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

This article was referenced to at the end of the Channel Ten (Australia) broadcast of Jericho Episode 8. Instructions where given to go to wikipedia.org and type in "Jericho (TV Series)." Please put the approiate tag on this article, if any.Kuzmaster 10:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps editing the page with a link to some sort of forum. Recommend to lock this page.

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)

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)

Reality is not a component of this show, true. But for people who take some interest in the real world equivalent, several sources show a range of "6,000+ miles" for the Minuteman III, one of which being Wikipedia's Minuteman III article. ([1]). Others list the range, after various upgrades, at about 8,000 miles ([2], [3]). With those legs, missiles from Warren AFB could strike all of Europe and South America, the Middle East, the northern half of Africa and everything in Asia as far south as Vietnam. Dziban303 06:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Asia goes a little further than you think it does ;) But true, it could hit all of far-east asia. --Puellanivis 07:04, 2 November 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)

The major tactical use for an EMP weapon is destroying your enemy's C&C so they are blind to whatever is coming next. In the old Cold-War plans this would typically have been quickly followed by a first strike. A 15-20 megaton bomb at 200 miles was the usual suggestion, but we do not see our citizens reacting to a very bright event in their sky. Nor are the nearby silos under under attack. Applying the military doctrines of the 1980's to this show just doesn't fit. More than likely the EMP burst is just a hastily researched plot device to quick throw our hapless citizens into Little House on the Prairie plotlines. For one thing I would expect the airplanes that were inside the metal hanger at the airport to have survived, as a big metal building provides a lot of shielding. I don't think this series can be micro-analyzed the way Lost is, it just won't hold up to the scrutiny. --Vincentfox 00:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree, at least in part. I certainly don't think that Lost should even be as micro-analyzed as it is, but Jericho definitely more so. There are a large number of very inconsistent factors in the show that shown that either continuity of the plot does not guarentee that small factors will have any truely meaningful impact, or that inconsistency within the system itself means that traditional logically analysis just isn't going to be particularly effective. For instance, in Federal Response, Hawkins accesses a Turkish webpage, not only that, but the Turkish MSN page. But on the page, there have been propped in with Cyrillic characters (that make about as much sense on a Turkish webpage as they would on an English webpage). What can logically be deduced from this? Nothing, the page itself is so self-inconsistent that the very language that it is supposed to depict is unclear... well, except that it was intentionally chosen to be non-English. So, yes, I must agree with Vincentfox a lot, this series just won't stand up to very tight scrutiny and analysis. But that's ok, but it's a really good show, and I like it! --Puellanivis 13:26, 7 November 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)

I modified the map to include Washington and Lawrence, which were confirmed in episode 7. Copy, paste, text tool, done. Regards to those who edited before me. Dziban303 07:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It is stated in the article that Lawrence was effected by the blast. Being just under 40 miles from Kansas City, Lawrence could feasibly been victim to fallout or subsequent explosions. My recollection from the episode did not state that Lawrence was destroyed, rather effected in some manner. As far as the officer's question for why they would attack Lawrence and not Topeka: that is a good question. Topeka, though not much larger than Lawrence at the present time, it is the state capitol and an important center of government and commerce in Kansas. Lawrence, on the other hand, would have little to no value to attack, in my opinion, rather than Kansas City. Moreover, Kansas City is clearly identifiable from the air with the convergence of the Kansas and Missouri rivers. A trained airman would notice the dense urban and suburban areas where the two rivers meeet. Lawrence is obviously not as sprawled as Kansas City, so I doubt that the people from the flight recorder would be too off on their assessment. Afarina 15:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

When Gray was talking about "the fallout from Lawrence," and nods to the fat cop's question whether they hit Lawrence, that pretty much told me that Lawrence was hit. It does make a bit of sense, in that there's a major university and teaching hospital in Lawrence. 199.79.222.119 16:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the writers included Lawerance as a nod to the ABC tv movie "The Day After" from the early 80's? Since both "Jericho" and "The Day After" deal with the days after a nuclear attack on the USA and specifically the mid-west small town citzens. The only other reason that I could think of might be the closeness to KC and the Air Force bases in the area. After watching the epsoide again on the CBS/innertube website Gray did mention that Lawrence was attacked and that the fallout was pretty bad. Southernap 02:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As confirmed in the episode on 08 November 2006, Lawrence was directly hit. In Rogue River, the brothers stumble upon FEMA leaflets that say the water table in said town had been polluted from fallout from Lawrence. Afarina 03:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Just as a point of interest, it is extremely unlikely that either Topeka or "Rogue River" would be affected by fallout from Lawrence, since the prevailing winds blow from west to east, and these two cities (one fictional) are west of Lawrence. Missouri would probably get the fallout. Chalk this up as another technical glitch (or inconsistency) in the show. 152.163.100.138 06:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Using Google maps, directions from Topeka to Lawrences shows it at about 27 miles. You don't really think that fallout despite any prevailing winds could not carry 30 miles?

