Talk:Jericho (2006 TV series)

The naming convention and disambiguation guidelines for episode article titles are being discussed. Please comment on the RfC at WP:TV-NC

Cruft

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed a higher that usual amount of fancruft getting into Jericho articles, as opposed to (say) 24 and Lost articles? Recent edits to articles have included things such as:

• What specific characters are thinking (only the writers know that)
• That the camera lingers on the main star, with suggestions that there is some sort of meaning to it
• That something on the Chinese news report is related to the lead actor's - not the lead character, the lead ACTOR's - childhood nickname?

I mean Lost has an absolutely HUGE amount of potential for speculation and suggestions to bog down its articles - but the editors of those articles manage to keep most of it at bay. Why are Jericho articles different? I think we need to be more vigilant with reverting this sort of thing - I think the articles will be completely unreadable if left alone. Comments? -- Chuq 12:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

yes Chuq, too many episode specific items are showing up in the main article. Too much speculation is being presented. I'm not sure what needs done to prevent/remove this type of information from making the article unreadable. But I do agree that we need to nip this in the bud. Mythdraug 19:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that episode-specific items should be relegated primarily to the pages reserved for the episode(s) in question, but again we can't degenerate this into absolutes. There *will* be exceptions, the key is to keep them as limited in number and strongest in importance as possible. If a certain few start playing "Wiki Nazi", you -will- wind up stifling contributions; after all, who's going to want to take the time to improve upon the articles if someone's going to come right behind them and delete their entire work for what can be argued as really pedantic reasons?

Do -not- attempt to misconstrue what I'm saying here. I absolutely am *NOT* calling for chaos to reign WRT contributing to articles. What I *am* calling for is a restraint on wanton deletions caused by following some obteuse Wikirule to the letter. There has to be some thought put into keeping things running smoothly, otherwise it's all going to backfire.

Of course, I fully expect my detractors to claim I'm the one responsible for all this, but my point's still valid.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.151.114 (talk • contribs)

I believe there is room for the trivia and random observations, but that for the most part it doesn't belong in the summary article for the show. So move the content to a more appropriate episode or character article, just don't necessarily delete it.Mythdraug 21:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"66", whether you realize it or not, you are making some pretty broad statements about the intentions of your fellow editors. You ask for restraint from the "Wikinazis" (your term), while at the same time presuming that anyone who removes the aforementioned material isn't putting any thought into their actions. You might want to consider thinking through your own posts BEFORE hitting "save". (I make that request based on personal experience, since you've already made several attempts to put a decidedly negative spin on my edits.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I will add to what has been said that by saying that Wikipedia's rules about original research, notability, and speculation are not "obteuse Wikirules" - they are what Wikipedia is built on - see Wikipedia:Five pillars. Restraint on wanton additions is just as important as restraint on wanton deletions. If contributions are useful, but out of place, they should be moved to the episode, character or town article if appropriate, but if they are not useful at all, there shouldn't a problem with them being deleted. -- Chuq 09:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I must agree somewhat wiht the views expressed by '66' and 'Mythdraug'. There needs to be some serious restraints on deleting user contribution. I have looked through the archive, and some of the earlier edits and replacements, and while there were some valid revisions -- the one accusing one of the producers of being a violator of human rights, for one -- some of them were especially anal-retentive. The issue regarding the Trivia section is possibly the best example, where someone wanted it deleted outright only because the Wikipedia rules suggest they not be used -- they are not forbidden, just discouraged, and there is a difference. I have looked at a few other episodic series pages, and many of them have Trivia sections, with nary a complaint filed against their inclusion in the articles. This is the mistake I see being made here, and it is one that could be damaging to the contributions as a whole. When a rule such as the ones established for a free exchange forum as Wikipedia are held to as an adamant, failure to allow for leeway and exception will lead to stagnation; after all, who will want to freely contribute when one or two 'wikinazis' -- I am going to steal that term!! -- will come along, delete the additions, and then hide behind a Wiki rule to justify their actions? That is more wanton deletion than peer review, and that his what has caused most of the hard feelings around here frm what I see. One thing I will add is that I see nothing wrong with referring to 'Trivia' as 'Observations', and keeping episode-specific 'Observations' on the page specific to that episode. General, series-specific ones should be allowed on the main article page -- ie, "Jericho is the fourth series produced by Jibbdy Flib and Floopy Lupe III, who produced 'The Goombahs", "The Mortgage of Life", and directed several episodes of "Star Trek: Excelsior" or more seriously, the tidbits aboout the town used as the external sets for the town of Jericho. Overall, I see a lot of great contributions here. When they are not being anal, Matthew Fenton, Chuq and one or two others have made some very valid and positive changes and corrections. '66' especially has been helpful with the mores code tables and keeping the upcoming episode "rumors" updated. Everyone here should probably be a bit more considerate before either deleting a person's contributions, or at least bring it up for discussion and suggestion of change before acting. That is my 2 cents worth, so please take it for what you will and keep up the good work!! 24.227.251.66 20:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I can't help but that feel that you are overreacting. There is no reason at all to toss around terms like "wikinazi" in this situation - it is a term with far more serious implications then just cleaning up trivia. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia; it is not a "free exchange forum", and it is most certainly not intended to be a repository for trivia and speculation. You may feel that this is a fan page, but it is not - and should not be treated as such. (There are plenty of forums on the net for discussing and speculating about television and other subjects). When you toss around terms like "wikinazi", you are in effect doing much the same as what you complained about - using terminology to coerce others into accepting your point of view. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you prefer "Wiki Gestapo", then? Regardless of the term used, the fact still remains that there are quite a number of other articles on Wikipedia that feature trivia sections, and yet I only see certain ones here going after them with the kind of zeal usually reserved for the blackshirt types. That sort of attitude is what's going to cause more harm than good, which seems to be the point being missed here.

