Talk:List of Jericho episodes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Morse Code title sequence

I have reversed the deletion of the morse code translations of the title sequence.

I beleive the placement of this information here is the best place. It does not belong on the main Jericho page as a list it will make the page very long. It also does not belong on a separate page as it is a fork that is un-nessesary. It also seems (we are only 4 episodes in) that each translation will be different and seems to be about that specific episode. To address the inevitable claim of original research, the morse code is simply a comunication in another "language" just as the chinese characters on the broadcast map were included as a translation in the main article.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 14:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A) It belongs in the episode article its self, b) externious info past 2 lines = messy table, c) This is a table of synopsises for the episode. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Since the infoboxes for the individual episodes have been modified to include the morse code sequences and their translations, I've removed the separate morse code sections from the articles. Not only was the information redundant, but it was also largely speculative in regards to the meanings behind the messages in a few cases. 199.79.222.119 17:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page revisions and reversals

Mr Fenton, you seem very protective of this page. Anytime that changes are made to the table that do not reflect your esthetic style you reverse them with out any discussion. The esthetic issues are simply the way you see the article on your screen. The display is effected by each individual viewer's a) screen size, b) window size, c) font size and d) screen resolution. The reversal of content has happended with:

  • the size of the screen caps,
  • inclusion of the ratings,
  • more then two lines of summary, and
  • the inclusion of the morse code translations - they can exist in both the summary table and also the episode article itself.

I would suggest your behavour seems indicitive of you believing you own this article. I would suggest reading over WP:OWN. The changes people have made are them being bold and while you may not like the things done, I think it is incumbent that you should discuss these things rather then just delete them.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 18:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've checked on both 800*600, 1024, and 1280, page renders well in all three, morse code does not belong here - common sense dictates that this page be for episode synopsises. You'll likely find that all my changes benefit this article, while having unrelated OR does not. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
HAW! 66.90.151.114 20:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It is interesting that you quote the essay common sense, I would say that it is common sense that the portion of the opening sequence of a television show that changes with each episode very much fits within the definition of a summary of the episode. Furthermore, I would like to quote some very intersting sections of the essay which I feel completely support my comments.
  • "The problem is that no definition of common sense readily exists. The danger this leads to is the possibility that a user will confuse common sense with 'the way they would do it.' "
  • "In practical terms, this means that when you are doing something and justifying it with common sense, you should run it by some other people"
Thanks for pointing me to a new essay to add to my discussion toolbelt.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 19:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Morse code doesnt summarise the episode, and its blatently OR and unverifiable unless you know morse code - I have no problem with it being on an episode page though where it is more uited to the episode at a whole, where as this should sumamrise the plot line of an episode.; in fact the morse code is already at Jericho (TV series) anyway. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
It's a bit like User:Khaosworks with Doctor Who articles - he knows more than quite a few people concerning the show. But yeah, I agree, Morse code is rather OR, and doesn't really fit into the episode list (for example, #4's, "He knows Rob", would confuse rather than explain) Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 19:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
But where does the morse codes belong then? I, for one, are curious about learning their meaning. That was the sole reason why a bothered too look out this page. 193.217.148.50 20:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
It's on the individual episode pages. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Aha! Finally found them. I kept looking at the bottom of the pages, at the Trivia-section ... 193.217.148.50 20:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

IMHO shouldn't this TV show have those kind of episode-intro-info details set up in the same way as, say, The Simpsons or Futurama intro bits?

