv guide times so why shouldnt the australian one be one there???. Wikipedia is not country specific.

Eddie Izzard[edit]

Can we get a citation or a reason why Eddie Izzard appears to no longer be signed on for the show? StoopidEmu 07:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Listing[edit]

Can someone provide a citation or source for the recent listing of episodes? Otherwise, I'm removing it. Order_66 10:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i've removed it. it was completely unsourced/original research and it went against a whole bunch of wikipedia guidelines. dposse 15:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prequel[edit]

I haven't seen that prequel, but from the description it sounds more like a commercial, like the CalorieMate commercials, than an actual prequel to season 6. Maybe that possibility/angle should be included in its section. Bufflo 22:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's called a prequel, but it's clearly just a preview if you look at any definition of prequel, a ten minute trail of a forthcoming series ain't it. --Gavinio 18:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time Of Day[edit]

Where is it stated that the day will start at 6:00 AM? -WarthogDemon 19:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up[edit]

Is there anyway to clean up the discussion page and the "known details." Definitive information is out now that the episodes have been leaked and it would be great to start making this look like a real television show page. I'd love to start doing some real work, but I don't know much about Wikipedia. Hopefully we can make Season Six a good one and one that we can use as a guideline for the previous seasons. MorseMoose 03:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)MM[reply]

No, we have to wait for the official season premiere. Yes, I know it sucks, but it's only about 8 days away. Then we start cleaning everything up. Order_66

Screenshots[edit]

Screenshots are terrible quality and terribly dark. Please upload better screenshots if you have them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MorseMoose (talk • contribs) 08:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The episodes have not aired yet on TV.[edit]

No matter what you download off of Bittorrent, the episodes have not aired yet on tv. Please, everyone, wait until after the episodes air before you include infomation about the plot. Thank you. dposse 18:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The information is known, and Wikipedia doesn't have a no-spoilers policy. ~~ N (t/c) 21:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the fact that no one can verify it, and it's original research until it premires on tv. Also, keeping it off the article will help with keeping speculation away since most editors will not know what's true or not until the episodes air. I don't know why its so hard to just wait a week and write the article after the episodes air. dposse 22:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of television shows that have yet to be aired that have information. But, whatever...MorseMoose 23:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)MM[reply]
But those articles have sources from websites. A torrent download is not a proper source. dposse 23:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone is aware, the episodes are available on a certain video hosting site, if you want to watch them you should be able to find them without too much trouble, but Wikipedia rules mean you cannot link to them, so they do not count as sources either. MarkSutton 00:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf? The episodes are still unaired, yet we have screenshots of them?

Anyone know if there are any particular guidelines about screenshots? I suppose we can argue that any advance screenshots should be deleted on the grounds that at present they could only have been obtained through copyright infringement- what do other people think? MarkSutton 19:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty ludicrous to pretend that reams of information don't exist, when at least 4 full episodes are right before your eyes on the internet. These are not "fakes" and they are no less reliable than a television broadcast -- since they are identical to what will be broadcast in a couple of days. Yes, we can all wait until next Sunday to see plot summaries and facts posted in the article, but to prevent this same information from being added - when it exists and is available to the public - is truly against the spirit of Wikipedia and the banner of free information. --DLandTALK 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an issue of reliability, DLand. Yes, it's verifiable information, but it is obtained through illegal means and republication of Fox owned content without their approval is against copyright law, no matter what medium it is done through. Two more things: 1) when issues of the legality of this information arise, you always err on the side of what is certainly legal. If it is up in the air, there is ZERO harm in waiting two or three days and letting fan-boy sites do the informing. The default is not, and should not, be for us to keep edits that potential violate copyright issues. A 24 fan's keen desire to be the first to post spoilers doesn't come first, ever. 2) The very least you can do is justify your stance rather than reverting the edits, and if you're going to just revert back and hide behind wiki-law or whatever, is that you add "citation needed" tags to all information, or provide a source for the statements. Furthermore, statements of fact from the show need to be categorized seperately from the producer/director speculation and tagged with spoiler warnings, not randomly mixed in with all the other trivia.
Not to mention, at least one of the edits is unverifiable. Within the show (spoiler, folks), they said the bomb being detonated in a large, densely populated city would cause casualties in the thousands. Valencia is sheltered on most sides by mountains from any of the large cities (ie Los Angeles) and is fairly spread out, and was detonated before it could get to an extremely densely populated area. Speculation that casualties are in the thousands for a spread out area such as this, while potentially correct, are currently unfounded. President David Palmer 06:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where should season 6 events be documented?