In any case, I've already made the proposal that we move what's considered "trivia" over to "observations", which apparently has already been done for the most part, and to quantify and shift those observations over to the episodes they're specific to, as others have proposed above and below. That will probably work the best for everyone involved.

Matthew? Comments? :P 66.90.151.114 19:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

My comment is this: You seriously need to stop calling people Nazi's or Gestapo members, it is seriously offensive and rude.. and I imagine it would upset some people, please read WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and then read World War 2. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

My response is this: if you don't want to be called a Wikinazi, then QUIT ACTING AS IF YOU OWN THIS ARTICLE SET. It's that damned simple, Matthew. 66.90.151.114 06:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

24..66: I suggested moving (not deleting) most observations and trivia. Speculation was the only thing I am in favor of removing/preventing. --Mythdraug 20:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The question here is just where the dividing line between speculation and analysis lies. Note the table for the Morse Code that I did, and the "possible meanings" that each message has. Is this speculation or analysis? 66.90.151.114 05:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Speculation is where your observations would have a critical impact upon the setting, mood, or motivations of anywhere or anyone in the show. Suggesting that the show is occuring in the year 2009 is speculation, as this is information that has not be canonically confirmed, and could change. It's easy to assume that a fictional world is complete, and consistent, and that every minor thing that you observe may indicate something, but this is TV... it's not real life, and production crews don't have the time nor ability to ensure that everything is self-consistent and relevant. What should we think of Hawkins accessing a Turkish MSN page in Federal Response? Nothing, it's just a stupid prop. Sometimes a prop is just a prop, and any meanings or implications it has towards the overall plot is not necessarily intended. --Puellanivis 23:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

For reference, here's a relevant section from WP:NOR:

"An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

• It introduces a theory or method of solution;
• It introduces original ideas;
• It defines new terms;
• It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
• It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source."

--Ckatz^chat_spy 00:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible Attackers

Assuming nothing supernatural, (aliens, dream, etc.), the following is an examiniation of the primary hook of the show: Who is responsible for the nuclear attacks on the US. Feel free to add to the list and or the evidence.

I assume this was someone who was a bit bored, right? There isn't any intention for this to go on the main article, is there? -- Chuq 07:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea I think he was just trying to get thoughts down. Because it's speculative it doesn't really belong here but its good speculative info so I'm hesitant to delete it. I'm thinking we might be best moving it to a subpage of this talk page. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  07:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

ok it erked me long enough. It's great info so I don't want to trash it completely like we should but it's still speculative so doesn't really belong so I'm moving it here for those that still want to contribute to it. I'm also placing a link to it in the archive box. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  10:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible attackers

Think we should add Iraq too? You know, Saddam's supposed secret weapons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.234.110.198 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the page itself should be userified. It's not really relevant to the show at all. -- Chuq 23:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

tablefied the character list

borrowing from other shows articles i've tablefied the character list though i may double it up (two characters per row) so it doesnt take up so much vertical space / waste horizontal space -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  01:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, now its unreadable. Kyaa the Catlord 05:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a seperation column a short while ago, did that help the readability?Mythdraug 16:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

looks good to me -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  23:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to make the seperator a bit wider? Its a good start, but a wider seperation would aid in readability. Kyaa the Catlord 05:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

done -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  05:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

ICBM launch

There are no longer any active ICBM silos in Kansas (the Titan II silos around Wichita were decommissioned in 1984-1985) and a launch from the Minuteman silos in the Dakotas, Montana or Wyoming wouldn't be visible from Kansas. For the ground to shake the the sound to be that loud the launch would need to be no more than 20 miles away and probably closer. Even Titan silos in Kansas were "secretly" kept active, the location of the fictional Jericho at least 150 miles from the nearest one near Hutchinson (about 40 miles NW of Wichita). The only other realistic scenario (bearing in mind that Jericho is fiction) is that the Peacekeeper Rail Garrisons were not abandoned in the 1980s and there was one close to Jericho. Each rail garrison was to have 2 Peacekeeper (MX) missiles each. Dbromage 08:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A nighttime launch of an ICBM would be visible for at least 300 miles and probably a whole lot more. See http://www.moonglow.net/ccd/pictures/rocket/index.html for some nice examples and http://www.spacearchive.info/vafbview.htm for some more detail. Dziban303 19:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Those were amazing, and quite beautiful. But the scene from the show definitely looked much closer than that. Then again, there's the whole creative license and POWER OF THE SCRIPT(tm) thing too.199.79.222.119 21:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It would certainly be visible from 300 miles away but they wouldn't hear or feel it. They would need to be very close for it to be audible and even closer to feel it. An absolute maximum would be around 20 miles and probably much less. Dbromage 02:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

well, the action is supposed to take place in 2009. a lot can happen till then.