As for Rogue River, as the series say it is 90 miles from Jericho, and if we suppose that Jericho even at the western most presumptions (Oakley) that puts Rogue River as still quite quite far away from Lawrence, and Denver is about closer than I think you could place Rogue River consistently. If they were only 90 miles apart, then it's unreasonable that fallout from Lawrence would get to Rogue River, and not Jericho. Although in the case of Rogue River, it need merely make a credible threat to FEMA that it would effect the water table of Rogue River, and thus the water that they're getting. I don't know where people get their water in that area, so I couldn't say. Of course, this would just be another notch in the inconsistencies of the series. But of course, if you create a city that can't possibly exist... then no one can get present themselves as your city. --Puellanivis 06:40, 9 November 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)

I've cleaned this up so it is only a table. 69.125.143.139 13:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree except for the domestic part. It seems highly unlikely a foreign power is going to ship troops, land them at a port, and have 5 tanks wandering around in Kansas in that short of a timeframe. It is safe to assume they are domestic in origin, although whether National Guard or Army and whether government-operated or some rogue element that stole the tanks, is still unknown.

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)

And by that same concept, if the editors decide to put it back in, it's back in. It's a two-way street! 24.242.148.169 02:52, 5 November 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)

I like wikipedia mostly because it is the one site that gives very very detailed accounts of everything in an article and provides stuff the other generalizing sites dont, and I looked forward to reading what the morse code said in the beginning of each episode, it was interesting stuff. --72.173.14.125 20:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, because it is the opposite to what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Wikipedia articles usually provides summaries and overviews of various topics, but then refers the readers to other sites for more detailed accounts. Take a look at What Wikipedia is not. -- Chuq 03:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It may be that it isn't what wikipedia is meant to be, but thats what it is, and myself and most everyone else love it for that fact. Many of the things I research with wikipedia are much more detailed than I can find on any other site, even the referenced sites, and for detailed, even speculatory info on tv shows, wikipedia is my first choice, perhaps surpassed only by forums on the shows' websites, and I definitely vote to have the morse code table stay on the front page, or get its own page, thats interesting stuff. -- Srt252 02:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Where did the translations go? I personally was greateful that the morse code from each episode was listed on this page. As a ham operator for 14 years, I still don't copy code very well, and most of the general public doesn't understand anything more than "SOS". My vote is that it should stay on this page, or at least have a link to where to find it!Mr. Ham Man 03:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

They are available in the article for each episode. -- Chuq 03:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I second the vote to put the table back, or at least put it on its own page. I didn't notice that it had been added to the fact box until someone pointed it out. Again, I vote to put the table back. 24.242.148.169 02:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't just vote on things like that, we discuss them and come up with a logical decision - in this case, the article was getting long and having a list of every episodes morse code would make it even longer. In the case of multiple reasonable options, there may be a poll, but anonymous and new users do not get included in this for many reasons, mainly because of the ease of vote padding and sockpuppeteering. -- Chuq 11:53, 5 November 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)

You can count me as one of those "yous". Your pompous attitude is really annoying, almost like something out of a British aristocratic stereotype. 24.242.148.169 02:54, 5 November 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)

FYI, brass is not magnetic. WarFighter 01:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Warfighter. The effect I'm talking about doesn't require a magnetic material, just a conductor. Do a search on "magnetic ring toss" and you'll find clips and simulations showing how you can fling an aluminium ring up using magnetism. On reflection though, I am sceptical that the share of the EMP received at a watch part would be sufficient to dislodge even a small cogwheel. The geometry of the parts and how they move in the field would need to be right too. It doesn't prove that her watch couldn't have stopped working, and I've got no way of knowing the values involved, but my gut feeling says it wouldn't stop a clockwork mechanism - especially if it was well machined with closely fitting parts. If someone would care to send me a genuine Rolex I would consider experimenting ; ) Mygoditsfullofstars 11:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Rolex Cellini is available with a quartz movement. This would be consistent with "expensive fashion" the character might choose. Reference: http://www.rolex.com/en/ --Bruce Couper 21:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A pointless discussion. A fission bomb at ground level or even a medium altitute air-burst does not generate EMP effects at sufficient range to account for this. For a person to be close enough to worry about their watch, they would have to be close enough to get some burns too. EMP effects over wide areas come from explosions at very high altitude, which was not the case for the observed Denver bomb. --Vincentfox 11:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Granted. However we're talking about episode 9.02 which featured a high-altitude airburst causing the town to suffer the effects of EMP. Mygoditsfullofstars 20:26, 9 November 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 later, I was 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 on 2009 for now. 152.163.100.138 03:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

