Talk:24 (TV series)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 "Debbie's phone" section 2 Season 4 Criticism 3 US tv schedules 4 Cisco Systems Ad Placement Controversy 5 Fan Phone Number 6 Timing 7 Broadcasters 8 Good Article Nomination 9 Objectivity? 10 24 depicts technology relatively accurately, relative to other shows 11 Inaccuracy of Season 1 description 12 Cleanup 13 Season 5: Derak 14 more infomation for season 4 15 Cast 16 article title 17 Cleanup bullet added: merge episode lists and summaries 18 Region 4 DVDs 19 Goofs 20 Full Episode Guides 21 Screenshots 22 pictures for summaries 23 character box 24 Questions on contributing to the 24 Wiki 25 Have you noticed? 26 Graphic novel / comics 26.1 Merge? 27 in the "fan phone" section... 28 I hid the ratings section.

"Debbie's phone" section

Anyone know why this section was removed? -- Chuq 01:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks like possible vandalism. The same person changed the phone number in that section to all 5's just 5 minutes before deleting it. I think you should put it back in, if you like. - James Foster 14:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Debbie didn't want anybody calling her. TotalTommyTerror 15:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Season 4 Criticism

Doesn't it seem like this article portrays Season 4 in a far more negative light relative to other seasons, it being the only one with a paragraph devoted entirely to criticism. In my general discussions, Season 3 seems to be by far the most criticized and least-liked, and is certainly far more disjointed than Season 4

I deleted the paragraph in question. It offered nothing but criticism about the show and seemed to be more of someone's opinion than anything factual. TotalTommyTerror 15:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

US tv schedules

This bit needs a better explanation: "decided to implement a year-round schedule, and aired the entire season, without any hiatuses, over 19 weeks". Readers in the UK, for example, don't know what this means. Are US tv series not shown from start to finish on a weekly basis? Why not, and what is shown during hiatuses? -- Tarquin 12:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of factors in US television that can interrupt a broadcast. Season 4 of 24 was the first to be shown without any interruptions in the weekly broadcast schedule.

What had happened before was that 24 would be shown on Monday nights up until American Idol started taking over. IIRC. Then 24 (and a lot of other shows) would go off the air while broadcasts of American Idol took over. The show used to be on, like what, three nights a week I think...?

Idol isn't the only program that does it. At the end of October a lot of FOX primetime programming goes away for the World Series Baseball games. It's about 2-3 weeks of just baseball. And quite aggravating if you were getting in to a show.

Then over the holidays, viewership goes down, so the TV stations tend to just switch to lower class programming. Such as showing movies on Thanksgiving instead of the regular primetime programming. The networks tend to pick up again in January (resuming or premiering primetime programming) after the holiday downtime.

Did that clear anything up for you? I work in television so I'm a bit familiar with the "why's" and "how's" of what happens with primetime programming. If you have other questions. TotalTommyTerror 15:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, TV scheduling in the US is crap. 134.114.59.41 20:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Cisco Systems Ad Placement Controversy

There needs to be some mention of this. [1], [2]

I don't think Cisco placing ads into the show is encyclopedic. They do it with a lot of TV dramas. Jtrost 14:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Fan Phone Number

I notice in the history that the Fan Phone number has been changed multiple times to multiple different numbers. Can anyone verify the actual phone number that appeared in the said episode? - Seandals 09:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

After some searching, I found the correct number to be 310-597-3781. I have made the nessicarry change. - Seandals 09:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Timing

In addition to the above comments on how the show couldn't be exactly real-time, did anyone else notice in the very first episode of Season 1 that the bomb on the plane seemed to suffer from James Bond syndrome? (ie. if the camera cut away and cut back, there was no correlation between the amount of time the clock had counted down and the time the camera spent looking elsewhere) Confusing Manifestation 12:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Broadcasters

Please add that German broadcaster is RTL 2. Thank you.

Good Article Nomination

I would consider this article on 24 [TV Series] to meet Wikipedia's standard for a good article. Please help me by either agreeing or disagreeing, and stating why you chose your position.

Objectivity?

From the article (2.5 Future Seasons):

"Dennis Haysbert (David Palmer), Reiko Aylesworth (Michelle Dessler), and Jude Ciccollela (Mike Novick) will all appear in at least the first episode of season 5, which implys that one of them (or possibly all three) may be killed in the episode."