As of 1995, the nearest ICBM wing to Jericho is the 90th at F.E. Warren AFB in Cheyenne,WY. The missile field, however, stretches as far south as Weld County Colorada as far east as the Southwestern counties of Nebraska. Thus, the closest silo would be due Northwest of Jericho. For the missiles to be seen directly overhead, they'd have to be programmed with either a Southerly or Easterly flight plan. Minuteman silos are oriented due North, with their launcher closure door blowing due South on launch command. It is believed that the due North orientation and flight plan has to do the nature of the guidance system (stellar navigation, geomagnetic corrections to gravity). If the ICBMs were launched on Russia or China, the flight plan would be North over the Pole. Jericho would witness exhaust plumes vanishing towards the North sky horizon. Since the missiles' flight were seen directly overhead, the flight plan can only have been East or South. Given the approx 5500 mile range of this missile, this would suggest the intended targets were either to the Southern US Border, the Carribean Ocean, the East Coast of the US, or in the Atlantic Ocean. Targets in the Middle East or Africa are out of range for Minuteman ICBMs. For such targets, Submarine launched missiles (Trident) must be used.

I could be wrong here, but if they were headed east, they could potentially hit Western Europe. (Maybe it is a plot by the French afterall.) Kyaa the Catlord 10:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The world is more or less spherical and not a flat map. The shortest route from Wyoming to Europe is not due east, it's north east over the Dakotas and Ontario. The missile route from Wyoming to Russia is over Manitoba, Greenland and Scandanavia, and to China or Korea is over Alaska. The Great Circle mapper shows this quite well (paths from Cheyenne to Paris, Moscow, Beijing and Pyongyang). The only great circle path directly east from Wyoming would be to somewhere in southern Africa (Cheyenne - Johannesburg as an example). Dbromage 03:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not so sure the attacks were retalitory for the initial attack. The length of time between the Electromagnetic pulse and the missile launch seems to me as a defensive launch from a missile launch from another country, possibly Russia. Dasbrick 16:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would agree. I initially thought it meant the military finaly discovered the terrorists/nations behind the attack, but after the missles took to the air, the EMP burst came quickly so it was probably a launch against whoever hit us with the EMP. Probably an EMP burst against them plus one nuke for their capital. 69.125.143.139 02:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)SB

I propose we cleanup and condense this section: We know that the writers are expecting us to believe the ICBM launch originated from the 90th SMW at FE Warren in Wyoming which is known and active US missile base. Further, we can reasonably assume that the intended target of these two Minuteman missiles were neither China, Russia nor Korea because their overhead flight path over Jericho suggests a trajectory that would would neither time-on-target optimal for a Minuteman III nor effective given the 5500 mile range of this missile. Admitting assumptions we know about things that fly over great circle trajectories casts uncertainty on the other hypotheses that "The Chinese did it" because a Chinese language newcast was partially received at the bar. --B61Mk11 06:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup is good... but hold off on the assumptions. Really, we cannot claim to "know" anything other than what we are told on-screen. Honestly, I highly doubt that the writers are "expecting us to believe the ICBM launch originated from the 90th SMW at FE Warren in Wyoming" - I would be surprised if the writers KNOW that there is a base there. They're probably just assuming that most viewers think there are missile silos in locations all across the central United States. As for the idea of taking into account "time-on-target optimal" firing solutions... this is really wishful thinking. I'm not knocking the production staff in any way, but you have to take into account how television and film production works. Those considerations are generally secondary to whatever helps to advance the storyline in the desired manner. (Case in point, the initial explosion over "Denver", which apparently wouldn't be visible from "Jericho".) It really doesn't matter whether real-world physics dictate that the missiles would have to pull a u-turn in mid-air and fly around the moon to get to their scripted target - if it looks "cool" to have them fly over Main Street, and it amps up the perceived tension of the characters, then that's where they'll go. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• I remember looking ahead on the episode descriptions and seeing it mentioned that Minuteman missiles are/were launched. I think it was on FutonCritic. Sct72 01:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • According to the armchairgeneral.com forum, the assumption is that it was two LGM-30 Minuteman ICBMs. Sct72 01:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You all seem to be missing an interpretation that seemed the obvious one to me, which is that the ICBMs were themselves the source of the EMP. This implies that the attacks were launched by some American group, perhaps some government within a government plot. I interpreted the ICBM launch as an attempt to stop the President from making an address that could possibly calm down the poplulation or allow some kind of nationwide organisation to start. This interpretation then opens the possibility that Hawkins is in the government but is also part of the conspiracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.139.23.204 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Or, to take that in a similar but different direction, one of the ICBMs detonated prematurely, producing the same result. 66.90.151.114 05:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Cities Proof