WHY do people keep putting BACK IN that the show takes place in 2009 when that is pure speculation? Capricorn74 00:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

They're going off the passport birthdate, which I think is wrong (either deliberately or unintentionally), and a few lines from Eric and April's divorce papers which turned out to be inconclusive. As I wrote, I jumped, and I've jumped back. I think it's set in the present; witness the Halloween-themed episode that aired the day after Halloween here in the U.S. I think 2009 is still in the Heather Lisinski article, and I'm now going over there to remove it. 152.163.100.138 13:08, 8 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)

I think the information about Beyond Jericho is good to have, particularly since it was originally supposed to be an important tie-in and plot device within the show itself, but I agree it seems a bit lengthy for the main Jericho article. Beyond Jericho at one point had its own article, but that was scrapped since it was more or less the same information found on the main page. Maybe we should resurrect the separate Beyond Jericho article, leaving a brief synopsis of what it was on the main page. 199.79.222.119 19:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As clarified below, my intentions of spinning off all of the web-based content onto its own article is to avoid it filling up the main article. If we make it more generic than just "Beyond Jericho", then it will include the reasons why Beyond Jericho was cancelled, why Countdown is a webumentary instead of a webisode, and actually provide a synopsis of each. As it stands the article has a lot of information that colors and is more relevant to all of the web-based content, than just Beyond Jericho, yet that information is still headed under "Beyond Jericho". --Puellanivis 22:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Idea, what if we spin the whole web-part of Jericho off into another article. We would be able to include the detailed information about the issues between the WGA and writing webisodes, then cover each webisode seperately. Since the webisodes are quite short, and describable in about one paragraph, with the conflict explanation at top, and 23 some paragraphs after that, it still wouldn't seem like a ton of space, while on the main page, that would just run way too long. --Puellanivis 18:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about the morse code, could we maybe condense it down to "Each episode has a different morse code transmission during the presentation of the title screen. The individual page for each episode has more about each of these morse code extras." Having on the main page is just barely bearable right now, but once we get into 10+ episodes, it's going to inflate the article way too much, plus listing them all on the main page, as someone mentioned before is a bit too "stalker fan"-like. --Puellanivis 18:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As the one who created that table, it may come as a surprise to some that I agree with Puell's observations to some point. If this series does go, say, three or four seasons, and the opens continue to feature the morse snippets, then the table *will* get rather bulky for the main article. What I would not be adverse to is to move the morse table to its own page, much as was done with the episodes list. 66.90.151.114 08:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the more likely thing that will happen is to break it out into the individual episodes, most likely in the infobox, since together they don't have much context and would probably not muster up to WP:Note. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  08:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm about the only person working on the Heather Lisinski article (it's okay, she's all mine, heh, heh) and it's the same problem over there. Right now I'm briefly listing her activities in each episode, but if we get to 22 episodes this season, that list will be untenable, not to mention subsequent seasons. I plan to go back in and retcon the details at a later date. Maybe the Morse code should be handled the same way, or it's going to be a long list. 64.12.116.138 08:48, 4 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)

So noted. Just for continuity's sake, I've renamed the 11/15 episode Crossroads as well. It looked weird for the 11/15 episode to be named TBA, and the 11/22 episode to have an actual name. 199.79.222.119 17:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

TV Guide Online is now calling 11/15 Crossroads, and 11/22 Red Flag, with spoilers in the descriptions. I think we can take that as being reliable. 64.12.116.138 08:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

New city info

as per episode now showing. 204.52.215.107 01:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Argh! Keep spoilers out of headings please! -- Chuq 01:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This article needs MAJOR work!

This article is getting WAY out of control! This one article contains NINE embedded lists! FIVE of which are tablefied! Embedded lists are to be avoided at all costs in a main article as they are one of the main killers in a GA or FA peer review. This is not to say that the information in the lists is bad or that the lists need to go away entirely. They just need to be converted to paragraph form on the main page then either moved to their own separate article if warranted or merged into existing articles if possible.