If some people consider the TV releases to be the 'official thing' then a page for 24 episodes commonly available for download should get its own page.

Having seem episodes 1-4 I'd like to start putting in season 6 major events and plots etc.

MrBauer 21:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the original comment on not posting significant plot details until their aired. If I hadn't already watched the first four episodes, I'd be really pissed off. At least spoil things when they're supposed to be out in the open. I took the liberty of snipping the Day 6 plot twist out of the article. Better to leave it out than to have it in, right? Resakov

You have already watched the first four episodes? Where? Better watch what your saying, boys, or you might end up blatantly reported. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.32.1.82 (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Honestly, I don't see the problem here. The episodes are already leaked out, and many people have already watched them! As long as there is a spoiler warning then people should not be stupid enough to read on. AND if they do then it is no fault but their own. Someone go ahead and post those episode summaries up and start educating:D Razorwave

Err.... copyright violation?... err... right of first publication violation?... err... not encouraging online piracy?... err...

Not only would it be a violation of WP:V, but WP:C. The episodes that you have watched were gained illegally. The episodes are, until they air on tv, a violation of United States copyright law. Just wait until they air. It's really not that hard. dposse 17:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pathetic. You're all failures to Wikipedia; you're purposely denying people 100% true information for no reason whatsoever. Not just not putting it up, actively denying people. Who are you to do that? God? You little Hitlers. You should all be ashamed. I'm truly appalled. It's a dark day for Wikipedia. Trip: The Light Fantastic 22:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah, so hold on there, so you simultaneously say no-ones denying anything, yet we're being denied a medium? And don't be so ridiculous about the legality, the information could have come from anywhere on the 'net as to what happens, it doesn't imply the writer has watched the damn thing. P2P is illegal, so is paedophilia, there are articles on that? Writing about an illegality is not a crime. And by the way I said "little Hitler" not Adolf Hitler, Leader of the Third Reich... it's a clear metaphor of a dictatorial person; in common usage around the world. Look it up. But not on Wikipedia because under your rules, unless we've got Hitler ourselves, we can't write about him. Trip: The Light Fantastic 01:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I said "not on is dneying anyone the right to do anything other than...". And your right to post said material on Wikipedia is (surprise) non-existent. If you had unlimited rights to do what you wanted with Wikipedia, why not just spam the entire page, and write whatever you feel like. Being denied the ability to using wikipedia as a medium for your purposes isn't the deprivation of right, nor is it tantamount to anything Hitler ever did. If you want to get your vengeful spamming out, do it elsewhere, or at least get your panties out of a wad and wait 3 days. Posting about the illegally obtained episodes is a form of copyright infringement. It's material that is not licesened for public (i.e. Wikipedia) use, rebroadcasting, or redistrubition in any form, written, video, audio, etc. If you don't like that, take it up with a copyright attorney and stop name dropping little factoids (we all know who Hitler was, and what the Third Reich was) in order to try to act like the intellectual snob that you certainly aren't. Protecting Wikipedia's legal integrity, socially and legally, comes before some random guy's undying desire to be the first to break all the big spoilers for an unreleased T.V. show. WAIT 3 DAYS and take the crusader attitude elsewhere. President David Palmer 05:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posting information that has not yet aired on television is not a copyright violation any more than it will be after it airs. It is equally copyrighted before and after, and posting e