Is this objective? I don't think you should be making assumptions, possibly starting rumors with a comment like that. I figured I should post about it before I edit. PhoenixAvatar2 02:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

p: Hi, im not familiar with editing Wikipedia-discussion-thereads, I hope it is OK if I just try to comment like this (if not, pls. redirect my comment): I'm shocked that the whole article is not taking up the very important debate about torture in 24. This is a serious threat to democracy, so taking it up is the duty of any critical media. I propose that at least the following link is taken in: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1682760,00.html It is a comment on the problem by the philosopher Zizek in the big british liberal newspaper Guardian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.59.27.214 (talk • contribs) February 2, 2006.

I wouldn't necessarily consider The Guardian a reliable source of information. The editors seem to be more interested in progressing their agenda than delivering the facts. Jtrost 21:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Torture is a serious topic and only because a series made by fox issues it to push their right-wing agenda, this doesn`t mean there should be NO reference about it in this article. Torture is not normal or in any way legal so this is a heavy statement by the writers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Primzahl13 (talk • contribs) February 19, 2006.

This show is about a fictional government agency that is in some respects above the law. Don't read too much into that. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 14:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

24 depicts technology relatively accurately, relative to other shows

I agree with the article statement that 24 technology depiction is more accurate than many other fictional shows, especially regarding information technology (IT). I've worked in the IT field for 30 years, and while 24 isn't perfect and takes significant dramatic license, it's the best fictional show I've seen regarding computer technology.

Beyond this, 24 is the one of best shows at presenting the collaborative, IT-centric nature of modern intelligence work. It's further more accurate since it typically depicts all CTU operatives as being computer literate, if not experts.

This contrasts sharply with other shows and movies. James Bond is essentially a computer illiterate. To Bond, Q gadgets are opaque magic boxes he understands little more than an aborigine would. On Alias, Sydney Bristow relies on tech guru Marshall for most computer stuff. How many times have you heard a character on Alias say "send me an email on that"? Essentially never. On all other "spy" shows, if IT is not directly relevant to the plot, it's simply unmentioned. In their world, servers never crash, networks never fail, there's never contention for any IT resource -- it's just magical. On other shows you'll never hear a character even say the word "software" unless it's directly pertinent to the plot.

This is bad since a large fraction of today's audience is computer literate, if not working in/with IT. This isn't 30 years ago when a few jargon words would satisfy 99% of the audience. On other shows when IT isn't realistically depicted, and especially when the main characters are uncomfortable or unfamiliar with IT, this strains believability. It's as if on a cop show the characters are unfamiliar with guns.

By contrast on 24, most characters are computer literate and comfortable in today's IT centric world. On 24 information technology is presented as a fine-grained, natural part of the work environment. It doesn't always work perfectly. There is contention for network resources.

On other shows it seems IT is alien and unfamiliar to the writers, directors, and producers. This filters through to the show characters who are likewise not totally comfortable with IT, and in show settings where IT is pure window dressing, not deeply integrated into the show. They have some fancy flat screen displays in the briefing room, and that's all.

True 24 sometimes takes such dramatic license with computer-related technology it's absurd. A notable example was the "Dobson override" in season 4, where a nuclear reactor could be remotely taken over and forced to melt down. That's idiotic, as control systems on current reactors were designed before the digital era, and are hard wired analog or electromechanical controls.

However those gaffes are infrequent relative to other shows. Looking at the big picture, I can't think of another popular fictional show that more accurately depicts technology in general, and in particular IT and the modern IT-centric workplace. Therefore the article statement about 24's technical accuracy relative to other shows seems appropriate. Joema 22:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparing the official Fox character bios of 24 to character bios from other shows illustrates 24 is much more realistic at portraying computer technology. None of the Alias characters have significant computer experience. By contrast, several of the 24 characters have extensive computer experience. That may seem like a small thing, but it shows how computer technology is foreign to the writers, directors and producers of other shows besides 24. They are computer illiterate, so their characters are also. Joema 13:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• 24: http://www.fox.com/24/season3/profiles/
• Alias: http://abc.go.com/primetime/alias/profiles/cia_bristows.html

I disagree with the statement made, "The show is notable for its approach to technology, which is more accurate than many other shows ...". Most other shows don't even cover technology, which makes them more accurate. The language used inside CTU is laughable. "Send it to my screen." "I need to update my cron tables". It's using accurate sounding terminology, but it's mostly nonsensical in the contexts in which it's used. To use the word "accurate" with respect to how 24 approaches technology is really misleading. I do agree that it does a better job of giving a rough idea of how techology might be used, but it's way too far from accurate to use that word. IMHO. --Serge 06:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I love 24, but as a 20 year IT veteran it's almost physically painful to hear them talk about computers. They depict the ROLE computers play very accurately, but the terminology they use is nothing but a few buzzwords endlessly repeated and strung together at random. "Get me a protocol TCP partition on the data protocol array and protocol tunnel my subprocessor protocols. Protocol, protocol protocol, pro, to, col. Protocol."...yeesh.