Here is where the article currently stands:

• Aftermath
  • Cities: two lists one of which is tablefied. This information should probably be moved to its own article and replaced with two to three paragraphs of summary.
  • Fed Response: also two lists one of which is tablefied. This info can probably just be converted to paragraph form with no need to keep the lists unless things change and a separate article is justified later on.
  • Other Observations: one list, also easily convertible to a paragraph or two.
• Episodes: Perfect! This is exactly what it should be, we just need to expand that paragraph out a bit
• Cast and Characters: one tablefied list. We need to move List of Jericho characters to an article called Characters of Jericho and put this table at the top and then leave a summary of the main cast and characters in the main article. For example please see Lost (TV series) and Characters of Lost
• Morse Code: two lists, one tablefied. This information should probably be merged into the specific episode articles and a paragraph left in its place discussing the shows use of Morse Code.
• Ratings: one tablefied list, individual episode ratings should be listed on that episodes article, the chart can probably stay and a paragraph discussing the shows ratings and what they mean left in its place.
• Web based tie-ins: no lists! This section is fine for the most part, as previously stated the beyond Jericho portion might be a bit lengthy, also the section heading should probably be changed to “Other Media”

There you go, it’s a lot of work but if we want to get this article up to GA or FA standards this is what needs to happen to get it there. I'm going to start working on these over the next few days but feel free to do what needs to be done if you have the time. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  05:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

GA and FA is overrated. And stop shouting, you're waking up the neighbors. Kyaa the Catlord 05:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Neighbors are overrated :p -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  06:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You speak truth. :P But we should relax, the show is just started... its too early for GA/FA thoughts, imho, if we keep the quality up, the small stuff will solve itself. Kyaa the Catlord 05:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree. We're still just starting the series even... Many of the issues raised by this original comment are already known, and addressed elsewhere in the Talk page. We have plenty of time to copy-edit the article and work on it. If we had GA/FA before the first season even ended? Hah... yes, let's shoot for that ;) --Puellanivis 05:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

heh well I'm not saying we should try to hit GA/FA by seasons end, what I am saying is that right now this article is about the furthest from GA/FA that you can possibly get. Mainly I was trying to put down on paper everything that needs to be worked on so that I can move it up to the todo list to keep track of the work. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  05:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, I read through your recommendations, and most of them look really good. At this time, the other observations, should likely be left as a list, as it is really random information at ths time. We could maybe split it up, one which is cleaned up, and not random, and in paragraph form, the other there in list form for random incoming information... as people copy-edit the information from that list into the paragraphs, things will read better.  :) --Puellanivis 05:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW what happened to the map? It seems to have disappeared in the last week. It was a great image and perfect once we start moving from list form to prose.

I'll upload and link a new version of the map (showing Lawrence and Washington) in about nine hours (the original is on my machine at work). --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 06:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool I found it and put it back in if you want to just over right the existing file -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  06:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Dziban303 beat me to it. I did notice an extraneous dot in Nebraska, though... so I fixed it up and reuploaded it. I saved it as SVG, since I figured it would easier to make future edis to it. Am I correct in doing it that way? I noticed Dziban303 saved as PNG, and if that's preferred then I can change it.

I also uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. I was a new user over there when I first made the map; since new users can't replace images, I had to save my successive attempts as different versions. Now that I'm more than 4 days old on the Commons, I can overwrite previous images, and so I've done so with this one. Is that okay? I don't see much value in keeping the old versions, but maybe someone else disagrees? Let me know. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 15:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't save it as a PNG for any effective reason, I just like things that go PING! --Dziban303 17:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Rogue River

Did anyone catch the text on the road sign?

BTW, Rogue River appears to be just as fictional as Jericho. --Itinerant1 05:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I briefly noticed it at the end of the episode, but did not get a real good look at it. If Jericho was near the actual cities Oakley or Colby, then 96(ish) miles east (as indicated by sign showing Salina and Topeka) would place Rogue River at or near Hays, Kansas (if along old US 40). Hays is the city of substancial size in that part of the state. On the other hand, I believe Hays might have been mentioned in conversation at some point in time during episode 3 or 4. If this is the case, CBS might be creating a city that is in a different location.

Also, the sign stated something to the effect of "Salina 297" and "Topeka 346". I don't remember the exact numbers, but that would be impossible, since Salina is not a mere 50 miles from Topeka. (I wish, for the times I have had to drive from Lawrence to Salina.) Also of note, that would place Jericho either in extreme Eastern Colorado or right near the border in Western Kansas - depending on which city you read from. Salina is 255 miles from Colorado along I-70 and Topeka is 360 miles from Colorado along I-70. Of note, a sign in the first episode placed Jericho near Dodge City, KS when it stated "Jericho 47", "Wichita 196", and "Kansas City 374". It seems that CBS cannot solidify Jericho's location. Afarina 15:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The maps in the police station are modified versions of a DeLorme map, with Jericho replacing Ness City. You can see a screencap from the episode here[4], and a scanned copy of the real map here[5]. For easy points of comparison, look at the outline of Forrester County, the municipal airport just north of town, and the shapes of the dark red lines, especially those toward the western edge of the map.