pisode details on Wikipedia is not a violation on either end. The information is public and free to disseminate. --DLandTALK 06:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's original research, not verifiable, citable information. But sure, if you've gotta be the first fanboy to tell the world, go ahead and do that. I see at least 3 wiki-violations, but nevermind those.President David Palmer 06:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, it's as much original research as a television broadcast. Right now, anyone who has an internet connection can watch the first four episodes (plus 12 minutes of the fifth) right in his or her browser. More importantly, this isn't about 24 - it's about the principles of Wikipedia and the right of the people to access extant knowledge. Practically, after the episode airs I guarantee that this article will be torn apart and made into an expanse of well organized encyclopedic information - most if not all of the current edits will be subsumed in the process. The principle is the point here. --DLandTALK 06:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. I'd want to look over a full plot summary of the episodes to see anything I missed. And that's my right to expect that from Wikipedia. That's what it's for. That's if I watched the episodes - which I didn't ;) Trip: The Light Fantastic 15:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can people PLEASE stop making edits without explaining them? Facts regarding the actual content of the episodes need to be seperated from the facts about speculation. They are not one in the same, nor would they be blended in with the other speculation in ARBITRARY order if they were to be. This article is a mess enough. Don't revert edits that serve to clean it up, and if you do, justify it.President David Palmer 10:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note for everyone; I used this in a debate on a talkpage and I think you should all see it:

Doesn't matter how the information was obtained, its legal and it's true... it's not copyrighted because then we wouldn't be able to post about it ever.
The information should not be posted on Wikipedia until after airing, whether in the US, UK, or wherever.
My point exactly... and the US point is aimed at the fact that usually it's
1. US 2. Internet release 3. UK and so on and so forth
and it's usually released as soon as we get it because that suits the people from the United States... screw the fact that the rest of the world gets spoilers, it's as soon as it's aired, the information's on there...
But now that it's
1. Internet release 2. US 3. UK and so on and so forth
We can't possibly have spoilers before it's aired in the US now can we?!
There's the hypocrisy for you - when the US is first we spoil the world, but when the internet's first we can't spoil the US? Rubbish.
The people from the US will have to learn to avoid any spoilers until airdate in their country like everyone else manages to. So, no, I'm afraid we can't protect US viewers from possible spoilers at the expense of everyone who's seen it.

Trip: The Light Fantastic 01:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with spoilers. You see plot summeries and the like fall under fair use. wikipedia fair use requirement number 4 states that the material must have been previously publsihed and bittorrent doesn't cut it.Geni 02:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, private information is illegal until officially released. See the Harry Potter Book 6 scandal. Cbrown1023 02:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually, I couldn't care less, because, as you might have guessed, the revert war was a delaying tactic to keep the information on here close enough to the release dates as possible. 5 days on, 2 days protected. Meh. I think it's a case of "The damage is already done". I've done my bit for the right to freedom of speech; even if you creepy beaurocrats couldn't turn a blind eye to it. God save those that you have authority over in the workplace.
Do what you will from now on, times nearly up so common sense has practically won; even if you wikilawyers technically win. S'good enough for me. See you next time an episode gets leaked, kids! :D Trip: The Light Fantastic 02:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I really don't think so.Geni 03:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked him for 1 week for major WP:POINT violations (first violation). If he continues after, please re-block as necessary. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is receiving the DVD by mail order in the UK a week before they are aired "piracy"? Elpaw 12:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the DVD was never offically released by Fox, then yeah, it's piracy. Anyway, i'm glad this page is protected, and i thank the Admins who did it. I wish i had thought of it earlier. dposse 15:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silly user[edit]

Some silly ass phony user added about Jack Bauer weeping etc. but I can't edit this article (semi-protection is NOT the best solution.. sigh..) which makes me doubt it seriously. --84.249.253.201 17:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack does weep in episode 4 after had to make a hard decision. Well in a way he was weeping, but just tear drops where failling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.154.21.49 (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Stop changing the "and" behind Regina King. It is there. She is given the 'and' credit in this season. Put it back, and leave it there. God. I know it's only a little thing but it changes EVERY time I come to the page.

  • It's not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a markee. Please consult WP:MOS before reverting or insisting on a non-encyclopic format for presenting a cast list. Each line should begin with the actor's name, not a lower case conjunction or preposition. 147.70.244.134 20:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the Prequel section removed?[edit]

It provides an episode-like synopsis of the 10 minute clip, and is available to the public at this point, so I don't see what was so terribly wrong with it. Until it is verifiable that it has no bearing on what happens with the 6th season, a synopsis of it serves on less purpose than any episode recap. It's probably for the best to just keep it. If nothing else, it's certainly not useless information, and it certainly relates to the season itself. President David Palmer 23:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I for one think that the prequel is relevant in establishing background, much like the PS 2 game established background. When this page is unprotected, I intend to restore the section. Calwatch 13:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The FOX website says that President Wayne Palmer is married...

