Jump to content

Talk:Jericho (2006 TV series)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tea&magpies (talk | contribs) at 03:27, 18 May 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconTelevision Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1 (August 2006 — October 2006)
  2. Archive 2 (October 2006 — November 2006)
  3. Archive 3 (November 2006 — April 2007)
  4. Click here to start the next archive
  5. Possible Attackers


The map, again

It seems the map has once again been replaced with another poorer quality, JPG format, copyright status unknown map.

I've developed another one at Template:Jericho TV series map.

Pros:

  • SVG format
  • Public domain map
  • No unnecessary info on map - less cramped
  • Cities are marked with text links, therefore anyone can update it and keep the format consistent
  • Includes attacked cities (red), unsuccessful attacks (blue), Jericho (green)
  • Names are readable without zooming in (though see below).

Cons:

  • New federal capitals not marked - it was too cramped, this could easily be fixed by:
    • Using a separate map in a different part of the article
    • Showing only coloured dots, not city names
  • "Possibly" attacked cities not marked - this is probably good since it is speculation, and anyway we already know that 25 cities were targetted, 23 were successful and two weren't, so it appears that all are accounted for anyway.

From testing this template at User:Chuq/Sandbox/Jericho2, it looks like 600 pixels wide is the smallest it can go without becoming too cramped, but this shouldn't be a problem since the city names are not readable on the existing 500px map. Note that I do not live in the United States, so I'm not completely familiar on the location of some cities so the dots may be a bit off. Some of these are intentional (such as Indianapolis and Columbus) to prevent the names from overlapping. Any other suggestions? -- Chuq (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please for God's sake replace the new map on the main page (the one with the unreadable city names, the bright blue oceans and the lat/ long lines). I'm all for Chuq's new map!! 68.54.240.28 00:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have updated the map! But I have also noticed another irregularity; St Louis was in the list on Hawkins' computer, so it is undoubtedly an intended target. Assuming Hawkins' groups intelligence is accurate, there were twenty five targets. However the map already includes 23 attacks and 2 unsuccessful attacks, NOT including St Louis! So something is amiss - either the 25 total is wrong, or the list of 23 attacks we have is wrong. -- Chuq (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to this, Norfolk, Virginia appears to have evidence that it was attacked, and is also not on the map. -- Chuq (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
correct me if I'm wrong, but the map Hawkin's showed Jake he said was projections of weapons strikes in the US based on data in the 50's. Considering 1.) the map couldn't have been printed post-EMP (I doubt Hawkins would have worried about a printer and paper supply that large) 2.) the map could just be a rehash of data from megaton explosions (the fallout trails are much, MUCH too big for 20 kt devices, which should only be a few dozen miles at best) 3.) the map was based on worst case scenarios (Norfolk of course would be a target of a state-sponsored terrorist network b/c of the Atlantic Fleet). So I would be more inclined to dismiss this map and rely on the one from "Black Jack." Also, I hesitate to say that these cities were "destroyed." Again, if all the devices were 20 kt explosions, the peak overpressure rate (over 2 PSI) falls off dramatically after a 2 mile radius from the explosion. Downtown LA might be gone, but Hollywood, Anaheim, etc? Not likely, unless they're detonated upwind of these cities and are relying on the fallout to empty them out. The worst that's going to happen is weak structural collapse, lots of broken windows, etc. I know- the last bit was off topic, but reality nonetheless. 68.54.240.28 00:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The map referred to isn't the blast projection map - it is the regular map with push-pins which has been seen in many other episodes. I agree the blast projection map is irrelevant in this case. -- Chuq (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new map leaves off Norfrok or Virginia Beach, VA. One of those two cities was clearly see as marked on Hawkin's map in A.K.A.

~Acsmith3

P.S. On CBS Innertube, it can be seen at 4:47 in Part 1 of 5. It goes fast so you might need to pause it as soon as they show it.