If someone wants to use these images in this article (or better, the article about the city itself), they can E-mail Kehvan Zydhek (Google him to find an address; I'd rather not include a mailto link here). --Psiphiorg 18:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

So, does this mean that Jericho is actually where Ness City should be? Let's not revive the "location of Jericho" debate again. Also, did they not mention in episode seven that Rogue River is the county seat? Did they mention the name of the (fictional) county? 205.188.116.138 15:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the definitive answer for Jericho's location is the map on the CBS website, which shows the same three-way highway intersection as Oakley, Kansas. But in reality I think the writers are trying to keep the location fictional so we'll probably continue to get conflicting clues. If I had to bet, I'd say that Jericho is about 600 miles west of Springfield... :) --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 17:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

From memory Rogue River (Oregon) is also the location of the bandit/survivalist camp in the novel "The Postman" by David Brin (which is also about small communities surviving after massive disaster) Almightyjosh

You're absolutely right, Josh... good call! The Postman does feature Rogue River. I can't believe that's coincidental... it seems that another post-apocalyptic homage is at play here (along with Lawrence, Kansas). --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 17:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll be looking forward to Fort Repose in a future episode! 152.163.100.138 08:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The dialogue in episode seven says that Rogue River is "90 miles away" from Jericho, and is the county seat. The road sign says "Rogue River 93", so that sign is probably supposed to be just outside of Jericho (actually, it looks a lot like the stretch of road seen in the pilot that featured the other road sign). The (fictional) county in which both Jericho and Rogue River are located is Fillmore County, based on the sign shown on the building in Rogue River, which reads "Fillmore County Hospital" (this is starting to feel like playing fantasy baseball with players that don't really exist) BTW, does anyone know where the "downtown" shots of Rogue River were filmed? The empty streets look like a real downtown area, and not some backlot. 152.163.100.138 17:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Mayor and Antibiotics: Why you need to keep speculation out of the way

Of course, if he did have just the flu, antibiotics wouldn't be of any help at all. From a medical viewpoint, the only good reason he would be on antibiotics is if he got a bacterially infectious pneumonia in his weakened state caused by the flu. Of course, the fact that the show isn't very accurate about this is simply an indication of how various other small factors in the show should not be blown out of proportion. Such as the actual location of Jericho, the date, etc. As always, it's important to realize that we're dealing with a non-self-consistent world, and that canonical information may conflict with reality, or with inferences that could be deduced from other material. So, just a nice friendly reminder that speculation is a VERY bad idea in any TV show, and especially in this TV series. Any show that would be so inconsistent with reality as to say "The flu is getting really bad, he needs more antibiotics!" should not be confused to be self-consistent even with itself.  ;) --Puellanivis 23:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The line about "canonical information conflicting with reality" is a good one when it comes to this series. Oh, and the official CBS site does say that he's suffering from the flu, but since the flu can't be cured by any antibiotic, we can presume it's a secondary infection on top of the flu that requires medication. I'll make that presumption here, but not in the main article. 152.163.100.138 08:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Robert Hawkins's 55 gallon drum and the ICBM/EMP

As seen in episode 2, Robert Hawkin's is moving a 55 gallon drum into his house, and used cement blocks to hide it. Now that it is revealed that a 20 kt nuclear device was discovered in NYC in a 55 gallon drum, it seems very plausable that Robert Hawkins is on the wrong side of all this.

Also, one of my coworkers speculated that the US launced the ICBM's to neutralize any remaine 55 gallon drum nukes. The reasoning being that Lawrence is a pretty small target, and that therefor the attack must be much more massive than we believe. Therefore, the best way to neutralize this widespread and continuing attack is to unleash an EMP on ourselves to destroye the circutry on the remaining bombs. That is, as long as the drums didn't act like a Faraday_cage

I seem to recall Hawkins' drum being plastic and orange. Someone please correct me, if I'm wrong. This is all speculation anyways, but as long as we're speculating, the series really has no reason to have Hawkins be a bad guy. He's helping the town out, instead he could have just blown everyone up. Why have a sophisticated communications system set up if you're just going to blow yourself up? There's not really a need for that much coordination. And to carry an EMP-proof (such things as "X-proof" exist on TV) laptop, when the most likely nuclear explosion to hit it would vaporize it? It's a passing consideration, bt does not stand up to any scrutiny. --Puellanivis 04:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Just checked on CBS's intertube, and it's a black metal drum. Here is the full plan as put forward by my friend. You nuke the big cities, then have a 2nd round to decimate the new population center(where the survivors migrate to, like the FEMA camp in Rogue River). And who says he was going to detonate it in Jericho. Either way, it's pretty obvious that Hawkins knew about the attacks ahead of time due to the suppiles he has, and therefore should be considered a bad guy