Wow, president David Palmer? Weren't you supposed to have died? :D

Death Count[edit]

I don't see the need to put a Death Count section in the episode summaries. IMHO, the articles are supossed to give a brief summary of the episodes, nothing more. If we started adding trivia like that, then we could also create a section stating how many times Jack Bauer says dammit in every episode, and so on. I understand it can be tempting to add that kind of trivia to the articles, but I think it only introduces noise without adding much value to the article. I wait for your feedback. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.0.137.14 (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Jack Bauer's curse count has no bearing or effect on the episode. It doesn't summarize anything, it doesn't reveal anything about the magnitude of the attacks of the season. The death count does all of that. Furthermore, thorough = better. Giving information that is useful to have about the episodes is what Wikipedia is about. There is no "official" guideline for how a television show's episode must be documented on Wikipedia, so you can't really say what the purpose of one is. I say keep it.President David Palmer 06:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think more information, however seemingly trivial, the better. After all, yes, someone who missed an episode might want to just see a summary here. But that's not the only audience to consider. Someone might want to be looking for trivia about the show, and perhaps even creating a graph for how often Jack said "dammit" for some report. While Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, it's very different from a standard encyclopedia. That's why we even have articles about specific TV show episodes (which you'd never find in a traditional encyclopedia). The lack of size limits allows us to be a specialty encyclopedia for any given topic (including 24 episodes), as well as being a general enyclopedia. So the rule of thumb should not be what would a general/traditional encyclopedia include about this episode, but what would a 24 encyclopedia include? That's why I think more information, however seemingly trivial, the better. --Serge 19:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the table is "trivial" or not is not why I am writing. It is my opinion that a 'death count' table is Original Research, and I would be against including it, because it is not verifiable, and the count completely depends on who makes it. To give one example, we don't know that in the third hour of day six, more than one prison guard wasn't killed to rescue the prisoner on the bus. Even the person who listed that death admitted it was an 'estimate'. Whose estimate? None that can be verified with a third party source. There are on screen deaths which can appropriately be described in the spoilers section, and off screen death numbers which, if significant, can also be mentioned there. Creating a table somewhat implies an authority on exactly how many there have been, and we can't know that. The best this table can be is 'Deaths presented and confirmed within the context of the episode'. Even then, we would have to be careful not to include things the writers didn't necessarily intend, which is again original research - like estimates of deaths based on watching the episode. (If a car chase happens, and a random car is run off the road, did the occupant die? We don't know, and we can't know, because the writers won't bother talking about a bystander, or may not have considered if he died.)
(a numerical analysis of curses doesn't) summarize anything, it doesn't reveal anything about the magnitude of the attacks of the season. The death count does all of that. Furthermore, thorough = better.
To make my position clear, here, I'm not suggesting that mentions of deaths be excluded from these summaries, only that they be verifiable. Ultimately, Wikipedia's purpose is not to be thorough, but verifiable. I would propose mentioning every confirmable death in the episode summaries, and leave it at that. E.g. 'Buchanan informs the staff in the situation room that over 200 people have died in the mall bombing' (fact seen in the episode), versus a listing in a table which says 'Mall bombing: over 200 deaths' (editor's appraisal of the scene). One is a fact (you can go to the episode and see the scene in question), the other is technically not. Skybunny 19:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, Wikipedia's purpose is not to be thorough, but verifiable. - It's actually both. For what other reason would the encyclopedia be so open ended as to allow everyone with computer and internet access the ability to change the contents? The table should stay because your complaint seems a little petty. Technically, yes, there are hundreds of unconfirmed deaths. But the table says (or should say) "confirmed" deaths. For all we know, Bill Buchanan's brother in law had a stroke during the course of the season and died, but it will never be mentioned because it's insignificant to the plot. Rather than delete a piece of information that allows insight into the episode, just change the title of the chart to something simple along the lines of "Verified Death Count within the Plot" or something along those lines. And how exactly does the "mall bombing" example you give not constitute a fact, within the context of the table here? Buchanan says "over 200 killed", therefore, the graph reads "over 200 killed". As long as there is absolute certainty over the deaths listed, then list them and just change the name of the table. Don't remove information worthy of note over matters so trivial. President David Palmer 13:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), which is a Wikipedia guideline, sometime. Although I didn't have the page in front of me when I first wrote here, most of the issues I'd raised above are hinted at in this article. This guideline suggests against heavy reliance of a work of fiction as the sole basis for an article about it; against use of 'succession boxes' for fictional characters whose continuity could change (example: the '24' presidential succession); and "an exposition framed as the history of fictional locations or organizations". For the record, I have never contributed to this guideline in any way.
The following statement in the guideline sums things up better than I ever could: "Wikipedia policy on verifiability requires that articles "rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." However, articles written from an in-universe perspective are overly reliant on the fiction itself as a primary source. Lacking as they are in any critical analysis of the subject, these articles may invite original research. In other words, lacking critical analysis from secondary sources, Wikipedia editors and fans of the subject often feel compelled to provide such analysis themselves."
I'm not going do any changes based on that guideline (at this time), as it is apparent I do not have a consensus behind me to do so. I would, however, ask any reader of this to consider reading the style guideline linked above, and give critical thought as to whether all of the content being added to the 24 family of articles is appropriate for Wikipedia, even while it might be completely appropriate for say, the 24 Wikia. Skybunny 01:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motivations?[edit]