And the absurd screen layouts with 20 transparent windows piled up...only a raging teen nerd boy would do that, not serious professionals.

Also, at work I never leave my station without locking my desktop PC. And I don't work in a security- or intelligence-related business, I'm simply a software engineer. I can't imagine someone working for CTU (or similar) would leave his station with his machine unlocked. And it happens in 24, with important plot impact (e.g. s4e3). Wouter Lievens 11:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

1.GPS does not work underground( subway etc.)

 2. There is no way to switch optical scanner to magnetic scannner

Inaccuracy of Season 1 description

The season 1 description really should mention that the whole thing was a revenge plot. That was the motivation behind everything that happened.

I also remember Season 1 beginning in Seoul, not Kuala Lumpur. Anyone have access to the DVD? Go check this. 134.114.59.41 20:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Season 1 did begin in Kuala Lumpur. Season 2 began in Seoul. Cubs Fan 03:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I just checked it and Season 1 did begin in Kuala Lumpur and Season 2 began in Seoul. tv316 13:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have marked this article for cleanup. Here is a list of the things that I see need improvement:

• The article is far too long for the suggested size. This may be dealt with by downsizing some sections and moving other sections to their own articles.
• There is no proper References section for cited material
• There are several duplicate wikilinks. Only the first occurrence of a word should be linked.
• The Overview section is far too long and contains a great deal of fancruft. Much of this could be moved to the trivia and criticism sections.
• The season 4 synopsis contains a list that should be converted into prose
• General trivia contains many fancruft items, non notable trivia, and is far too wordy.
• Fan phone section needs to cite a source or be removed.

The source of the fan phone is the show itself. I doubt if there are any "official" sources out there like Fox.com or Encyclopaedia Britannica that will back it up. The only places I've seen it is wikis and blogs. But that doesn't mean it's not true; it's just the kind of thing that wikipedia is good for. I think that section should stay. Kafziel 06:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case then one of those sources need to be cited. At the moment that section is an example of Original research. Jtrost 15:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe some of the prose is, or some details about the background information, but the number isn't. It's self-evident. The number is the cite. It's the primary source. Call it. Their voice mailbox is full right now, but it's them. I have no stake in this article - I don't think I've written anything on it - so I wouldn't care if the background info is all taken out, but the number itself is perfectly verifiable. If the article just said, "A number to the set was on TV and is circulating the web," then fine - that needs a source. But when they give you the number, you can check it for yourself. That's a cite. Not all cites have to be links to web-based articles. Kafziel 16:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Main cast contains too many inactive characters. Since they are listed on a separate article, they should be removed and only the current main characters should be listed.
• Criticism needs to cite sources or be removed.
• External links contain far too many non notable fansites. We should limit it to one English fansite. Sites in foreign languages are not necessary because Wikipedia is available in several languages and people who speak their native language go to that Wikipedia, not the English one. See WP:EL for further information about external links.

If you have anything to add please do so. Jtrost 17:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If no one had any suggestions I will go ahead with the cleanup items listed above. Jtrost 18:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Season 5: Derak

It isn't made clear in the season 5 summary (paragraph 2) of who derak is. Can someone with better writing skills than me edit in the fact that Derak is the son of "Frank Flynn's" girlfriend. It'd make more sense than to just throw a random new name out there. --Lightdarkness 18:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks perfect 64.252.140.63! --Lightdarkness 23:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I clarified the sentence a bit. There is no evidence that Jack is dating Diane, but he did mention that she was lending him a room. Until their relationship is further revealed, it's best to assume they are not dating. Jtrost 23:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the guy named Derek? Mattara 12:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

more infomation for season 4

The events that happened in season four obviously have a huge effect in season five. We need more infomation about it so than the season five summrary can be accurate.