Prior knowledge of the attacks does not imply that he is a bad guy. There is no evidence to say that Hawkins is a bad guy, and except for his suspicious actions that seem similar to the plot, which was stopped in New York, there is nothing to suggest that he should be a bad guy. He is very concerned with how to survive a nuclear blast, was prepared to survive the nuclear blast. If he were working as a secondary-line terrorist there would be no need for the vast majority of any that he has. He simply need have the drum with nuclear device somewhere safe, where it won't be found, no need for continued conversation with co-conspirators once implanted. While evidence certainly exists to suspect Hawkins as a "bad guy", it is still far too much of a stretch considering the very strong contradicting evidence available in the series. --Puellanivis 06:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

We are not SHOWN that Hawkins is building a wall around this barrel. We see the start of a wall near it, we do not see a corner being turned or this wall being completed. That could just be start of of his secret office. --Vincentfox 00:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Attacked cities

I've cleaned up the attacked cities. The information was totally dispursed and unusable in the previous form. The current form is in a simple list organized by city. The evidence for and against the city is presented in prose.

Sorting of the list is based on how likely the event is, with Denver being the most certain, Atlanta next, (as both have reasonable direct evidence), the Chinese Broadcast and Hawkins' map are treated with equal credibility. First listed are things confirmed by both, Pilot recollections are given insignificant weight, as is any other source. New York and Topeka are given last as they are cities which have direct evidence that they survived (except, you know... Jericho.) --Puellanivis 04:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's much harder to read now. I liked the table better 65.198.92.73 06:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur - It's harder to read now. If someone was going to remove the table, could they have at least placed in in a seperate linked article? 69.125.143.139 13:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The table isn't gone, it's still in the history, you're just as capable as I at extracting the table and making it nito a seperately linked article. --Puellanivis 15:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Being a Newbie here, I'm not familiar with doing that 69.125.143.139 15:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and extracted out the version just prior to my change, it appears under this heading --Puellanivis 15:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that it is against Wikipedia style/rules to have multiple articles with the same information, just formatted differently. The reasoning for that is that if there were multiple versions of many articles, then the information in them would start to get out of sync, which defeats the point of Wikipedia. So please don't do that. Put it in a sub page of your user page (which you don't have, because you are not registered) - so register an account, then put it in a sub page of your user page, then update it as much as you want :P -- Chuq 00:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I would ask you to please consult the many people who have commented in this discussion page about what a mess this article is, and this particular section especially! I feel that general concensus is that two lists under the same heading is a bad idea, not to mention, I cleaned out a LOT of the information that was either inconsistent, speculative, or just plain redundant. The table listed each city that the Chinese news broadcast declared as hit, and THEN it had in the list a note mentioning the news broadcast, and again listing all of the cities seperately.

In the future, I believe it would be much better to provide constructive criticism about edits. The previous section was a total mess, and I can only imagine that if someone didn't think that it was a mess, they never really looked at it. Disorganized and random information does not make it better than nice and neat, no matter how much more information it may have had. I would ask you to recommend what could be added, deleted or changed on the current list to make it better, rather than just implying that you would like a revert, as I don't believe anyone wants to see a revert to that mess. --Puellanivis 06:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition, unless it's corrections of typos or really minor data points, I would like to stronly suggest that it would be far better if the edits were discussed *BEFORE* actually being implemented. Some of the vehemence and hard feelings between two particular contributors could have most likely been avoided had the one making the changes offered those changes for discussion before making them. 66.243.163.194 10:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was kind of working under the assumption that people would have commented that they thought the table was fine in the many many posts above that declare that the section was in need of serious work. In the future I will be sure to run any major changes like this past the discussion page. --Puellanivis 15:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that we know that NYC survived, should we be giving the chinese news broadcast reduced credibility?

I can agree to that, but we still don't know what Hawkins' map's source is, so we cannot evaluate its crediblity, either. Hawkins did seem surprised that NYC was not attacked. As it is, neither Hawkins nor the Chinese new broadcast have any firm credibility in this matter. I suppose the best answer to all of this, would be if the person left in the line of sucession were to come out on TV and actually say which cities were hit. Recall, the blast in Denver happened during the State of the Union, and since all evidence suggests that the blasts were simultaneous, that most of the line of sucession is likely gone. --Puellanivis 15:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if they haven't given us a clue here. The Chinese map clearly shows New York City as attacked. In episode seven, we learned that it was thwarted. Did the Chinese presume that their attack on New York City had succeeded, since it was one of the cities they had targeted? This is all speculation, I'm not doing anything with it, other than bringing it up as a point of interest. They might also have just as easily mistaken the attack on Philadelphia for New York City. 152.163.100.138 09:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