[edit] Proper spacing

Okay, this might be a tad nitpicky of me, but it's in my horrible Virgo nature so I can't help it. Can we please remember that, when typing, you need to doublespace after sentence-ending punctuation? My perfectionistic, constantly-proofreading eyes keep catching missing spaces at the end of sentences in the episode synopses, and I can't stop myself from correcting them. It would be one thing if it was every once in a while, or just the odd typo here and there, but it's a constant, pervasive thing. 199.79.222.119 18:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Double spacing is wrong. Deus (talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you can point me to some kind of specific source for your assertion, I might be more inclined to believe you. However, being a professional data entry operator for many years, and having taken many months of executive assistant training in the past, I'm fairly confident in my previous statement. 199.79.222.119 18:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah... now I understand why MF was reverting your edits. A comment from him on his edits would have helped, of course, and double spacing is certainly not "wrong", as he claimed. I agree with 199.79.222.119 - using two spaces IS much clearer, making the text more readable. However, I believe that the Wikipedia standard is to use one space, and the software may even do so automatically. (I'll try to double-check this.) --Ckatzchatspy 18:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
You learning how to operate a type writer does not make you correct (Also consider looking at my name) - Also read: Double_spacing#Spacing_after_full_stop, double spacing is a waste of time as it'll never get rendered. Deus (talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate the double-check, Ckatz, thanks. Now then, I didn't just "learn how to operate a typewriter," Matthew. I also learned a great deal about proper grammar, sentence structure, punctuation, and spacing for typewritten documents, in addition to a touch of accounting, transcription, shorthand, and probably a few other things I've since forgotten. I'm beginning to understand why others refer to you as some kind of "wikinazi" or "wikigestapo." Your heavy-handed style of "I'm right, you're wrong, that's all there is to it" is absurd at the very least. And before you go off on one of your "anonymous user" rants, I'd like to remind you that I've identified myself a couple of times now, and why I edit under an anonymous ip address while at work. 199.79.222.119 19:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
You may of learnt xyz, it is still however inapr. for you to convert pages to your liking. You'll find 66. calls me a wikinazi because he doesnt get his way. Deus (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
By that standard, if you were to horrifyingly misspell several words, and someone else were to correct them, you could revert the edit just because you think it's right. Also, I've found that 66 refers to you as a "wikinazi" because you seem to have this "papa bear" attitude towards the whole of the Jericho article set, and get extremely territorial if anyone makes an edit that doesn't conform to your personal vision of what the whole thing should look like. 66 is not the only one who think so either. I've glanced at your talk page a couple of times, and seen plenty of other instances where other editors have questioned your motives, as well as the Jericho talk pages. You might want to consider just why people would feel this way, rather than just jumping to a knee-jerk reaction of "they're not getting their way." I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, until "double spacing is wrong." No explanation, no reasoning, just "I'm right, you're wrong, so there." 199.79.222.119 19:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Be serious.. You aint explained why an extraneous second spacing would be added because you like it? Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk • contribs) 19:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Er, yeah I did. In my first statement, and my first rebuttal to you. *sigh* I didn't come here to get into a pissing contest with you, Matthew. I came here because I enjoy contributing to this body of work. I enjoy the show, and I want to help make sure that if, for some reason, somebody is unable to view an episode or (God forbid) the whole series, they can still get a good idea of the meat of the subject. Well, that, and I have little else better to do right now. My "job" right now isn't really providing me with much "work" to do. Alas, I get paid to sit here and futz around on the intarwebs. O woe is I. 199.79.222.119 19:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The only reason you provided is that you prefer 2 spaces - either way its extraneous and unrequired. Adding two spaces (imo) makes etxt very hard to read. Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk • contribs) 19:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
That's a very bass ackwards argument. Your reason for not doing so is because you don't like it. My reasons were based on training, and years of practical use and experience. *shrug* Evidently it's 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other, based on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_archive_(spaces_after_a_full_stop/period) and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Spaces_after_the_end_of_a_sentence. I suppose I should thank you for instigating my search for further information. In the future, however, I'd prefer you did so in a less antagonistic, "my way or the highway" manner. 199.79.222.119 20:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "consider looking at my name" - if it looks like a Matthew Fenton edit, and (more importantly) if it is signed by MatthewFenton in the history, than it is a MF edit. Not sure why you're signing as "Deus", but whatever... Anyways, it's a good idea to fill out the edit comment when you revert, or else the edit might appear suspect. --Ckatzchatspy 19:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Do a translation, hehe Template:Emot. Deus (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware of the translation, thanks - it still doesn't answer why you're doing that. I'd hazard a guess that User:Deus would probably prefer that you stopped. You might wish to read this Wikipedia guideline, specifically the part that says "Signatures that obscure your account name to the casual reader may be seen as disruptive." --Ckatzchatspy 19:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Doesnt obscure it in the slightest as it is clickable, ;-) -- Eitehr way .. changed it for you :)! Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk • contribs) 19:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I invoke Godwin's Law! But seriously, I don't see it get rendered. Will (message ♪) 19:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Tsk. Some things *never* change around here. Matthew goes off on a wanton edit spree, gets called down on it, and Will steps up to be his savior and throw his admin weight around to back it up. Even though Matthew's right about the double-spacing after the punctuation, it still escapes that he doesn't realize that the way he handles himself - editing without explaining and/or hiding behind some obteuse Wikirule like mentioning the rule should make his edits unchallengable - it is what shoots his boat through the magazine and sinks it out from under him. At the same time, I can't help but wonder if his overconfidence has something to do with the fact that he and his savior, Will, re both teenage schoolboys in Englandland and are good friends?

This is a disappointment. I'm gone for a couple of months, and these two British schoolboys continue to lord over the Jericho articles. Which begs the question: how *do* -British- schoolboys watch an *American* TV series? Could they be pirating episodes off the Internet? CBS's official website blocks all IP addresses from outside the USA, so they can't be watching it legally, can they? 24.227.251.199 03:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I smell very severe "Old Boys' Network" bias going on here, people, and if Godwin were here - yes, I know him very well - he'd make the same observation.