Dposse 19:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm thinking we need to do a complete overhaul of the article, specifically the plot summaries. IMHO, we should remove all unnecessary information and essentially just do a concise overview of the season. Additionally, we should probably make a seperate article page that has a better/expanded summary of the episodes/season. See Lost (TV series) and Episodes of Lost (Season 1) as an example. K1Bond007 03:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That is probably a very good idea. Dposse 03:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the old information from each season, including the trivia, can be copied to a page for each season and have only the important plot development for each of the old seasons. Assawyer 04:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If you people wish to do that, i will help as much as i can with the new page. Dposse 04:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I also started to write one paragraph summaries of the main plot in each 'season' heading without giving too much away. Feel free to change as necessary. Calwatch 07:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The Fox website says that she is his girlfriend

Yeah, but Fox is well known for taking clips out of context. I'd like to see evidence of an intimate relationship in the show itself before jumping to that conclusion. Based on my read they were starting to get to know each other better but it seemed like they still had more of a brother-sister relationship going on. Calwatch 06:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Cast

If the cast list has so many inactive characters. I think some should be deleted, or maybe just list the season regulars there.

I suggest that Sarah Gavin, Erin Driscoll and James Heller should be deleted from the list. Since they are not season regular actually.

I disagree. If they were ever part of the cast, or will be part of the cast, they should be listed. Dposse 15:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

How about the current cast of the current season is listed on the main page, and a subpage is created for ALL former cast members. --Lightdarkness 17:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a good idea, Lightdarkness. Dposse 17:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems like there is already an article for a List of 24 characters, so we don't really need a subpage of old ones here, that list is a full of all major and minor characters from prevoius seasons, so I think that should sufice. --Lightdarkness 14:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

article title

I prefer the title 24 (TV series). This seems to be the emerging consensus on WP, at least among shows that I like: Nowhere Man (TV series), House (TV series). It's the most descriptive and concise title. "Television" alone only gives the context of the article name, but "TV series" tells exactly what the name is. "TV series" is better than "TV show" because series implies a string of episodes. — Shadowhillway 00:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Jtrost 00:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Are there any objections to this? Jtrost 22:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Do it. --Serge 22:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. Mushroom (Talk) 23:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree also --Mattara 12:05 3 Feburary 2006 GMT + 1

I moved the page. Does anyone know if there is a both that can get rid of the double redirects? Jtrost 20:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Use WP:AWB K1Bond007 21:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I use OS X, so I can't run AWB. Could someone else do it? Jtrost 21:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup bullet added: merge episode lists and summaries

I've added another cleanup bullet to this article, because it's becoming clear to me that if it isn't a problem now, it will be soon: a duplicate effort is being waged to describe and list 24 seasons, and their episodes within. The article List of 24 episodes, while incomplete, has a framework incorporating all five seasons into it, and there are now also articles called 24 (season 1) and so on, which have in-depth descriptions of a given season, and it probably will end up having individual episode listings as well.

In my opinion, these articles' content should be merged (probably into the 5 season breakdown articles) as soon as practical, to avoid people duplicating the effort of describing individual episodes, air dates, etc. Skybunny 01:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've completed the merge of List of 24 episodes into the individual season pages, and removed this task from to-do. I've also added to the comment urging people not to put too much detail on the main page, that if they want to add information about individual episodes, that's the place to do it. Skybunny 19:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Region 4 DVDs

I assume this is a typo and that season 2 didn't come out on DVD before season 1. I don't know the correct dates, or I'd fix it. --Proudhug 19:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the pending tasks for this article is to verify the region 4 release dates. If you have access to those dates, please make sure Wikipedia is correct. Jtrost 20:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about other countrys under region 4, but in Australia, we didn't get ALL of season 4 until the 25th of January 2006, the first half was released a few months eairler, but the rest wasn't until the 25th --210.49.90.25 12:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Goofs

Is there a place for goofs/inconsistancies? I posted the following on Jan 31 2006, but it was shortly removed from the triva section.

In Episode 1.5, when David Palmer walks into his son's room the countdown clock states the time as 4:40 AM, while the bedside clock says 4:57.

anon: that might be irrelevant as if you ask any random strangers on the street for the time, I doubt you'd get the exact same answer from everybody.

Full Episode Guides

I'm quite interested in doing full episode guides starting with season 1. I would write them not as episode summaries but as full episode portraits. Would that take up too much space do you think? Mattara 19:51 1/2 2006 GMT + 1

Not at all. Many TV shows here have full episode guides. Jtrost 22:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It might take a lot of time Mattara 12:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots

I'll start looking for screenshots on each episodes Mattara 12:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

pictures for summaries

wouldn't it be a good idea to have pictures with each of the season summary pages? I mean, pictures from the season in the season summary article. It would help to make the pages look better, don't you think?