One thing I've noticed over the years (and if there are any foreigners here feel free to chime in) is that people who are not from this country often don't have a full concept of how large it is, or the proper perspective of the location of the cities. I still run into people who think it's possible to drive to LA in a day from NY, or that NY, Philly and DC are much closer than they really are. On a map, especially a rough map, it can be very hard to distinguish between NY and Philly, or Philly and DC, just as it's difficult to separate LA from SD. A little bit of artistic licence from an experienced graphic artist, and a totally different city is represented. So, overall...it's all just speculation. Capricorn74 12:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll take you a step further and say that Easterners (of which I am one) have no idea just how spread out the West is. I lived in Phoenix for two years and I never got used to the interstate signs pointing to Los Angeles, which is 500 miles away, but if you take I-10, there isn't much between the two cities. Ditto for Westerners who just don't realize how close the cities are back East by comparison. Perspective is everything. I just wondered if the "Jericho" writers weren't throwing us a clue to the proceedings by pegging NYC on the Chinese map, then revealing that the attack was thwarted. By the way, not to get OT, but on the presumption that there aren't two users named Capricorn74 interested in Jericho, I truly enjoyed what you wrote on another site and made a comment about it there. 152.163.100.138 12:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The news brodcast was always speculative. Although it seems official, the Chinese are lacking a complete list of cities, and have reported NYC which is incorrect. Possible they were behind it, and did not know NYC attack failed (as NYC was planned). 24.13.6.251 05:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm from the south-west, where thngs are very spred out, but you're also able to whiz around pretty quickly between towns. While New Mexico is approximately the same size as Germany (German Air Force actually trains there, percisely for this reason) you can't travel the same distances in the same amount of time (well, over land anyways.) For example, I looked at a map of Germany, and the distance between two of my friends is like, hardly anything... to me, it's like "why can't you travel that distance in an hour?" It was a total surprise when it turns out, that it wold take like 4 hours to travel between the two. I heard a story about a German who was taken to the US and sent off to a prison camp, and they put them on an enclosed train, and sent them off to the west, the prisoners were sure that they were just travelling in circles, because there was no way that they could be going in a straight line.  ;) Anyways, my speculation on China reporting that NY was hit, was that it dismissed them as a possibility, as their reporters would have been signifcantly more accurate if the Chinese had actually done it. --Puellanivis 05:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

And wtf is the deal with Lawrence? As a non-American it has been the first city mentioned which cause me to think "WTF is that?" Lawrence, Kansas tells me it has a population of under 100,000. Is there something special there that would make it relevant? -- Chuq 09:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the movie The Day After the storyline centers around the citizens of Kansas City and Lawrence. Kansas City, of course, gets walloped, but Lawrence survives and becomes kind of a central gathering place for survivors. The University of Kansas is there, including the university hospital, which I believe is a teaching hospital. So it could be either a) the writers paying homage to TDA, or b) taking out a major medical center and all of its staff. 199.79.222.119 16:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the writers are paying homage to The Day After. KU's medical center is actually in Kansas City, Kansas, so a nuke on Lawrence would certainly be bad for KU Med, but it wouldn't completely destroy it. (See http://www.kumc.edu ). There's a small clinic on the Lawrence campus, but nothing worth wasting a nuke on. RedRollerskate 03:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That then raises the question, why nuke both KC and Lawrence? Or, could it be possible that KC was not actually attacked, and the pilot(s) was/were mistaken, seeing the mushroom cloud over Lawrence and assuming it was KC? Or is Gray's story just a red herring? *sigh* Too many questions, not enough answers! MikeFTM 22:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, btw, this is my actual user account. The ip address 199.79.222.199 is from my work computer. I don't like to sign in to stuff from work, so I do all my stuff there anon. MikeFTM 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a college town, and to my knowledge there is nothing there that would make it a wartime target. Knowning that Lawrence was hit changes a lot, though; before Gray's report, I think the general assumption was that only the real big cities were hit. If Lawrence was hit, though, that means a hundred other smaller cities across the U.S. could also have been targets.

Not to launch into too much speculation here, but that opens up some interesting possibilities. If the people of Jericho could see a mushroom cloud over Denver, then they would surely see one over Colorado Springs (the home of NORAD) and Pueblo. Wichita (which is about as far from Jericho as Denver is) might also have been a target, since its population is more than three times that of Lawrence. As has been mentioned before, Denver is not visible from western Colorado (nor are there any real mountains anywhere in the vicinity). If the bad guys unleashed Tsar Bomba upon the city of Denver, then maybe, but Gray said the NYC bomb they intercepted was only 20 kilotons.

A possible answer to this is that the mushroom cloud seen in the first episode could have been over one of the smaller cities closer to the Kansas border, say Limon or Sterling. There are no towns between Denver and Kansas that have a population of more than fifty or sixty thousand. But if Lawrence was hit....

