Talk:Eureka (2006 TV series)

Incorrect filming location

The school is not filmed at Fraser Heights. It is filmed at Sullivan Heights Secondary, also in Surrey. I know this because I go to this school, and have seen the filming being done, including when they blocked off our cafeteria area, and When they filmed the outside with the sherrif vehicle. Overloadgimpy 03:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

that description.

the description is probably fine for now. I've been trying to quote it, but the code for it is messing up the page. dposse 16:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia? Speculation?

Should we add a section for speculation and trivia. For example, the license plate on Taggart's vehicle is "NACI-93" and Taggart's accent on the show is British or Canadian. This might represent that he worked for the Canadian National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) in 1993.--P Todd 00:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's status as a stub says "go nuts!" – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. heqs 10:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well then, "go to a point which is sensible and not overly vague or speculative!" My eagerness got the better of me. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Free Airing

You can watch the entire first episode legally on the Sci-Fi channel website.--2ltben 00:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Advertised on tv but I didn't catch the dates. Sky One (broadcast in the UK and Ireland) Eureka premieres , 9pm, Wednesdays from Wed 2 Jul."[1] Think that must be a typo, and it must actually start in August since the show started on Sci Fi in July 18, 2006.

Definately a typo, saw the ad. and the time is listed as "next wednesday" which is Wednesday 2nd August.

Copyright Violation

A large part of this article is taken verbatim fromt the show's official site's About page. 71.253.141.238 19:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not taken verbatum. It uses a similar format and similar wording, but it is not an exact quotation. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Episodes

I edited the episodes list with new date and episode names, however they are not official. If they turn out to be wrong, I'll come back and fix them.--RNAi 03:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

SCI FI Wire article states that....

Eureka was originally going to be an animated series. [2]. Pretty interesting, no? DrWho42 17:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

original research

I'm moving this sentence here to the talk page until someone provides a citation:

This name change occured so as not to confuse the series with the anime series of the same name, or Eureka Seven the spin-off.

--TorriTorri^{Talk to me!} 00:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Caption

Does it really need a hovering caption when there is a caption underneath saying exactly what the picture is of??--NeilEvans 22:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. The caption is put into the HTML code as the <img> tag's "alt" variable. More info. EVula 22:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding secondary characters?

I've only watched a couple of episodes, but I think that there are some characters that aren't neccissarily (sic) main characters, but are still notable. For example, SARAH might deserve a page.

Also, Lowjack DEFINATELY deserves a page...I am absolutely sure that s/he will play a part in an episode.

Ideas for new pages for other chars -Lowjack -Henry's assistant -The mother and father from episode 1 and 2 (unless they are totally irrelevent) -ect.

ALSO, I was wondering if it would be a good idea if we made a page that detailed all the projects and little inventions that occur each episode. Thats kinda why I started watching this show, and I think it would be cool to have a little page detailing the town of Eureka and what kind of marvels are seen within its borders.

On this note, I think the character pages were created too early, seeing as how we know so little. We should just have one List of Eureka characters page for everyone until it bloats to a point where we can split it. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 17:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though the main characters (Jack/Zoe/Jo/Allison/Henry/Stark) probably deserve pages of their own. The others, though, definitely don't - especially almost total nonentities like Sheriff Cobb, Warren, and Colonel Briggs. They could be shifted to a list very easily. Rarr 10:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I second that point. Several of the "main characters" listed are anything but. Additionally other characters such as Fargo, that reoccur frequently, are not to be found.Black Wolff 05:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed Warren, Sheriff Cobb, and Colonel Briggs. Personally I don't think Spencer should be there either, but at least he's a little more relevant. Vincent is somewhere in between main and secondary. Fargo definitely deserves to stay though. Rarr 20:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Location

SPOILER ALERT

A couple of things regarding Eureka's location were mentioned in the last episode, but they aren't consistent with each other. They talk about a city of Summerville and a Freeway 17 within 50 miles from Eureka.

• The "interstate" freeway 17 does not go anywhere near Pacific Northwest. It goes from Flagstaff, AZ to Phoenix, AZ. There is no state highway 17 in Oregon, as far as I can tell.
• The only Summerville in the area is a tiny town ( population 117 ) in Northeast Oregon. I seriously doubt that there are any bus routes going through Summerville.
• They mention a bus going to Portland, with the first stop in Salem. This would probably mean that Eureka is in Western Oregon, and Salem is the closest major city in its vicinity. It could be somewhere along Oregon State Route 22.
• The problem with Eureka being in Oregon but "adjacent to Idaho" is that ( as far as I know ) most of the Oregon east of Cascade Mountains is really a treeless desert, and does not look anything like what's portrayed in the show. [3] Interestingly enough, there is a real town of Eureka, and a real highway 17, located in the forests of Pacific Northwest less than 50 miles from the border of Idaho - not in Oregon, but in Montana. Oregon state flag and Montana state flag are both yellow on blue background. Any chance that you got the flag wrong?