In an attempt to clean up the article a little, I deleted the 'conversation at the bar' from the supporting evidence section but somebody put it back. I think we should be avoiding such pure hearsay. Personally, the only source I'm trusting is Hawkins. He's knows what's up JonnyDomestik 11:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking it's all hearsay, whomever is feeding Hawkins his intel could be feeding him a line of BS for all we know. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  12:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally dont think speculation from trailers of future episodes should be used in the main article. There have been many instances so far where scenes from trailers have not actually occured in the Episode when it aired (Vehicles rolling into town "Federal Response" for example, no second phone call from the Govt) OverlordQ 01:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's already listed in the bulleted list OverlordQ 02:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What about an actual map in this section. Could use different coloured 'pushpins' for 'confirmed' and 'possible'. Ethikos 07:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

that would be kinda cool -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  07:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Could some one with the time try to fix the table it seems to be a bit messed up like its missing a column or something, probably left over from the earlier borking of the table. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  12:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the table, and added Las Vegas and Salt Lake City (which are listed as being on Hawkins' map in the 9:02 episode page). I've made a map that displays the cities attacked, but I can't figure out how to put it on the page. Can anyone give me a hand, or just link up the image so I can see how the source code is supposed to look? --TobyRush 22:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, LV and SLC were not attacked - that appears to be a mistake on 9:02 (Jericho episode). The map looks good, it's certainly handy for us non-US residents! -- Chuq 23:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

A request of whomever provided the map: could you please make the dots a bit bigger? Also, a question: would a map containing projected fallout patterns be too much in the line of "original research" or "speculation"? 24.227.251.66 01:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Projected fallout would be nice and shouldn't be OR since it's just extrapolation of known details. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  01:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice, but it is completely speculative, and entirely inappropriate. We have no way of knowing what fallout would be like, and any attempts at doing so are completely unverifiable. Remember, even beyond the hypothetical aspects of doing this in the real world, we have no idea what the show's creators have in mind... they can create any kind of weather pattern they like, to suit whatever dramatic direction they wish to take the series. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

True hadn't thought about that. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  03:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll take LV and SLC off the map, and make the dots bigger tomorrow when I get to my computer... Should I leave Jericho on there? (I placed it where Oakley, KS, is located.) I agree that fallout patterns can't be assumed since it seems like they would be based very much on weather patterns, and we actually don't know the size and type of any of the bombs. --TobyRush 03:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded the map I put together, replacing the one from Google Maps, which I'm assuming is not usable for licensing reasons. This is my first upload, and I uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons in an effort to be a good wiki-citizen, but it's not showing up right. I'm going to wait for a bit to see if this is due to the lag of inter-wiki sharing; however, I'd appreciate any advice if I'm doing it wrong... --TobyRush 15:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, finally got the map link working. --TobyRush 16:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Two points:

1) While a projected fallout map would arguably be speculation, such predictor maps have been on the books for decades, showing how fallout would most likely be carried due to historical prevailing wind trends, and estimated threat levels based on burst height - read: the higher the burst, the longer the path of the fallout, but the lesser the intensity of the contamination due to the lack of contaminated material being sucked up into the atmosphere, etc. I've seen a couple of localized maps - mostly the DC/NYC and the LA areas - but nothing that I can recall that would show the effects of a total nuclear strike by a foreign enemy. Except, maybe, one of the maps provided in Streiber & Kunetka's Warday. If a wide-scale official Civil Defence or NRC map could be located and scanned, I wouldn't see anything objectionable to its being included *provided* it was specifically stated what the origins and the purpose of the map were, and exactly why it's being presented in the article. Or, if the "Wikigestapo":-) objects, a link to the map itself on a different article would suffice as a "for further reference".

It doesn't matter how long they have been around - it really has no place here. In the context of a fictional television series, it is nothing more than speculation. I don't think you're getting the concept of Wikipedia (in fact, given how you insist on using serious insults against anyone who disagrees with you, I'm certain you haven't) but this is not a fan site for the series. What might be appropriate would be to link the term "fallout" to an article on nuclear fallout - a proper, encyclopedic article about the real-world effect of nuclear fallout. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

2) I second the increase in dot size on that map. If we were dealing with hundreds of cities, fine. But the dots need to be twice as big, especially for old guys like me with bifocals that aren't worth a frap!66.90.151.114 18:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed someone has played "shrinky dinks" with the table. Although the reduced size probably aids in reducing a cluttered appearance, it's kind of hard on the eyes to read. Could someone a tad more talented in that arena than I maybe make it a bit larger?199.79.222.119 20:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Whoever did that has to be using an old VGA monitor with a 128k video card attached and can't get a screen larger than 640x480. I wear bifocals, and now *REALLY* find that font size hard to read! 66.90.151.114 02:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I changed the font sizes back to 100%, but what I -can't- get to behave are the table column widths. They need to be distributed evenly, at least on the right four columns, but this $#*^%ing markup language for tables that Wikipedia uses is a bit confusing at best. Anyone else care to tweak them accordingly? 66.90.151.114 03:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Washington DC

Washington DC was gone, noted in the Long Live The Mayor episode 7# preview for next week B-1B SAC 01:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Can some one add that to the main page

Editing and adding to articles is part of the Wikipedia experience, any user cna edit the main page. Give it a shot, add the information you want and click Preview to make sure it turns out how you want, also make sure to include a short summary of why you edited the article in the summary box. --Skywolf ^talk/_contribs 01:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

could some one add DC to the box of cites nuked, I am haveing a hard time doing it...please then could you show me how to do it after that?B-1B SAC 02:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't get too far ahead of the story line, that episode has not aired yet. Keep it on the talk page for a day or two to see what other editors think about it, then change the article or have another editor do the change. --Skywolf ^talk/_contribs 02:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I noticed you gave editing a shot, as I mentioned before the preview button comes in real handy,. I preveiw every edit I make, even on talk pages (ignore the spelling mistake on my first comment lol). It will allow you to see your change before it is posted, then you can make changes or save from there. --Skywolf ^talk/_contribs 02:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