Agreed, I missed this one. I will fix it up soon, but the benefit of this map is that anyone else can also do so without requiring access to a graphics editor - simply go to Template:Jericho TV series map and add a new line at the appropriate spot. (You don't really need to understand the coding, just copy and paste an existing line and change the names/numbers - use trial and error, and PREVIEW a lot!) The main thing to remember is if you stuff it up by mistake, simply revert yourself and no harm is done.. -- Chuq (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe this or not: the regional capital in the northeast is supposed to be Rome, New York, not Albany. See the interview with executive producer Carol Barbee here [1]. That's a bit of a surprise. Someone wanna change the map again? 209.247.22.62 21:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great find and certainly a reliable source. I have updated the map - the dot was closer to Rome than it was to Albany anyway, so I didn't change the location, just the name - don't forget as I said above, anyone can do it now! -- Chuq (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than just having the two colors, have more to indicate who's map the information came from. Val42 03:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be difficult, as almost all cities have come from more than one source. I don't know how it could be done without cluttering the map. -- Chuq (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free images

I was able to visit the set a few weeks back and snapped a few pictures. They are available on the commons (commons:Jericho (TV series)) so feel free to add them to any articles as appropriate. I'll upload a few more in the coming days. As many of the pictures contain spoilers, I'll wait until the finale airs to upload the rest. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we should probably hold off on using any images until this is resolved. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the pictures are able to be used or not, thank you for sharing them. What was the occasion of your visit to the set? You must be the envy of many a "Jericho" fan. 209.247.22.62 06:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A neighbor works as a crew member on the set and he was nice enough to invite my family. I have about 200 images in all, so hopefully the people at the commons will clear them. If not, I may just upload them to flickr or something. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, and I agree: if they can't be used here, they would be terrific on flickr, or any of the other photo servers. I also agree with your decision to not post anything containing spoilers. That can come after the season finale. Hope we get a second season, I really enjoy the show. 209.244.189.27 06:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got the go ahead at the commons to upload the rest. They will hopefully all be uploaded by the end of the weekend. I have tried to provide a brief description for all of the images, but if something needs to be clarified, please let me know. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings, again

The front page continues to state that the show reached a new low of 2.2 in early April. It does not state what "2.2" means (I happen to know, but I'd bet most readers don't) and this number has been superseded by even lower ratings in subsequent weeks. There is also the question of whether or not this is copyrighted information, since these are Nielsen ratings, and speak to a specific demographic. For these reasons, I have removed the data, but reverts continue. It seems to me that the simple mention of "lackluster ratings prompting concern" is quite enough and makes the point without the reference to arcane and outdated numbers that mean nothing to the average reader. Feel free to debate or discuss. Many thanks - 209.247.22.62 06:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it reads just fine without the numbers, but you initially also removed the time and source, prompting my revert of your first edit. Don't really see a problem with it as it stands. MrZaiustalk 07:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Errors Section

I was watching Episode 5 tonight and I realized that when one of the people tried to use the internet they tried to use the IP Address. She typed in 802.XXX.XXX.6XX (Can't recall the exact numbers). Problem with this is, in subnetting an IP Address can only go as high as 255.255.255.255, although the use able numbers is even lower than that. I was just wondering if an error/mistake section would be a good idea for the page. Cdscottie 1:32, 29 April 2007

I'm pretty sure that was similar to using phone numbers with start with 555 - they use a fake number to prevent people from really trying to call, or in this case, to prevent people trying to access a non-existent address. -- Chuq (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it is an interesting fact that could even be added to the episode guide/facts list. Cdscottie
Actually, I just noticed it is already mentioned in "Federal Response". -- Chuq (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys but I have to play devils advocate on this one. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan page. The point is not to put up every... single... piece... of... possible... information. That sort of thing is for dedicated fan pages and forums. Something minor like this needs to be left out, unless somehow it directly comes into play in the show (like the show explains why it's differant). I know people like to add things like that to pages, but something being a fact alone isn't supposed to be enough to warrant it space. It should have some pertinence to the show, or should be an obvious unintentional AND IMPORTANT error. Flubs should be for fan sites not an encyclopedia. I am aware that other people and pages do it, I am aware that it's almost becoming common. That still doesn't make it right and something we should actively seek to do, and it contributes to why pages often get such poor reviews or turned down when they're put up for a rating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.188.75 (talk • contribs)
I completely agree. (see also my comments on Talk:List of The Chaser's War On Everything episodes and the associated AfD). I was stating that it doesn't need to be im the main article, and already exists in the episode article. -- Chuq (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

Shouldn't this be removed as speculation until broadcast in an episode? (Trailers are not always accurate.) -- Chuq (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, Chuq. The section specifies that this is from the "teaser" for the episode, and I suspect that the network wouldn't show that flag without intending to use it in the episode. At this point the flag has appeared, and the only speculative part is whether it will actually be in the show. The flag has, however, been a subject of keen interest and extreme discussion on many of the "Jericho" boards and I suggest we leave it in for now. Rebuilding of the fractured US government has been described as the key storyline/plot of a possible second season, and nothing illustrates it better than that particular image. 209.247.22.62 06:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I went in and altered the language for the section to try to make the inclusion of the flag image more palatable and its status more clear (or perhaps less clear). Boy, it's hard to do that without using weasel words. 209.247.22.62 06:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morse code in the "List of episodes"

