Talk:Jericho (TV series)/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Terrorism?

Does anyone else doubt that you could really class the group that caused the explosions as terrorists? It seems to me they were less interested in creating terror and more interested in totally shattering the USAs political system, persumably so that they could gain from the chaos. --Feanix 23:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The bombs were meant to disrupt all of American society or perhaps end it all together (at least as it existed before the bombs). If it was just political, taking out Congress, The President, VP and other high ranking officials during the Joint Session of Congress depicted in "The Day Before" would have sufficed; this many cities is total overkill. Bombs going off in up to 2 dozen of Americas largest cities would definitely terrorize the entire populace, and not just in the cities bombed. People would probably flee even unbombed cities. People who would gain are people who wanted America to mind its own business and withdraw its armed forces from around the world to deal with the chaos back home. If something like this happened the world would likely be plunged into a worldwide Depression making the 1930s look tame by comparison. You dont just cripple the worlds biggest economy, nation of consumers and financial network and not have dire consequences as a result. The ripple effects from such an attacks are huge. This is one of the big drawbacks of the current world economy so dependent on international trade and financial activity. ANONYMOUS 22:14, 10 March 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.253.4.97 (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

COUNTDOWN webisodes

Is there any place where a summary of each COUNTDOWN episode from the CBS Jericho website exists? If not: while its not in the program itself it does tell what the Robert Hawkins character is up to before the Pilot episode takes place. It could be added within each corresponding episode. As of now, 1/24/07, Webisodes 1-3, 6-11 have been made available on www.whodroppedthebomb.com. Anonymous 24 January 2007


Fate of Los Angeles and other cities

Why isn't St. Louis still represented on the main wiki-article map? It was on the main terrorist database-screen as a target city, and there are cities not on Hawkins's and the Black Jack maps that we know were hit, but this one's still missing? There hasn't been any evidence suggesting that the city wasn't hit — and before anyone brings up the St. Louis Air National Guard F-16s, keep in mind that such bases keep fighters in the air around the clock, and these jets were in the sky at the exact moment of the attacks, per the airline pilots' radio-chatter. They likely would've been among the last survivors of that base if the bomb detonated close enough to it, and would've had to re-divert.

In light of the massive lack of evidence in favor the city surviving, I propose that it be re-added to the main map again until and unless such evidence presents itself on the show. --The Bandsaw Vigilante 15:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Also, it now occurs to me that Norfolk, VA is likewise missing from the Wikipedia map, which appeared on Hawkins's basement map in the episode "A.K.A." --The Bandsaw Vigilante 16:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


I don't recall Los Angeles being marked on Hawkins' map, nor on the Chinese broadcast (looked more like San Francisco to me) which is already suspect as truly reliable (New York survived, Philadelphia did not, for example)... does anyone know of a screengrab or something to back that up? --Brad Rousse 22:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone here really needs to watch the cbs innertube episodes. at the end of them is a preview with some powerful spoiler info. be sure that someone gets a screen cap of the map that jake looks at. it contains info on more cities that were destroyed and a couple that were reported destroyed that survived. 74.69.152.33 05:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

On the Jericho Wiki site there is a screen capture of the map you are referring to. It has new cities like Pittsburgh, some place in Southern Utah, Raleigh Durham NC, Houston TX and Phoenix AZ. But doesnt include St. Louis or New Orleans. There are also mysterious white dots that some think are FEMA camps. Scroll down to the photos section: (the infamous Boston red dot childs map that Wikipedia editors dont like is there too)
http://jerichowiki.cbs.com/page/Attack+Timeline
I cant find this map on the previews, but it may have been leaked by CBS since its on their Wiki site and if it wasnt real Im sure it would be gone by now.
Also of note is that on the main page for this article it say that Baltimore was hit. If you listen to the interview with the mystery woman, she is referring to traffic issues between "Washington and Ground Zero and Baltimore [and] Ground Zero - inferring that the bomb went off in between the 2 cities - possibly in a suburb of DC.
Anonymous JAN 23 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.219.235.164 (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
I'm a bit confused about where Sarah was in relation to D.C. when the bombs went off. In the Mystery Woman interviews, she states she was "30 miles" away from D.C., and later bears witness to the "chaos" on the roads between D.C. and Baltimore. If she was 30 miles away from D.C. on a road within the Baltimore/Washington corridor, she would have been well within the Baltimore blast radius. She also says she was on her way to Richmond, which would place her outside of D.C.'s blast radius and well away from Baltimore's... but then how would she know about the chaos on the Baltimore/Washington corridor highways? Korteenea 05:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Charlotte was the city in NC, not Raleigh/Durham