It seems like those in Jericho would be able to visually estimate the distance, though, so I'm more inclined to chalk it up to "hey, it's just a tv show!". But it does remind us that the people of Jericho (and we at home) don't know anything for sure, which is one thing that seems pretty realistically done in the show.

And I was going to say something about The Day After as well, but 199.79.222.119 beat me to it. Must... type... faster...! --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 16:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol, sorry. I have this job, you see, where I really don't do a whole lot, and I spend the vaaaaaaaaaast majority of my time reading wiki articles and posting on message boards. :P 199.79.222.119 18:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been to Sterling, Colorado, and can't see why anyone would want to nuke that town, other than the fact that I couldn't find an open gas station after 9 PM that night. I can't speak for Limon. Heh! I think the bomb was Denver, just like everyone said, and the perspective of the view is just all wrong in the real world. 152.163.100.138 12:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

New Orleans: Gone Or Continuity Error?

Since we're not sure if New Orleans was in fact attacked, or if the missing pushpin was just a continuity error, should this city be listed as actually having been attacked? I'm wondering if it's inclusion as such is more speculation than fact. 66.243.163.194 10:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Technically most cities in the list are included on the basis of them "possibly" having been attacked. Only a few (like Denver) are definite. New Orleans is just as much a "possibly attacked" city as the rest of the list. -- Chuq 11:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Morse Code Table

Please restore the Morse Code table to the main article, or create its own page and add a link. Thx. 24.242.148.169 02:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It would not be an ideal thing to do to return the Morse Code table directly to the article. We have already discussed that this table would eventually become incredibly unwieldy and only hinder the article itself. That withstanding, you are perfectly within your position to start the page that you are suggesting, people will add and build upon your contribution... no one person need feel the burden that they must do a perfect job on wikipedia. I would actually welcome a page exclusively covering the Morse Code from each series. --Puellanivis 06:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The code is quite adequately represented on individual episode pages. Adding it here won't help this article - I believe an earlier analogy was to The Simpsons article, which doesn't list all of the show's blackboard jokes. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually find it *easy* to -miss- in that small box. The original table should be restored, but as I pointed out above as the series progresses it would be more apropos if it were restored to it's own page. 66.90.151.114 02:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Does this really need to be discussed in three separate sections in the article? See my reply at the bottom of the Morse notation section above. Also consider the fact that you are suggesting an entire article dedicated to the morse code signals at the beginning of Jericho episodes - that seems a little over the top? I suggest you go and start jerichopedia.com or something. (That's not a roundabout way of being rude by the way - check out www.lostpedia.com, for example - a fantastic site, complements the Lost articles in Wikipedia quite well, and is a great resource for all things Lost - and to no detriment to Wikipedia's Lost coverage.) -- Chuq 03:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Just added semi-protection as a very short-term solution. A moderator can monitor this from now on.

I think with the show actually promoting the address on national TV contributed to so many edits.

I had requested it no more than 2 mins ago --Mikecraig 10:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This place was badly vadanlised. I've reverted. --Shaoken 10:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Confirmed. My local TV station just tagged their broadcast of Lost Jericho with "Do you like conspiracy theories? Type 'Jericho (TV series)' into http:en.wikipedia.org... blah blah" --Monotonehell 11:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If they did that then protection is a bad idea. Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk · contribs · count · email) 11:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Is there anyway we can figure out what they wanted when sending everyone here? Cause I just saw the link myself. --Shaoken 11:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

They want people to catch up on the plot so far. The longer the series goes on the harder it becomes for people to start watching because so much knowledge of the plot is assumed. --202.139.23.204 12:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not in the US - what exactly happened? Sounds very interesting, sending people here to read speculation (and potentially add their own), when that is exactly what we are trying to get rid off. Thanks, CBS (or whoever did it!) -- Chuq 12:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The same end promo at the end of the episode was also aired on Network Ten Australia, but with the wrong address (missing the en). I presume it was the same wherever the show is simulcasted with the CBS airing. - Boochan 13:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Other articles involved: It also seems that VmillerKS (talk · contribs) is a dedicated spam account operated by the producers/writers/publicists, and had created some (now deleted) articles Jennings and Rall and Ravenwood Solutions (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravenwood Solutions). -- Chuq 12:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There has been constant anonymous vandalism, and it turns out the page wasn't semi-protected as claimed, so I have done it for now. I don't think it should need to be there for too much longer, once the initial hype dies down. -- Chuq 22:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I second this, so long as the protection is eventually lifted. Lifted as in a couple of weeks, and not permanent. Thanks. Geoffrey Mitchell 00:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)