Cloud02 has added the weekly Morse code text to the table at List of Jericho episodes. Please take a look and see what you think. Personally, I would like to retain it for several reasons. First off, it doesn't make the table any bigger and fills up some dead space in the "Title" column. Perhaps more importantly, however, it allows readers to see how the text is related from week to week. (For example, it is a lot easier to see the connection between "IT BEGINS WITH", "6 AND ENDS WITH", and "BLOODSHED" in this table than from flipping between articles.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 21:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs a TON of work to clean it up

Now that the season is over it's time to clean it up:

Those are the three biggest things that need to be done right now. Once completed we can start with the fine tooth comb. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  09:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it needs a huge amount of cleanup - however it doesn't make sense that "plot points" be moved to a separate article. The plot is an integral part of the show. It could be condensed and have items moved to the relevant episode articles. -- Chuq (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original research needs to be cited or eliminated (the Mapping observations section is one example). --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What needs to be eliminated from that particular section? I did quite a bit of cleanup of the article recently, including among other things, double checking and sourcing all the city locations, and developing a complex template to display the cities in an easily updatable format. -- Chuq (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The entire mapping observations section is original research. I haven't had a chance to review the article for other instances, so the original research may just be limited to that section. Claims like that need citations from a reliable source. "In the episode "The Day Before", Jake Green is seen passing a highway sign listing mileages to Jericho, Wichita, and Kansas City. This would be inconsistent with Jericho lying near I-70, as a mileage sign in this area would be more likely to list Salina and not Wichita, which is bisected by I-35. In dialogue and on the "official" map, however, Jericho has been depicted as being proximate to I-70." The source is really just someone looking on a map and coming to their own conclusion (the italicized part), which violates our no original research policy. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chuq that section is way to long for the main article. Now that the season is over a summary should be left in its place with the existing content being moved to its own season recap article. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  11:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be cut down, but to the relevant episode articles, or now that I think about it, to a season article (such as Lost (season 1), 24 (season 1)). The core of the plot itself - that is, parts of relevance to the entire show - should be in the main article. -- Chuq (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm saying. Most of it should go to episode articles and a season recap article (ala Lost) should take the rest of that content. Then on the main page a brief two to three paragraph summary should replace it.  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  13:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Chuq, if I'm interpreting the above note correctly, it's not your map that is problematic. Instead, it is most of the material labelled "observations", which consists primarily of speculative material. There's also a lot of stuff prefaced with "most likely" (and similar terms) that should either be sourced or removed. --Ckatzchatspy 17:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we are in agreement then! -- Chuq (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just my two cents: Some of the "episode observations" and most of the "mapping observations," all those which relate to the location of Jericho, would seem to be better placed on the Jericho, Kansas (fictional town) page. The location of Jericho is an endless subject of debate/discussion among aficionados of the show, and I think it's a legitimate point of interest, but I think it belongs in the article about the town itself, not here. By the way, I have watched enough episodes to tell you that clues conflict, but I'd be happy to have a crack at collecting the "facts" we've been given in the series. Your thoughts? 209.244.187.8 08:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically done

I've basically finished most of the work. I starte Jericho (season 1) and moved all the plot points section over there. I moved the mapping observations to the Jericho, Kansas (fictional town) article. Finally I deleted the episode observations section as it was info that will be detailed in the episode articles already and recapped in the season 1 article. What I haven't done yet and will probably leave for someone else, is to put a brief summary of the first season where I carved out the plot points. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  20:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argash, I went back and grabbed the "episode observations" concerning the location of Jericho from episode three, and added them to the Jericho, Kansas (fictional town) page. It's not on the individual episode page, it seemed worthy of inclusion in the town article, and I didn't want it to go unnoticed. 209.244.189.26 08:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Glad you caught that. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  17:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian TV commercials

I'm not sure where to put this but this week there have been some tv commercials advertising the new series of jericho on channel 10 australia on the 25th of may, a search of ten's epg is http://www.ten.com.au/ten/search-results.html?search-text=Jericho which states that it is scheduled at that date.The commercials state that they will be new epesodes in a new series not repeats. With last season the program was shown within a day or two i would expect it to start soon. Feel free to clean this up i'm new to this. --dns 12:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a new series, it is the second half of the first series. If they claim it is a second series, they are treating their viewers as if they are idiots! -- Chuq (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok it was my mistake, i assumed that as they where shown at the same time and went on their Christmas break the season was over not broken up being an outside observer does cause confusion occasionally, no harm done. --dns 06:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho Image