Anyway, we can probably conclude that Eureka's producers either don't have any specific location in mind for the city, or they intentionally give us conflicting hints.

--Itinerant1 06:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The flag in the sheriff's office is definitely an Oregon flag. You can see part of the word "STATE" (STATE OF OREGON); part of the year 1859; and some of the stars around the edge of the seal. Also, the seal is only gold on a blue background, whereas the Montana flag's seal is multicolored. Richwales 07:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, about 28 minutes into the episode "Right as Raynes," you can see the flag behind Deputy Lupo's shoulder, and a sizable portion of the seal is clearly visible — enough to show that it can only be the Oregon flag. I'm not necessarily saying that the producers of the show expect the viewers to notice this detail, but trivia buffs can't help but see it. Richwales 07:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

—:Some of the shots of town are taken in Ashland, Oregon in southern Oregon very near the CA border off I5.

Season 2

There's a post on the official site dated today stating that the show has been renewed for a second season. I just don't know all the fancy shmancy Wiki code to put this in the entry. Andrewhime 16:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Should this part be deleted now that it's actually on TV?

Only real-world Eureka?

A paragraph in the article states:

Since redwoods only grow in California and coastal southwest Oregon, this limits the locale to the area in which the only real-world Eureka is: California.

But according to Eureka, there's at least eight other Eureka's in the US, and three in other countries, so this statement is somewhat misleading. --Lurlock 15:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we even need to state where a real Eureka is. Its a TV show. Besides, that whole bit is original research, so I'm axing it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

On "EUR^eKA"

1. It's a logo, just like Dell's tilted e or Toys "R" Us' backwards R. Just because we have the capability to render the logo in typeface doesn't mean we should.
2. EUR^eKA is never used outside of the stylized logo with a specific font, colors, and styling.
3. The SciFi channel does not use it as the name of the show and does not promote its use.
4. It is not discussed in this article or relevant to any part of it.
5. It is clearly and accurately depicted in the info box using the correct font, colors, and styling.
6. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), cited as reason to restore it, clearly discourages the use of stylized renditions in text. The one allowance provided says only that is acceptable to display it, implying that the decision is left to the editors. The two examples given, Macy's and Yellow Tail, don't use stylized renditions at all in their articles.
7. The CamelCase clause (which could potentially cover this case) again makes it clear that it is a judgement call, to be used when "it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable". EUR^eKA does neither.

Having explained myself, I'm going to remove it again, but I'm not looking to edit war. If anyone disagrees with me, I encourage you to explain why you feel "EUR^eKA" should be included here, rather than why is it is allowed to be included. –  Anþony  talk  08:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Visit Eureka

This site does not meet WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, firstly (from WP:EL):

1. "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources." - The site does not appear to cite credible secondary/primary sources.
2. "Links mainly intended to promote a website." - As evidenced by User:VisitEurekas repetitive spamming and the excess amount of adverts contained on the website (one on top, one on bottom and a Amazon referral).
3. "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." - See above.
   • Next I must point out the website has no claim to notability or any factual stability (it's only been online since August, 2006).
   • Additionally I should point out the website appears to be a copyright violation (or possible derivative) of the website GateWorld, it is unacceptable to link to copyright violators as per policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works).

Furthermore from Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources of questionable reliability:

1. "In general, sources of questionable reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight" - Due to the non-notability of the website I question it has any established reliability or reputation for fact-checking.

Unquestionably this website should not be linked to from this article, point in fact that it's non-notable. Nobody denies, however, that it is indeed a useful resource, nevertheless it is not valid linkage until it sorts its various "problems" out, nor is it valid reference material. Hence in light of my comments here and stated fact that I question this websites reliability, etc, it should not be linked from this article without such a consensus that it is indeed reliable. Matthew 17:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Point by point:

I've never mislead the reader. The source is reliable - he's a producer of the show.

Maybe I did spam a bit because they had no valid reason of deleting the link. I have now however stopped re-adding that link. I have left my content, such as the Abby Carter casting news, which means I should be allowed reference links. It's only fair right?

As for the advertising - 90% of websites have advertising - SciFi.com itself has advertising so...? Plus - 3 adverts is hardly a lot. I have made sure the site doesn't have too many. You're linking to other sites that are LOADED with ads. So please - don't argue that case with me when you're not going to argue with them as well... Ditto with GateWorld.net and the Stargate pages.