See my reply in the above Cities Proof section about why I feel Washington DC should be left off the list. OverlordQ 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I can Dig that, I was wondering about some of the scenes that where missing also like where was the phone call in tonight’s episode. I am wondering if they are going to use them in a latter show???? B-1B SAC 02:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Information previewed in commercials for upcomming episodes that have not aired should not be included in the main article. Commercials tend to be misleading and we already know that this character has ulterior motives so it's best to hold off until the episode airs. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  02:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. In quite a few cases where a TV show's production schedule is tighter than what's considered the "norm", studios and/or networks will take footage from other episodes, often unfinished shots or trims made in post - used to be they got them off the cutting room floor before digital became the choice - edited together to give the networks something to tease audiences with to entice them to watch next week's show. So, until the 7th episode airs, let's keep DC as a bullet, and then we add it to the map and the chart. Provided, of course, that we don't learn later on in the ep - probably through "Hawkin's":-) discovery on his trusty Invunerable Swiss Army Notebook - that the informant isn't making this up as part of a plot to oust Mayor Green. 66.90.151.114 18:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in "Federal government response"

If you watch the five episodes aired to date the origin of the tanks seen by Stanley on I-70 is NOT known. To assume they are from the Kansas National Guard, or even domestic is incorrect. This is one of those "yet to be determined" facts. Capricorn74 01:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the origen of the tanks is not known, but that could be said for more than half of the entries on the main page - not "known". ~~SB

True, but it is important information. I reinserted the information as a bullet-point, rather than in the table, and included the fact that we don't really know where they came from.199.79.222.119 22:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

character images

So I just noticed that all of the character images are misspelled "Jerico" instead of "Jericho". Do we want to take the time to move them to the correct spelling and update all the links? -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  04:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Morse notation (-... .- ....)

Since this is just an alternate notation of the text, it is redundant, and needlessly clutters the tables. If anyone really wants to see that form, they can reconstruct it themselves. I'm all for omitting it. —StationaryTraveller 05:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of keeping them. My father is a licensed Ham, and appreciates the effort put into listing the morse, which he claims is an "art that's dying". Again, I say leave the morse notation, but I do have one question: would it be more readable if, say, "SOS" were read as "***---***" instead of "...---..."? 24.227.251.66 23:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of asterisks is pretty much accepted as representing characters that have been "censored" or "redacted" or even "blacked out", such as with a profane expletive that needs to be quoted but in a form that's more "acceptable" for public view. 66.90.151.114 18:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps bold-facing the dots and dashes would aid in readability?199.79.222.119 22:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed at the morse code talk page; formatting it as code, and using midpoints instead of periods, is very legible. However, this will probably run the code in our table to two lines. --TobyRush 22:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Seconding removal. Redundancy is bad. There is no need to have such details when one can easily recover the morse from the english translation. The article isn't a transcript; it exists to presents information in a concise and compressed manner. --24.77.160.66 05:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. I put a good bit of work on that table, and I'll be damned if I'm going to see it thrown away. It stays. 66.90.151.114 05:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"66", this isn't your personal Wiki page - don't try to "own" it. If the editors (note the emphasis) decide to remove it, it goes. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. You tell "66" not to try to "own" a page, then you behave as if you do, and -then- you propose a compromise on the issue that would seem to work for all sides. Wouldn't it have been better to have made the compromise proposal and left out the personal attack? I can see "66's" point, "Ckatz", but there does seem to be some sort of vehemence here on the part of some that just isn't conductive to a good developmental environment here, and it's not all coming from "66". 24.227.251.199 18:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'd appreciate it if you could please explain your statement. How, exactly, did I behave as if I own the page? (If you are referring to "If the editors..." from above, my intent was not to suggest that "I" decide if it stays, but that decisions are made by the group, not "66". Apologies if that wasn't clear.) Secondly, asking someone to not take ownership of a page is not a "personal attack" - it's a common problem on Wikipedia. What happens is that editors make a contribution, and become very attached to it because it is theirs. They then fight against the concept of changing their work. (That is why the edit page says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.") If you have an issue with something - anything - I do, then let me know, in detail. Do it here, or perhaps more appropriately on my talk page, but let me know. I'm always prepared to take responsibility for my actions. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue I have isn't with corrections, but outright purging for petty, vindictive reasons. I've seen this sort of crap happen way too many times, both on forums and in professional peer review settings. The answer has been as always: don't back down, stand your ground, and if all else fails grab the nearest thing resembling a baseball bat and brain your detractor before he has a chance to "peer review" you again. Sometimes you use a bat, othertimes you use the verbal/textural equivalent. If you purce something I did, you'd better have a damn valid, logical reason for it, and are willing to back it up. And no, hiding behind a Wikirule is *NOT* going to cut it, either. Sorry.66.90.151.114 06:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It may stay for now, but 66, eventually it may be deleted and "an anonymous user put a good bit of work into that table" isn't going to be a valid reason to keep. If you want to be 100% sure that it won't be deleted, move it to your user page - or rather, register an account, then move it to your user page. -- Chuq 20:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Chuq, I've already self-archived the original version, and I'll simply keep restoring it once a day until it sticks. That being said, I'll point out that the revisions made recently I find highly agreeable - in fact, the reaction I had was pretty much identical to the reaction Sheridan had when G'Kar showed him the *revised* version of the Declaration of Principles for the new Interstellar Alliance; "You're right...it *is* better!" - and have archived that as well on my end. Whoever did that revision, that was good work, and I tip my hat to you.