Shouldn't the image used in the TV box be this one instead of the screen capture from the episodes showing the title? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cloud02 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Why would that be used? Does that remotely resemble an intertitle? Matthew 12:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since that picture is the one that CBS started their advertising with. Eg. see here Cloud02 13:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Err... that's not a very good rationale. The standard infobox image for a television series is its intertitle. Matthew 13:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General consensus as always said use the title card unless a specific promotional poster for the current season that includes the title of the show is available. So for example Lost (TV series) currently shows the season 3 promo poster while Heroes (TV series) shows the title card. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  17:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually only seen Lost doing the "promo" thing. That reminds me... I should go fix that! Matthew 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellation

The article referenced with the cancellation only states "..has apparently nuked Jericho" and ".. there had been speculation that CBS would exercise some patience with Jericho." This seems to indicate it is still up in the air? -- Chuq (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CBS cancels Jericho. Bendono 04:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's the article I'm talking about. Eye catching headline, but within the article itself, the words "apparently" and "speculation" don't really make it sound like it is confirmed. -- Chuq (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We'll find out officially tomorrow (Wednesday) morning. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it makes it. Yes, the plotline is something of a leftwing wetdream -- a reversal of "Red Dawn" -- and the premis makes no sense at all, but it liked the characters and understood their predicament. I can't help but feel that the show would have been more popular if it wasn't so insulting at times. The food shortages made no sense (yeah, in Kansas! land of sky-high silos!), and there is no way the M1- Abrams could fire a mortar round through its barrel. Jeesh! But I still liked it and watched it every week. Besides, the actors need the work.Scott Adler 10:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The show is total cornball but I love it. A bunch of folks are calling CBS (212 975 3247) to let them know we don't want to see it go!
According to CNN - Jericho is officially cancelled. http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/05/16/tv.newseason.ap/index.html

Do we really need to mention the online petition thinghy? It's 99,99999% certain it won't change a thing.--Kamikaze 16:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...there are online petitions for about everything under the sun and they are all pointless. 168.28.240.250 18:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think that the fact that over 13,000 people put their names to something within a few hours is at least worth of mention, regardless if it changes anything. Here at Wikipedia, our job is not to influence, but to inform. -baskinmyglory 3:05 PM (PST) May 15th, 2007.
It is not notable, it is not out of the ordinary, and it is not really verifiable. How reputable is the pollster? How do we know what the actual count is? Are there duplicate/triplicate entries? (Remember Stephen Colbert and the Hungarian bridge contest.) Why is this petition any different than petitions for any other cancelled show? If the petition has an effect, then it becomes notable. Until then, it isn't. --Ckatzchatspy 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but could this then become a seperate entry for the sole reason that it has become a phenomena? Even in the case of Stephen Colbert, the editing process itself became an entry. baskinmyglory
Mentioning that 13,000 people have signed a petition and then citing the petition is basically original research, which isn't allowed. If the BBC or something picks up the story, then it might be worth mentioning as that would make such an event notable. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the number is now 26,000 and growing. 204.52.215.107 09:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only see 23K right now... anyway, how on Earth is anyone supposed to verify the petition? What assurance is there that fans aren't voting multiple times using different e-mail addresses? And, once again, how is this unique to Jericho? --Ckatzchatspy 09:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the number (well, now closer to 24000 than 23000, but the point remains). I'm pretty sure the petition is being signed by at least a few thousand folks, and I'm also sure that someone is voting multiple times. Nonetheless, it strikes me as one of petitiononline's larger petitions. 204.52.215.107 09:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

23,915 204.52.215.107 09:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

23,930 204.52.215.107 09:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23,940 204.52.215.107 10:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23,957 204.52.215.107 10:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23,973 204.52.215.107 10:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not an altogether bad signature rate over a few minutes... it was growing even more rapidly last night. 204.52.215.107 10:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just hit 24000. 204.52.215.107 10:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24123 204.52.215.107 10:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we really need a running update. It isn't the number of signatures, it is the effect on the show. -- Chuq (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I like to keep running counts anyhow.... it just broke 25,000. 204.52.215.107 12:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it has no effect, it is still a relevant phenomenon because it relates to the show, and it obviously has become notable as a phenomenon in its own right, because a large number of people are obviously involved in the signing of that petition. 204.52.215.107 12:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


And the Cbs answer:

Dear Jericho Fans

We here at CBS have listened to your complaints in relation to the cancelation of the television Show Jericho.

