Talk:Tom Lennox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject 24
24 Portal

This page is part of 24 WikiProject, an attempt to expand and create articles that relate to 24. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class.

Contents

[edit] chief of staff

can someone clarify if lennox is the chief of staff Neeknitsuj 00:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Lennox is white house chief of staff it is stated quite clearly on his character profile on fox.com which can be found here. Pat 23:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

His name is spelled "Lennix" (with an 'i', not 'o') in the opening credits. Shouldn't we change it here? --TimPendragon 05:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is spelled as Lennox on his character profile on fox.com which can be found here Pat 23:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First appearance

I'm pretty sure he was in the last quarter of season 5.

No, he wasn't. Watch season 5 again, he's not there. Order_66

I'm guessing the original questioner's confusing him with this guy, as my wife and I made the same error --Squiggleslash 01:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Education and Previous Jobs

Where does this list of educational establishments and preivous jobs held come from, is this sourced from official sources, fox or is this just wikipedia made up stuff about a fictional tv character?144.82.204.50 18:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This comes from the charachters official profile on fox.com which can be found here. Pat 23:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:TomBlackmailsDaniels.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 23:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

Lennox, while an important season six character, should be merged with other minor characters. There's no need for him to have his own page, as he didn't play a big part in the only season he was in. It's also probable he won't be returning to the show. Oddjob42 (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep (For now anyway) Ok, which is it? You start out by saying that he was an important season 6 character, then you say that he didn't play a big part. I'm for holding off on the merge for a while, at least until it can be established, one way or the other, if the character is coming back for another season. Angelriver (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge per WP:PLOT. This article has nothing in it aside from the plot summary. If notability is established after the merge, he should be revived - but by that I do not mean that he just needs to appear in season 7, he has to be important to it. asyndeton talk 20:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge - he can be unmerged at a later date, but virtually everything personal about Lennox has been stripped from this article and it's been turned into a plot summary. I don't think Oddjob's arguments have much validity (he most certainly did play a big part in that season, and why wouldn't he be in the next season?), but there's little point in the article as it is --Squiggleslash (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep: He was a main character for season six and he participated in every episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.83.137 (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep If there's a plot summary, all that means is that the page needs to be cleaned up, not removed. He was also very important in many things which I am not going to list because it will not mean anything to someone who is determined to merge with the whole fiasco.--Lan Di (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge A character page should be about the character, not the plot they participated in. Merge with minor characters, give him a short bio and direct to the main season 6 page where his plot can be further elaborated on. --Oddjob42 (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the minor characters page? It's a mess, because of what Lucy and people like her did. The merging needs a rest until that page is fixed.--Lan Di (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The perceived quality of the minor characters page has absolutely no bearing on this discussion at all. Also comment on content and not individual users.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
What a joke, Lucy. You just called Lan Di a "petty, ignorant, obsessed fan" and said that he/she was uneducated and narrow minded. And then you have the nerve to tell others to comment on content and not the contributor. Please. Angelriver (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Here we go again off topic, irelevant and another personal attack, why not focus on the content of this discussion and not on the user commenting.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
How am I attacking you? I simply pointed out the attack you made on another user. Angelriver (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It has no direct bearing on the issue at hand.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well how about this? Everyone stops attacking, and everyone concentrates on the arguments instead. How does that sound? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)