Talk:AD 24

[Untitled]
I've put back the link to 24 (TV series). The name of the show is "24" not "Twenty-four". I've had to fix links that people have made to 24 when it should have been to 24 (TV series). Therefore, it's likely in the future that people will accidentally link here when they mean the TV show, so we should have a direct link to the show in case an article has an incorrect link. For example, I just had to fix this reference to 24. &mdash;Minesweeper 09:41, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * There the same problem with most year and number pages. Currently, number pages include references to, e.g. "things 24" .. As on 24, I moved the references to things that have nothing to do the year, e.g. also on 88 and elsewhere. I agree that we could probably find a better way to link the lists "24 (not the year)" than with "For the number 24, see twenty-four."
 * BTW in that article you could link 24 (TV series), as 24 by itself wasn't considered sufficiently explicit either.
 * --Docu


 * I suggested an addition to the template of the year pages to make this a bit more consistent, see Wikiproject Years. User:Docu

Shouldn't this page be about 24 the TV show? It's more likely that someone looking for the 24 article would want to know about the show rather than the relatively uneventful year. Fantom 16:27, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree completely. I would bet the ratio of people searching for "24" are 1000 to 1 with regards to the show vs. the year.  Let's set up a vote.  I have no idea how to do so, however (as a relatively new user) :) Bssc81 22:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Agree Did anything even happen in the year 24?  :D  It has been more than 5 days since you started this, so following WP:CON, and WP:AfD, this can be done at any time. --munboy 16:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Disagree. Eventually, 24 should become a disambiguation page.  Current policy requires it to be about the year, and I'll change it back to that.  If and when there is consensus to change the policy, change the policy documents first, then implement the changed policy. RandomP 01:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Such a move is not consistent with how this is done throughout Wikipedia - for instance, 1, 666 and 69 all refer to the year. As long as there is a disambiguation link on top, it is easy for those who are looking for the TV-show, to find it. Railwayman 23:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is months later, but just in case people don't get the point -- HELL NO. Something on Wikipedia as fundamental as a year should not be superceded by a TV show, for crying out loud. theProject 04:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Agree I agree with Bssc81, people are more likely searching for the TV show rather than the year. In terms of consistancy, as Railwayman states, 24, in this case, is referring to a title, therefore, just like searching for the word "Friends", it directs you to the title, not to the generic idea of friendship. Additionally, if you ask a person "What is 24?", 1st response is "its a TV show" (if they heard about it), 2nd response is "a number". The year is not considered (in most cases). Onionmon 21:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Agree This is another case of stupid Wikipedia policy. Why don't Wiki have page stats so that it could easily be seen that 100% of people visiting this page are looking for the TV series.  You say that the Wiki policy should be changed but these kind of things are impossible to do because Wiki is overrun by beaurocratic geeks who are just here for themselves and don't give a shite about ordinary users.  And as the vote is now 3 for and 2 against I'll be moving the page in the next few days. Xania 19:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Disagree No, you won't. You may think what you want about this policy, but it has once been decided and settled and until it's changed, you can't just break it as you please. If sometime in the future, the policy will be changed so that all the year articles will be called XXXX (year) then so be it (even though I would vote against it), but that has not yet been decided. Secondly, I see nothing wrong with keeping it the way it is. If people link to just 24, when they meant the TV-series, those following the link will arrive at the wrong article, but if they have eyes in their heads, they will soon discover the dab-link at the top of the page and so, they will very soon find the right article anyway and hopefully, they will go back and change the link they followed. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 22:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So, do you think saying "No you won't"" actually accomplished anything? Wouldn't "If you do that, it will be reverted" be more likely to bring a response? It's not like you can actually stop a user from renaming a page (barring inappropriate admin action). But you might be able to convince them not to bother. Of course, I guess raw intimidation might've worked, but I have no real interest in finding out.. -- trlkly 15:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly Disagree We should not break wikipedia policy over names of article. Atomic1609 20:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Disagree This should lead to a disambiguation, or have the disambiguation link at the top of the article, rather than several links.

So what is the overall opinion on this? And what is the question being asked? I'm for leaving the page how it is, but we should keep the links at the top referring it to the video game and TV show... Seeninator 00:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? 24's main subject is the year? 24 is a number, and that's what this page should be about. Then, 24 (year), and so on. 82.141.119.130 (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

DAB link
Could someone put a disambig link to 24/7 (disambiguation) at the top, if you agree that this should be here too?. I can't figure out the syntax atm to add it to the other two. Thanks. Ingolfson 13:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

leap year?
I removed "Year 24 was a leap year starting on Saturday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar." They didn't have leap years back then, did they? If I am wrong, please put it back in. Kingturtle (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, they did. Leap years were introduced with the Julian calendar in the 40s BC. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 21:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

24 Linkage
I don't get what the big deal in making 24 automatically direct to the TV Series I mean I bet if there was a counter for every person that typed in 24 and got this dumb page, and then had to click the Disamb link I bet there are 0 people who actually searched for this page... 70.236.8.200 (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a continuity issue. Kingturtle (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Philo
This is an odd statement since most of the events recorded in the "New Testament" hadn't happened yet. Was Philo referring to the prophecy in Jeremiah? If that were the case, then was the meaning more like "god's eternal law is the new testament" and what does he mean by that? doctorwolfie (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)