At CBS we never cancel a show without a great deal of communication between our public groups and you the fans.

It was believed that Jericho had lost a significant amount of fans since the original pilot of the show.

We always feel that a show must carry its audience regardless of breaks or temporary periods within the transmission season.

With this in mind it was decided to cancel the show JERICHO.

We understand that many of you are upset with our decision to cancel the Show JERICHO.

CBS retain the full viewing rights to Jericho, and it is possible that a a finale episode could be put into planning for the 2009/2010 season.

A future decision will be made on this in the fall of 2008.

Despite this cancelation we would like to advise you the viewer that CBS offers many great Shows such as CSI-Miami as well as others.

If you have any further enquiries please do not hesitate to contact my office where we can provide you with more details.

A future press release in relation to this decision will be announced tomorrow to All press outlets.

It is still possible to view all episodes of Jericho on the the innertube.

--Kamikaze 10:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feh, that's not going to satisfy the critics. That's an excuse to shore up the current decision. My prediction is that there'll be a fair deal of flak coming over this Heidi-Game cancellation over the next few days. 204.52.215.107 12:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, that "CBS response" was dated May 16 and can be found here. 204.52.215.107 12:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The petition is now above 28,000 and still growing....204.52.215.107 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petition spam

I have removed the text about the petition, as well as the linkspam to the petition site. Honestly, this is not notable, and it is no different than countless other shows that have been cancelled. Efforts to draw comparisons between Jericho and Star Trek, insinuations about CBS' president, and other attempts at justifying the text don't change that fact. *If* multiple reputable news organizations give extensive coverage to the story, and *if* it has some effect, then it might be worth considering. Right now, however, it is only relevant to the disgruntled fans - and not encyclopedic content. --Ckatzchatspy 18:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The fact that there are thousands of disgruntled fans is a fact that is worth talking about and letting other people know about. And isn't that the purpose of an encyclopedia, to spread knowledge? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, not a fan forum, and it is not our role to "let others know about" a petition drive. This show is neither different from, or more notable than, any other cancelled show with disgruntled fans. There is also no way of verifying the petition claim - how do we prove that there are in fact X number of unique signatures? Simply put, there has to be some recognition of the drive in reputable news organizations, or (more importantly) some effect on the series as a result of it. Otherwise, it is merely the co-opting of a Wikipedia article as a part of a fan campaign to restore the show. --Ckatzchatspy 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ckatz. Revert anytime a petition is readded. It doesn't belong in the body of the article unless it is picked up by the press. It doesn't belong under external links as the whole idea of external links is to provide more detailed information not covered by the article. The linking to these petitions is just spam. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could add a few words about fan reaction, though.--Kamikaze 19:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, if that can be backed up by a reliable source. -- MisterHand 19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Googling "Save Jericho" comes up with 11,800 hits. Does that count as a "reliable source"? Tea&magpies 02:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, we need things like news articles and the like. See WP:RS and WP:NOR for a better understanding. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. WP:NOR seems to suggest that in some cases (for example, when writing about current events), one may need to rely on primary sources. And that is okay so long as one "only make[s] descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person . . ." To state that there has been a fan reaction seems to me an easily verifiable descriptive claim about a current event. But maybe I'm not understanding the policy. Tea&magpies 03:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ckatz. I'd love to see CBS change its mind and I wish the petition the best of luck, but wikipedia is not the place to 'spread the knowledge' of a campaign. That's advocacy. That petition is not unique or noteworthy. There's thousands of them. In fact, there's a new one after almost every network show is cancelled. As mentioned above, its original research. Until something happends to make this worthy of mention, such as mention by a major news source or specific response by CBS, all reference should be removed 71.7.242.116 20:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and have added a slight mention of the petition which does not link to any website or petition The petition is noteworthy and has over 30,000 signatures. There is a link to a petition for the cancelled video game Stargate SG-1: The Alliance which has been on the wikipedia for over a year and never removed. --Ted-m 02:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been removed. Again, there is no way of even validating the petition's accuracy. (As for the Stargate note, it shouldn't be there either - but the fact that one error exists doesn't justify adding another. Sorry.) --Ckatzchatspy 02:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)The problem is that is unsourced. If the petition is so big, then a media source should be easy to find. Without a proper media source (newspaper, etc, see WP:RS), this info is all original research. I've nuked the Stargate one.--PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jericho_(2006_TV_series)&oldid=131701764"