I would do it, but i'm not too clear on the copyright limitations here on Wikipedia.

Dposse 19:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

HEY!!!!!!!! Is anyone going to answer this?? dposse 01:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

character box

I know I'm not doing this right, still new a WikiEditing but anyways... the 24/CTU character box is only on some pages and it's poorly organized and doesn't have all the characters. ---- Helgunn

Questions on contributing to the 24 Wiki

I posted this item right after "technology":

Featured Weapons - Jack's personal handgun is a H&K USP Compact (Heckler & Koch Universal Self-loading Pistol). Jack wears Second Chance brand body armor (bulletproof vest).

and it was removed. This is correct information with links. I am new at Wikipedia, can someone tell me where I went wrong?

Well, I'm certain Jack has used many other handguns than the USP, and I'm pretty sure that in 7.5 years he's used more than one brand of body armor as well. If you look closely throughout the series at Jack's guns, you'll see a wide variety of pistols.--Seven11groove 11:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you noticed?

I don't remember anything about season 1 or 2, but in 3, 4 and 5, all of the "main evil masterminds" have a British or a received pronunciation ("university/lecture british english", or whatever :p) English. 3rd has an obvious Britishman, the fourth has one too, because he lived most of his life in UK, and in the 5th, the guy who monitors everything on a big screen and uses his cell speaks BrE, too. Do 1 and 2 have the same? What are they trying to imply? --84.249.252.211 23:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you are trying to find a patturn that isn't there, only the season 3 person was british. Season 1 and 2's key terrorists were in no way british, and too eairly to say much of anything about season 5's key terrorists. 210.49.90.25 12:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Graphic novel / comics

Both the IDW Publishing [3] and Titan Books [4] (the US and UK publishers respctively) point to the general page. I am chasing up some of these missing entries when, as is the case here, I haven't actually read them in the hope someone who has will get the ball rolling. (Emperor 20:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC))

OK I started the entry: 24 (comic) - hopefully someone can expand that at some point (Emperor 01:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC))

Merge?

It has been suggested the comics entry be merged with this one - I don't really see the point. That entry does need expanding but has as much potential to make a good standalone entry as sy the 24 computer game or other spinoffs. (Emperor 02:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC))

Agreed, leave it as it's own article. The 24 page is long enough as it is.

OK despite no one suggesting it was a good idea it has been "merged", although this seems to be nothing more than putting a redirect in place and none of the actual information being moved over. Equally the main entry here points to the comic entry which redirects back to the main entry. It seems like another example of messy hit and run editting. I won't revert the entry but I wanted to flag the problematic nature of the edit. If people feel the entry should be put back to its pre-"merged" days then they have my vote. (Emperor 03:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

Right - I've written up a 24: One Shot page and as such slightly edited the comics entry. What are people's views on a main page to tie the three graphic novel pages versus a simple link to each one within the subsection. Sheriff Hall 20:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

in the "fan phone" section...

what does "In Episode 4.5" mean? Can't we put something better than that there? dposse 22:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the fifth episode in the fourth season. This is a common way to reference episodes. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 22:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

alright, but some people might see it as "episode four and a half". dposse 00:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be S04E05?--Anthony 06:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

no. people usually don't care about the production code. dposse 20:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a POV if I've ever seen one.--Anthony 16:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. As authors of an Encyclopedia, we have a duty to have our infomation understandable to everyone, not just people who understand "common ways to refrence episodes", or production codes. dposse 16:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well "episode 4.5" sure isn't understandable to everyone. So I would say we should either use a standard, or use "in the 5th episode of the 4th season".--Anthony 03:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That has already been done. ^_^ dposse 03:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I hid the ratings section.

I hid the ratings section because it held no infomation, and because Tv ratings is something that isn't available to the public. If you find ratings for the seasons, then go ahead and unhide it.

if you have a problem with this, discuss it here.

dposse 21:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. There's no need to have an empty section. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. That's probably a good idea. dposse 21:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

TV Ratings are available to the public and are published in major newspapers like the Los Angeles Times every week. However, they are not readily available online. Calwatch 06:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Weekly ratings are available online, but having that section would cause an exhaustive list that wouldn't be very encyclopedic. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)