Bit accusations aside, I'm going to make a passioned plea here to both Matthew and Will: Please, you two - the season's about to start anew. The two of you kindly keep the Wikinazi games out of it this time and don't ruin it for everyone else like you did during the first half. I can see stepping in when things get out of hand, but this bit about double-spacing is so fracking anal that it's just too damn disgusting to tolerate, regardless of what "admin" games Will will attempt to play. This time, act like adults, and don't screw things up for everyone else here, ok? Enough's enough. If you want to guide, fine, but acting like a couple of little Hitlers just won't work. Sixty Six 06:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


According to the Chicago Manual of Style (CMS), the double spacing was originally used as a way to ensure characters didn't get crammed together. With the advent of the word processors and the computerization, the need for double-spacing was rendered to be only user preference. Please feel free to contact CMS and browse their frequently asked questions page for specifics on this obviously touchy topic. Happy Thanksgiving to all!

I can second this one. Having worked in the print journalism industry, I can testify - gee, that's not "original research", is it? - that double-spacing is no longer required save for some local courts which require submitted documents have the double-spacing after punctuation marks. The irony here is that they require it because they're using older scanners and OCR software, and this helps reduce scanning interpretation error, and the documents produced themselves are *stripped* of the extra space! Sixty Six 06:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode summaries

Tweaked these a little this morning as some of the earlier ones still read like coming attractions. I also added in episode 11, although we don't know much about it yet, except that it's their season-ending cliffhanger for the fall. 205.188.117.5 14:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 episodes

Does it make sense to add the Feb 14 and Feb 21 episodes to the list? We don't have titles, but we know that the Feb 14 episode is a recap, and that Feb 21 focuses on the day before the attacks. I'd say Feb 14 probably doesn't count as an episode for numbering purposes. 205.188.117.5 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why we couldn't add Feb. 21st episode.. would need to be cited and try to avoid any serious depth into the episode :). Matthew Fenton (talk • contribs) 00:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Making it even easier, the cite already exists (#1, the "split season" from Zap-to-It) and can certainly be re-used. While it is a "future event", the existence isn't speculative since CBS has announced the episodes. --Ckatzchatspy 06:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Preview clips available on whodroppedthebomb.com are available for Episodes 12 (recap - what is actually going on during the series of rapid fire scenes is speculative of course) and Episode 13 (short clip where Jake, his father, Dale and Heather drive into Black Jack Fairgrounds which has been turned into trading post - the clip ends with a sighting of a theif hanging from a gallows.

How do we know the titles of the two February episodes? Would someone cite them --Zr2d2 02:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Production code

Further information: Wikipedia:WikiProject List of Television Episodes/structure#Standard table

According to the guidelines for an LOE, production codes should be part of each season. I am adding them a second time, since for some reason they were deleted. —Cliff smith 03:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted the addition again:
  1. TV.com is not verifiable (Someone else has also added different production codes before..)
  2. There is no guideline stating LOEs must have production codes (nor do all of them actually have them..)
  3. There is also no "guideline" on that WikiProject page, there is an example table..
HTH HAND. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "IMDb not verifiable"

I earnestly look forward to the person who made this claim (in the edit history) supporting said claim with documentation, justification, or rationale. Aside from user comments, submissions are reviewed by IMDb database editors: "They will be examined and if approved will be included in a future update." If there is a Wikipedia policy on same, let it also be quoted. 209.244.187.29 09:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Return to Jericho

Has the morse code for "Return to Jericho" been translated, and is there an appropriate place to post it, given the (understandable) lack of an episode page? --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 14:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it'd make a bit of sense to have an episode page for "Return to Jericho." Although it was mainly flashback snippets (some of which were out of order), there was the Hawkins voice-over as well as the various morse code bits. If it were me, I'd do it as Hawkins voice-over, morse code, snippet a, snippet b, etc, lather, rinse, repeat. Any other opinions? MikeFTM 06:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Most shows don't generally have pages for their specials but if you can think of enough to write I don't see a big problem my self as long as it has potential to grow. Somebody has linked it now as well. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episodes yet to air

They should really have citations so that they can be attributed to a reliable source. Cliff smith 01:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renewed or not?

I've noticed most my other shows around this time have been updated on Wikipedia in regards to if they are being renewed for another season or not, both new shows and old ones. I don't see anything on that here though. Am I just missing it, or has it not been revealed if another season of Jericho will follow this one?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_Jericho_episodes_699a.html"