I'm a tad curious here. Wiki doesn't seem to hold the information and I can't recall whether the show ever identified what Fayed and his cohorts hoped to target politically. Support for Israel? Military presence in Saudi Arabia? Or are the villains in this event another case of the "hate us for our freedom/relish in 'evil'" mentality? --AWF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.54.97.194 (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

They have not identified the motives beyond the typical animosity-because-you're-America-and-we're-not schtick. It's hard to make the motivations much different in a mainstream show without polarizing the audience and causing groups to be even more upset than they already are. Not to mention, that's probably making a bit too much of a political statement for a show that should avoid doing so. President David Palmer 04:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well i think fyed is just working for gredenko and gredenko wants revenge for the cold war

It has been mentioned that Gredenko wanted revenge fr the Cold War, but that still doesn't explain Fayed's motives. 66.24.227.212 23:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder[edit]

Hm, someone has added to the synopsis section, which I suppose is good. But it includes the text that Jack murdered Curtis. While it certainly can be said that Jack killed Curtis, asserting that that killing constitutes murder seems a bit POV. (So I've gone ahead and substituted the language.) Bitnine 16:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Curtis was about to murder Assad, so Jack was simply doing what he had to do to save Assad's life. That's defense against murder, not murder. --Serge 06:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Summaries Listing Style[edit]

What style of episode summaries listing do other people prefer? I like the style last seen in the Revision as of 08:02, January 23, where the airdate is listed, as it more closely conforms to the list of episodes style used for other TV series on wikipedia. What are peoples' thoughts on its use versus the concise and less informative template? -Beard0 04:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the episode summaries should be as simple as possible. -sandiego92039 05:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC) i would like some, are there any on this season yet? i took some cool screenshots if anyone wanted to put them in. i would write my own summaries but dont know how to start a page. thanks.[reply]

I suggest that we stay consistent and do the list in the same style that Season 5 was done. (I basically agree with Beard0) Juice10 (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preview[edit]

A 10-minute preview was available exclusively to the American audience with the fifth season DVD. The British viewers could see this preview, too. Before 24 was shown, there was a sort of advert-thing which told viewers to help Jack and Chloe by going to www.ctuagent.com and typing in a password (D9D5JJ).....through a sequence of events the viewer would eventually end up on a website where they could be entered into a competition to win a trip to the set of 24, and they were granted the preview clip. Vimescarrot 16:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what had to be done can be seen here. Vimescarrot 16:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major Plots[edit]

People seem to be confused with what the major plots section is. If you look at all the other season articles, you'll see that the major plots section details story arcs and is not an episode by episode summary. Gdo01 17:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date Error[edit]