As for my not registering an account, I'll probably do so eventually. Right now, I'll remain "anonymous", although a couple of you may have already figured out who I am based on some e-mails I got on my personal blog this morning. "Jherrod" and "ByteMite", if you're reading this, good call.66.90.151.114 06:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There is an easy enough solution to.. "trolling" - because thats what it will be if you behave like that, the page will just be protected. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to reply to this one, 66. You obviously know that making statements like "I'll simply keep restoring it once a day until it sticks." is just going to cause a shitfight, don't you? That isn't the sort of attitude that we need on Wikipedia, and it reeks of Disrupting Wikipedia. Going by your little secret off-site discussions, and people "already figuring out" who you are, it only serves to make people suspicious of you. Why would you want to hide your identity? The first thing people are going to do is suspect you of being a banned user, and that isn't going to make people want to pay attention to your point of view at all. None us can be bothered with people wasting time playing mind games. -- Chuq 11:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert Hawkins

Just a caution... I've had to correct three or four entries that used "Hawkin's" - keep in mind that the character's name is "Hawkins", with an "S". --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections, Ckats 66.90.151.114 18:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Countdown

Can someone create a main article for Countdown? 66.90.151.114 19:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point in time, there isn't a need for an entire article dedicated to Countdown. There's not really a lot to say about it that hasn't already been said, or that can't be detailed here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you're saying that the synopsis for each webisode should be folded into the corresponding broadcast episode? If that was the case, why was there a main page created for the aborted Beyond Jericho?66.90.151.114 02:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't comment on folding, synopses, or corresponding episodes - I just said there wasn't a need for a separate article for Countdown. As to why an article exists for Beyond Jericho, well, you'll have to ask the creator. It's not necessary either. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you clarify why you don't see this as necessary? 24.227.251.199 18:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm curious as to why you don't see a separate article as necessary? A summary of the current clip is something I plan to work on in the next day or so, but before I put out the effort I want to see what one of my major detractors has to say about why such an article should not be created. 66.90.151.114 06:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As a non-US viewer, I can't see Countdown online. I'd appreciate a page about it. Mygoditsfullofstars 11:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good justification to me. Any objections, Ckatz? 66.90.151.114 20:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not from the States either, so I can't see Countdown - but I still feel that it can be adequately covered by a synopsis on the related episode's page. However, WP's all about "consensus" - if most editors don't have an objection, than by all means create an article. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If we know for sure that it's going to be 1:1 then I would say it would be best to just put the info into each episodes existing article under a ==Countdown== heading. If it's not going to be 1:1 then I would say a seperate article would be justified. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status:On 05:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, in theory it should be 1:1, to include "backdated" webisodes corresponding to the previous 5 Jericho episodes. The nav bar at the bottom of the current Countdown clip has designated slots for 22 webisodes. However, whether this version takes or goes the way of Beyond Jericho is anybody's guess. For now, I'd say just keep it as additional information on the main page, and if it does take off and do what it's supposed to, go with Argash's suggestion of inclusion in the episode article.199.79.222.119 20:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Television Wiki Project and Episode Names

MatthewFenton disagrees with the standard set in the Television Wiki Project regarding episode names, and reverted the edits I made in response to the to-do request (which Matthew has since removed). His proposal is that we use "Episode Name (Jericho episode)" and not "Episode Name (Jericho)" as was earlier requested. I am fine with it either way, but can we have some discussion so a consensus can be determined? If "(xyz episode)" is preferred, should we then remove the {{TelevisionWikiProject}} infobox, since that seems to go against the project standard? (As I mentioned, Matthew, I look forward to your input on this.) --TobyRush 20:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The project you cite has a whole 6 members, of them 3 particpated in that small discussion.. with one person implementing his suggestion.. and as noted there all the major shows do it "(xyz episode)" (Star Trek, Prison Break for example..) — That project its self is pretty dead tbh, its been running since 2004. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Then do we remove the {{TelevisionWikiProject}} infobox? --TobyRush 21:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No, why would we do that? There to seperate projects? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant, do we remove the infobox from this page? To me, an admittedly novice Wikipedian, the infobox says, "We, the group of people editing the Jericho pages, are subscribing to this standard." If we are not subscribing to the stated standards of the project, regardless of how many people are actively discussing it or how active the project is, then why do we have a big, bright, bold link to it at the top of this page? --TobyRush 22:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A project doesnt exist to set its own "policys" but will generaly create guidelines, a guideline isnt set in stone and should be treated like.. say something bendy.. there a flexible type of thing, and It exists to offer colabaration.. each page though has its own ways of doing things as well however though. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