The site has interviews with several cast members, Colin Ferguson (Jack Carter) is also a member of the forums. Colin actually called my assistant editor to conduct the interview so it certainly was him. That counts as a claim to notability and factual stability. As for launching in August 2006, that doesn't really effect anything as the site has recently taken off and has been visited by the stars and producers of the show - when Season 2 starts in July, predictions are that the site will be extremely popular - which to be honest it is right now.

Also - may I just add that I designed that site myself. From the ground up. I never copied GateWorld.net. I liked their idea - but what I did was my own. I admit, some aspects such as the advertisement above the header was an idea I used from GW because I wanted to get some ads in there in a tidy place that worked - and GW's idea worked. End of story though.

Also may I just stress that there is specifically no copyright on a website design. ;-)

I'm not arguing for a link at the bottom of the page as I guess everybody wants to treat me differently to GateWorld.net. Fair does - we'll prove ourselves when Season 2 kicks off. All I want is my citations for the information I received exclusively and posted on this article - like I said that is fair. If you cannot trust the citation reference, you cannot trust the information - but you are leaving the information there? See what I'm saying?

Hope this helps.VisitEureka.net 19:03, 23 April 2007 (BST)

As I have warned you on your talkpage, and several others as well, please read WP:COI. Please do not edit the article yourself, explain what should be changed on the talkpage, and wait until other editors make the change for you, if they agree with the edit. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to write a detailed reply so I'll just answer one point: "Also may I just stress that there is specifically no copyright on a website design. ;-)" -- Indeed there is, website designs are creative works and hence copyright. By the tone of your message you appear to be admitting your website is a derivative. Matthew 08:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I was just stating a point.

VisitEureka 21:12, 30 April 2007 (GMT)

Thank You Dirk Beetstra for providing this user with a basic set of guidelines on his discussion page. The self promotion of his site here and on the Painkiller Jane page was getting out of hand. Makowsky 17:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to raise the issue of the episode titles... VisitEureka.net got them from an inside source, yet you are claiming that they were available before VE.net announced them... that is impossible. I believe you are treating this site with absolutely no respect and no matter what they do to prove that they are a reliable source, you will lie so you don't have to post the links. If you'd paid attention, the link I provided when changing the information on the Eureka page actually proves that Eureka is NOT scheduled to begin in August.

Can I ask this - when Olivia d'Abo is confirmed as Abby Carter, are you going to make up more lies that this information was available before VE.net were told exclusively by the same crew member just days after she was cast? Or will you then believe that the site is a reliable source?

Sorry I had to post here - I just don't think you should lie to dismiss posting links that ARE reliable. The guy who owns the site seems to have gotten really angry with you because you've treated him like s***...

Thanks - James Matherson

Cast Section

Shouldn't the actors and actresses of minor & recurring charchters also be mentioned somewhere? (e.g. the voice of Sarah?) Jon 21:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Seinfeld Connection

Anyone notice a connection between some characters in Eureka with some in Seinfeld? Taggert is Kramer, the strange, tall weirdo; Fargo is George, the short, loser who's unlucky in love; Jo is Elaine, the tough, non-feminine chick, and Carter is Jerry, the simple guy who's just trying to live his life. This may be just me but I thought it was very weird, but it may be a coincidence. User:BioYu-Gi! 1:20p.m. 6/27/07

See Stock characters samwaltz 13:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Henry lived the future, Carter didn't

Consider the timeline until shortly before Kim's death in 2006 to be stable. Henry experienced it, lived until some undeterminate time in the future (we'll call this alpha-line) (and, please note, he could have come back from 2010, 2020, or any other year - it was never stated), came back, and allowed Kim to survive, (creating beta-line); due to the divergences, the timequakes happened and Carter came back from 2010 to 2006, (creating gamma-line). The Carter of this episode remembered beta-line, an alternate future; Henry only remembered alpha-line, where the explosion took place and where, by definition, the series of deaths by spontaneous combustion took place, yet he pretends he doesn't remember them. Now, is Carter just dense, has he not realized that he and Henry have not seen the same future?
Keep in mind that the Universe does not like paradoxes, it does not like divergences from what "should have happened" (alpha-line). Therefore Henry knows that keeping his memory of alpha-line ensures another series of timequakes in gamma-line, even if he personally didn't experience the quakes in beta-line. samwaltz 13:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Production codes

"This is suggested by the episodes' production numbers which are displayed on the Sci-Fi channel's Eureka website next to episode titles quite often." Where? If they were removed, sadly most of scifi.com's show pages are flash and so you can't see archived versions of them in archive.org. Are they listed on a currently accessible reliable source, like on the DVDs or an official companion book? TransUtopian 14:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming episode summaries

Wherever we're pulling summaries of upcoming episodes from seems horribly unreliable. I've only been checking the pages long enough to see three of them, but every one managed to pack at least one substantial error into a two-sentence blurb. ShaleZero 06:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)