The estimated date of May 2012 is impossible. If Jack has been gone for 20 months then Wayne Palmer would have already had to have been elected president before Day 5. With Americas' rules of succession for the presidency there would never have been a special election to replace Logan. In May 2012 an elected president would have had to have been in office for 40 months already. I do not think I spend enough time here to just make these changes on my own. I only wanted to bring this to the attention of those of you who are trying to make this article as accurate as possible and let all of you be the judge in regards to changing the article or not. unusualpsycho 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It was wrong. Its supposed to be May 2011. That allows enough time for the USA to have been under siege under Palmer for about 16 months (I think the actual time was 11 months, so Palmer had some "free time" during his early presidency). Gdo01 18:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just did the math and it would have to be in January or February of 2010. That is the only way the seasons all match up if you assume Season 1 on the day of the 2000 California primary. unusualpsycho 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The first season of 24 took place in 2002, approximately March 2002 according to Wiki. I'll look for other sources but that season definitely took place sometime in Winter-Spring 2002. Gdo01 18:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the California primary of 2002 took place in March 2002 [2]. Gdo01 18:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, but I was looking at the fact that we only have had presidential primaries in 2000 and 2004 and I was also off on my month by 6 months. In the real world timeline for presidential primaries, season 1 had to be in March of 2000 or 2004 which would put this season in September of either 2009 or 2013. unusualpsycho 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think you may have a point since Season 3 took place before the presidential debates but supposively took place in September 2006 (when candidates have not even declared running for president yet). And this season can't take place in 2011 or 2012 because the president is inaugurated in January of a year divisible by 4 (2008, 2012). So Season 6 actually takes place in 2009? Wow, we need to revise the entire dating scheme of these seasons. Gdo01 18:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not even consider that all of them would have to be revised. Also, the president is actually only elected in a year divisible by 4. He is inaugurated the following January (2009 or 2013). Figured I should note that in case you are going back and trying to make the corrections. unusualpsycho 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Listen carefully again to the first hours of Day VI -- if you do, then you would hear that the terrorist attacks began 11 weeks earlier with Wayne taking office 3 months earlier (that means a "Presidential honeymoon of a week"). That's the fact, and here's the speculation: I doubt there was a special election to replace Logan, but odds are Gardner replaced him until Wayne got elected. My guess? March 2011/2012/2013 (depending what year you want to place Day I in) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.242.193.147 (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Well if the USA is still keeping the divisible by 4 plus 1 inauguration day then it should April 2009 or April 2013. Wayne Palmer was inaugurated either January 2009 or January 2013, add a week and 3 months and you're in April. Gdo01 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have a quote that may clear this up a little (much as it can be) from this article [3]. Specifically: "In fact, the fully operational phones on the CTU set claim that the date is Jan. 23, 2012. 'They're technically correct, but they're emotionally and narratively incorrect, so they get to argue by putting it on the phone,' executive producer Howard Gordon says, referring to the show's chronologically obsessed set designers." So they're pretty much putting the whole date thing aside because they want to seasons to continue in an everlasting now. Bitnine 01:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well this season can't possibly take place in 2012 if the USA is still inaugurating president's the same way. 2009 or 2013 would be right. I'm just thinking of eliminating all the real world dates since it looks like even the 24 wiki decided not to delve into when in reality this takes place. Gdo01 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the article, the designers say that you'll never see a date and the series will continue in the perpetual now. 24 takes place in 20XX and is not meant to adhere to a timeline. Bitnine 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess it is best to erase all the dates since they don't matter anymore. I find it odd that they have taken this stance when they were clearly showing there was 18 month, 3 years, 20 month, etc. gaps. Why mention the gaps between seasons if it doesn't matter? Gdo01 02:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A chunk of time of an approximate amount passing is important to the story. Exactly how much, and the full logistics is what doesn't matter. -Beard0 09:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine that they mention the passage of time mainly for two reasons. First, it's important for character development. Being in a Chinese prison for a couple of years is much different than a couple of days, for example. Second, it helps suspension of disbelief in making sure it doesn't seem like terrorist attacks happen every week in 24land. At least, that's my speculation on the matter. Bitnine 18:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is very important to specify the amount of time that has passed between seasons. Without that information then it would be impossible for any realistic changes to be made. After reading the comments form everyone here, I believe that the best thing to do is eliminate the dates from all of the seasons. Start Season 1 by stating it is on the day for the CA primary and then just specify the amount of time that has passed on the page for each of the following seasons. unusualpsycho 5 February 2007 (UTC)
(Undent) Honestly, that's probably best. It's not just that putting a framework of dates is OR, it's that the series doesn't use a strict timeline. It never reaches the "future". If it did take place in 2013 you might wonder about the lack of progress in technology, the chronology of events and conflicts thereof, or even the lack of future model cars on the road. And asserting that there is a definite date and timeline goes against the quotes given by the show designers and the consistency of events in the show. Season 6 doesn't take place on a date, it takes place 'nowish', including that lack of specificity. Putting a date on the season doesn't just go against the quotes given, it's genuinely misleading to the nature of the show as a fictional construct.
Given how much chronology and dates come up, this should probably be brought up over at the main page previous to any changes. Bitnine 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graem[edit]