so guidelines are bendy eh... the same way that "avoid trivia sections" was bendy? Interesting philosophy. I see it changes to suit your way your estetics of how things should be done.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What *he* said. 66.90.151.114 02:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would we bend guidelines to stick trivia in an article? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe I'm beginning to understand why so many people are pissed with you, "Matthew". It's your tone. You come across as if you think you own Wikipedia, or at least this article. Chill out and quit trying to run things. 24.227.251.199 18:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Who are these "so many people"? - You, you and you? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, don't you read your own talk page, Matthew? Or are you just blinded by your power tripping? 66.90.151.114 06:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this going on at Project Lost; As Matthew mentioned, many shows use the "(xyz episode)" format, but it appears that the Lost folks are using the shorter "(xyz)" format. As I've mentioned, I don't really care which one is used, but I'd like to see it match prevailing standards... --TobyRush 06:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

General naming conventions prefer disambiguators such as (Australian politician) and (Canadian politician) as opposed to (Australia) and (Canada). TV episodes should do the same (ie. define what it is, not just where it is from) - so (Lost episode) and (Jericho episode) should be preferred over (Lost) and (Jericho). I'll check out the TV episodes WikiProject and see what they have to say. -- Chuq 02:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The episodes WikiProject seems to recommend the shorter form, but it's unclear whether or not it's been discussed much... and Matthew implies above that the guidelines of this WikiProject should not be followed anyway. Wikipedia:Disambiguation also seems to suggest a shorter form, but (as I mentioned in the Project Lost talk page) I don't know if television episodes warrant an exception. --TobyRush 05:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and weigh in for either format so long as one or the other is chosen. Right now we're having a problem in the Heroes episodes where a single editor is insisting we go strictly by the wikipedia standard of "If its the first article with that name dont apend any disambig info." Which to me is fine except when talking about episodes of a TV show or any other ongoing project where a standard for all similar article types should follow the same convention. In fact I will probably be initiating a RfC on this later today (in the generic sense, not specific to Jericho). -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status:On 13:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That's great, Argash. Will you post here when you start the RfC? I look forward to the discussion and results. --TobyRush 13:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The RfC has been posted, since the issue has come up for Jericho, Heroes and Lost (probably others as well) I have put in a singly topic which you can read and discuss here -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status:On 14:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Morse Code Table

Since it's apparent that each episode will bring a new morse code message, should we add a "Opening Morse Code" entry to the episode template instead of including the ever-growing table here on the main page? --TobyRush 20:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The morse code belongs on the indiv. episode page. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it belongs on both the episode pages and the main page. That's where they'll stay. 66.90.151.114 02:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would it belong on both? Each message so far has revealed information that foreshadows that specific episode, with no reflection on the series as a whole. There is also one message per episode, always following the Jericho title as per CBS' episode template. It belongs on the episode template for the wiki as well. --24.77.160.66 05:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Burden of proof is on you, son. Why would it *NOT* belong on both? 66.90.151.114 05:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Like it was said above, this isn't your own personal wiki. Learn to use logic, son, but, if you don't there are other editors that will. --24.77.160.66 17:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's say the show continues on for five years... that's a very large table to have on the main page. The main Simpsons page doesn't include a table listing every chalkboard and couch gag from every episode; it includes them in the episode templates on the individual pages. I don't know much about creating templates, but I envision a Jericho episode template that includes the opening morse code. --TobyRush 07:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, thanks to NoBullet for making the Morse more readable. Good job, and that was how I should have done it in the first place.66.90.151.114 05:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How about we just put it on both main and episode page for now; if it goes into a second season, we can take it off the main page then. -- Chuq 07:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with this one. For now, we leave "66's" contribution in its current format, then when/if the series gets a second season, we move each entry to its respective episode, and leave a master reference link from the main article stating that each episode has its own morse intro message. 24.227.251.199 18:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"when/if"? It's little slips like that that can make the Great Pumpkin pass you by... :) --TobyRush 06:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

HAH! Considering that See-BS used to air that particular cartoon before they botched the negotiations with that "great eastern syndicate" that runs Christmas, there's some incredible irony in that statement! 66.90.151.114 06:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a template ({{Jericho Morse Code}}) to the episode pages. It includes the Morse Code and the English translation, and is designed to go under the episode's infobox. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ckatz, that looks great... just as I had envisioned it. I changed "Morse Code" to "Opening Morse Code" which I think clarifies it a little... is there a better way to say this? --TobyRush 06:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Rolex watch

Rolex watches are self winding and mechanical (do not use electricity) and would not be affected by an EMP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.214.190 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If true (and a quick Google search says it probably is; the Rolex page here isn't explicit), this may be a sign that she got a fake Rolex. Trust the IRS auditor to get a cheap knockoff! --Psiphiorg 10:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, now, let's not speculate here.24.227.251.199 18:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ironicallly, the some three dozen fake Rolexes I've seen were all self-winding, just like the "Ovega" Omega knockoffs of the early 70's. My father still has one, and claims I'll get it when he dies because that's the only thing he willed to me. Regardless, this looks like a gaffe, and probably should be added to the Observations for that episode. 66.90.151.114 06:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

EMP induces currents and hence magnetic fields in objects within its influence. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that a small brass cogwheel could be kicked out of alignment in a clockwork mechanism. Mygoditsfullofstars 11:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hawkins' map

Here are some screen caps which should answer questions as to what was and wasn't marked. -- Chuq 03:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

File:Jericho1x06-map1.png

Wide shot - notice that New Orleans is not marked, but it is in the close up

File:Jericho1x06-map-closeup.png

Close up shots - as the camera panned from east to west

Naming conventions poll

Hiya, I know that the RfC was mentioned in an above section, but I wanted to ensure that this didn't get buried, since we'd like as much participation as possible: There is an ongoing poll and Request for Comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC Episode Article Naming conventions which has relevance to how to title the Jericho episode articles. All interested editors are therefore strongly encouraged to participate, to ensure that your wishes are incorporated into the consensus process. --Elonka 23:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nominating the removal of "main" characters

Just so I don't tick anyone off I thought I would bring this up for discussion here before doing it. I am suggesting the following three characters be removed from the main character table until such time they start getting focused on regularly, or in Sheps case show up (could be this week after seeing the previews):

• Shep Cale: Hasn't been heard from in several episodes and all indication is he's dead.
• Skylar Stevens: a secondary character for fleshing out Dales story line. Granted she's seen in almost every episode but the story doesn't really focus on her so much as it focuses on Dale.
• Gracie Leigh: See above, again the she is there primarily to support Dale's character.

If there isn't any major objections I'll go ahead and remove them in 36 hours or so. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status:On 10:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with removing Shep, since he's all but vanished off the face of the earth. I'm inclined to keep Skylar and Gracie on the list, though. I get the feeling Skylar's contributions to the storylines will be increasing shortly, particularly if the teaser of NY still being around is true. As far as Gracie goes, she's not just there to support Dale's character. She has a small focal point of her own, being the owner of the only grocery store in town. I didn't much care for the treatment they gave her character over the pesticides, but I think they're slowly fleshing her out a bit as well. Just my .02.199.79.222.119 18:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I take Dale as a main character, and Skylar is intertwined with Dale in the current storyline, so I think she should stay on the list. That might change in future episodes, in which case it can be revisited, but for now, she seems to be fully integrated into the plot. 152.163.100.138 02:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Setting: 2009

I took the references to the specific episodes and logic pathway that sets the show into 2009 out of the summary. --KZeagle 02:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Potentially a good idea, as in Fallout, Robert Hawkins is shown driving a van with Kansas plates that expire in 2007. I don't particularly know how long one could drive with expired tags, but I only made it about 6-ish months myself. Basically, until something canonical establishes the year, anything regarding logical pathways to the year is speculation, and likely subject to change by the authors. --Puellanivis 04:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I was one of the first people to jump to the 2009 conclusion, and I was later one of the first people to decide that I had indeed jumped. It's just as likely that Jake fudged the birthdate on his passport, and other clues (like the expiration stickers above, the expiration dates on credit cards seen in the series, and Dale's MySpace blog, point to the series being set in the present day. Jury's out for now. 152.163.100.138 03:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Automated peer review

For those who are interested I just ran the article through the automated peer review script and here's the results.

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • apparently
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status:On 07:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This may or may not have anything to do with that automated peer review, but I don't think the revised synopsis is any sort of improvement. Also, there is way, way too much information on the Morse code segments and Beyond Jericho. Rally Point could easily be condensed and included under "other observations." IMHO, the main article is getting way too long, and is starting to focus on arcane sidebars. 205.188.116.138 20:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've taken your recommendation to cut out the "Rally Point" subheading, and made it part of the other observations. At this time, it's difficult to cut out the Morse Code, as if any part of it goes, one could justify removing the entire subheading entirely. I could only think of the best solution to keep the information, yet drop the subheading would be to make another page for the Morse Code, and then link to it in "other observations". But this doesn't seem like an ideal or clear solution to me at this time. --Puellanivis 23:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I was going to suggest this as well. Unless the "Rally Point" becomes a major series plot focus that's at the forefront of every episode, it probably should be folded into the "Other Observations" section. 66.90.151.114 00:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There's still too much about Beyond Jericho. I think it could be summed up in one paragraph that there was one webisode aired, the feature was pulled and replaced with "Countdown" and the other "webumentaries"/prequels that are supposed to follow. This section and the Morse code seem to border on the fannish, if not the obsessive. Just my two cents - 152.163.100.138 02:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Qualitative analysis of ratings requested

Could someone add a sentence or two explaining the ratings numbers? MrZaius^talk 17:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting Entries for 11/15/06 and 11/22/06 Episodes

Matthew Fenton created a page for the 11/22/06 episode, and entitled it "Red Flag". However, has given it the synopsis for the previous week's episode, which is still titled as "TBA" by all sources. Would Matthew please correct the discrepancy, and cite the source for the "Red Flag" title? Thanks. 66.90.151.114 00:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

At least one of the "spoiler sites" is calling the 11/15 episode "Crossroads" and the 11/22 episode "Red Flag." No way to tell if this is correct or not -- spoilers have been wrong in the past. I'll let Matthew or someone else cite this, or if that doesn't happen, I'll go find it again and cite it myself. It should probably be noted in the main article that the titles are uncertain. 152.163.100.138 02:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)