Do we have confirmation that graem was behind the events of Day 4? I find this dubious unless anyone can confirm this.

It was in one of the episodes (first 4-6?) where he confesses to Jack that he was behind the whole thing. Jack's father later does too. Jacks' father and Graham also talk between themselves about what they've done/are doing (before Graham is killed by his father to cover it all up). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They talk about their involvment in season 5 but I cant remember season 4 events being mentioned.

Head Of Secret Service[edit]

STOP SAYING HE IS DEPUTY NIRMAN! FACE IT, WE FINALLY HAVE SOMEONE PLAYING MORE THAN ONE CHARACTER ON 24! EITHER THAT OR GET A RELIABLE SOURCE!

P.S.: Technically, the guy who plays Abu Fayed is the first, as he played someone in Season 4, but his scenes were apparently deleted.

72.141.232.95 16:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Audrey's "death"[edit]

I added back the source and information in reguards of Audrey Raine's "Death" and "Return". --The Manator E 21:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


I removed Audrey from the recurring cast members yet to appear list. I doubt she'll be coming back.


Sorry but "you doubt" she'll be coming back ??? And you base this on what exactly? Ok, well then don't look at IMDB, because they think she is. On April 16 (but they're not always right about the date).Tvoz |talk 06:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing confirmed information since it was now aired. I hate it when other people are WRONG --170.35.224.64 18:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regards the body part in which Logan got stabbed[edit]

According to sources, Logan is stabbed in his upper left chest, not his shoulder. So people please don't change it back to "shoulder" until it has been proven. Thanks Chris 04:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw it, she came over the couch on his right side. Chris 04:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Cast list[edit]

I was just wondering what anyone thought about adding conjunctions before the names of several cast members. For example, "and" would go before Regina King's name. I'm only suggesting this change because this style would follow the opening credits of the show as well as other articles concerning 24. If anyone is strongly opposed to such changes, it's fine with me, but I want to hear what anyone else thinks. Kman1239, 10:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  • An encyclopedic cast list is not a set of titles or credits. It should simply list the cast by name (per WP:STYLE), with the appropriate Wikilinks included. Keep in mind that the list in the article is also a bulleted list, and the proper formatting precludes anything between the bulletting and the name of the person (fictional or real). B.Wind 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

should sandra palmer be in the main cast list???

Assessment rating[edit]

I've rated this article as start class because it contains most of the important information about the subject but contains few 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 21:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Call 67.164.96.234 01:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dates[edit]

I don't really agree about the date links, but it's ok with me in the infobox, as long as we keep the date link in the lead paragraph as it is now: 2007 in television which provides context for the article, makes sense, and is therefore a useful link. I don't understand for the life of me what possible relevance a link to January 14 has for this article, but I'm not going to fight about it. I can see it if it's someone's date of birth, say, because that is kind of interesting, to see that date in history or something like that. But the date the first episode in a television series aired in the US? I don't see it.

(Relevant portion of WP:DATE): There is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article. There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text. Another possibility is to link to a more specific article about that year, for example 2006, although some people find this unintuitive because the link leads to an unexpected destination. Tvoz |talk 20:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

too much info on the major plot[edit]

I have tried to convince people to summarize the Major Plot, but people continue to put more info. Hopefully, people would help to clean up after seeing the tag. Chris 00:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonable to me. I would like to remove the tag. Any objections? --Serge 23:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be much shorter personally. If you look at the pages for other seasons of 24, the plots section is much shorter and easier to read. There are individual pages for each episode of season six that people could read if they wanted more in-depth information. The main page should just list a short summary of the major plots in my opinion. SeanMooney 01:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is still too long. It can easily be divided into 12-17, 18-21, 22-24 as significant plot points. You have seperated the arcs way too much. It is 1-4: Jack back in action. 5-11: The Bauer family and assasin plot. 12-17: Stopping the other nukes. 18-21: The circuitboard. 22-24: Phillip and Josh plot. We have divided it up wayy too much IMO WikiChloesLove 05:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning Up the Plot Points[edit]

I agree with the most recent post, that the major plots/ subplots are WAY TOO LONG!!!!!

If no one else rejects, I am going to attempt to shorten and organize it. Any constructive comments and ideas are welcomed.

I am actually begin to shorten it. So welcome aboard. Chris 03:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've significantly shortened the subplots section. A lot of it was repeated information already listed in the major plots section. I think it could still be shortened quite a bit (Logan being stabbed was not a subplot for example, more of an event). The major plots section can be trimmed down as well, it should be a short list. There are individual episode pages for season 6 that people can read if they want to read more in-depth. SeanMooney 01:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update Needed[edit]

The season just ended and the article needs updating. I'm too busy preparing for the Super Smash Bros. Brawl site relaunch to do it myself, plus Wiis type slowly. -Gaming King 02:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cover Art[edit]

Why is there a fake version of the Region 2 Season 6 cover? It is clearly a fake and I see no reason why it should be put on this page. It is false. THe cover shouldn't be out for another couple of months and until then I think just a 24 logo or some kind of banner will do. WikiChloesLove 20:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Official Region 2 cover was released and I can provide a link through my own photobucket account. I can also provide you a link of the original article before we post it on the site. Photobucket here: http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i168/TheUser2006/smaller.jpg .. and the original link here: http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/24-season-six-dvd-collection.html WikiChloesLove 13:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this being deleted?[edit]

Everytime I post information about the alternate written ending drafts on the pages of Tony Almeida, 24 Season Six, and Nina Myer's they are removed, and all I ask is why? Is wikipedia doing this or is it being done by random users because I have sources from Wordpress 24 Season Six Spoilers , 24 TV Guide Interview, and www.24headquarters.com. Therefore I do not understand why these articles are continuously edited out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.142.57.205 (talk • contribs).

The reason people are removing it is because that's not official information and a rumor. If the DVD for season 6 comes out and those alternate endings are on there, or the writers state in an interview those endings were considered, then you can add them back. Until then it's better to keep them out of the articles. SeanMooney 19:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The articles were never confirmed to be filmed, as stated they were written drafts of the season finale... If you all want the sources I'll find even more sources, but after that I do not want those articles deleted again.
Until you can find more than some Internet sources, meaning confirmation from the writers, don't bother adding it again because it will be removed and you can be blocked from editing if you continue. --MiB-24 02:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Episode list?[edit]

I noticed the episode pages have been deleted, so is it possible to do an episode list like has been done for seasons 1-4? SignorSimon 22:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'contemplating suicide'[edit]

I'm not sure this bit should not be included, I mean its clear that was what was happening, and they did use the silent clock. Chocobogamer (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam links[edit]

I have removed some obsolete and spam links off of this page. Please let me know if this was done in error. Throw it in the Fire (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on 24 (season 6). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of a Name From the Guest Starring List[edit]

Actor Jim Holmes, the tenth person on the list. Although he was in 10 episodes for season 6, his name should be removed. The link embedded in the character's name leads to the minor characters article where the character is not listed. Believe me, I have checked. I also checked for a separate Wikipedia article for the actor, and that does not exist either. Since there are no working links for either the actor or the character description, then he should be removed from the section. Or at the very least, placed at the last of the list on the right column, with no embedded links. If people want to know who the guy is, they can look up his imdb page, or the imdb page for the show. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:24_season_6&oldid=1216203605"