Following the episode 12 teaser, surely the map needs an update? 203.23.239.106 05:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In the past, we have been waiting until episodes actually air before adding this type information... sometimes scenes that show up in trailers do not make it to the actual episodes. The information from the episode 12 trailer had been removed before, pursuant to this, but it's been replaced; I figure there's no reason to start an edit war about it since the point will probably be moot tomorrow.
I've been maintaining the map and I'm planning to update it Thursday morning after episode 12 airs. Of course, this is Wikipedia, so if someone else wants to fire up an SVG editor and update the map themself before I get to it, there's nothing stopping them. :) --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 05:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've updated the map now that "Black Jack" aired; I've also created this map that shows the regional capitals, if anyone thinks it would be appropriate to include anywhere. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 20:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites and regional capitals
Attack sites and regional capitals

Toby, that's a terrific resource, and I think it ought to be on the main page. One comment: I think the capitals should be green stars (as they were on the map in "Black Jack"), which would require changing the green dot that marks Jericho itself. This would bring it directly in line with what we saw in the series. 209.244.189.26 04:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to change the color of the dots of the "disputed" cities, like Cincinnati and KC as well. I don't recall the stars on the Black Jack map being green though. I thought they were either white or a very pale yellow. Either way, I'd like to see this map replace the current on one the front page that only shows the attacked cities. I think it displays the information in a much more visually appealing way than just a map of the attacked cities and a table stating the regional capitals. MikeFTM 10:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your observation. BTW, the stars were white in the preview for the episode, but green in the aired episode itself. I have no real idea why that was done. 209.244.187.29 10:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In Black Jack it was noted that Tallahassee, Florida survived since as the capital of Florida, it was supporting the president in Montgomery, Alabama. Should Tallahassee be listed on cities that survived? --Napnet 04:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


Isn't it time to clean up the cities destroyed (re: New Orleans, Kansas City, Cincinatti)? I mean none of these has ever been mentioned as attacked (save Cincinatti) and they've never appeared on any of the maps, targeted city lists, etc. Also, just added Tallahassee as requested to the survivor cities (since it was explicitly mentioned), but who put up Lincoln- never heard anything about Lincoln. Also, that list is going to get pretty big, since only 23 bombs went off and there's like 10,000 cities in the US. 68.54.240.28 03:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"wiki/Jericho (tv series)" advertised on Australian national tv

This page has been advertised on Australias Ten Network. The ad goes "Do love conspiracy theories? Then you will love Jericho. Go to wikipedia.org and type in "Jericho (tv series)". I've never even heard wikipedia mentioned on our national tv, let alone using a direct page as part of an ad. JayKeaton 12:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw the ad too, maybe need to watch out for viral marketing? 144.131.192.97 13:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

it may be wise to contact ten network and tell them to stop the ad series 220.238.142.32 15:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering the nature of some of the main article edits of late, I wonder if the comment about conspiracy theories might have a somewhat different meaning. Sixty Six 19:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Network Ten would only have done similar to what the US would do as they buy the content from the US network and they would do similar advertising/promo of the show...strange that they would promote wikipedia but thinking that the "official" site for Jericho is a CBS one..I am sure they would not want to promote a overseas TV network. --Mikecraig 21:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the "Semi-protection" section above. The writers/producers/publicists have already been caught trying to use Wikipedia for viral marketing. Has this campaign been seen anywhere apart from CBS and Network Ten? -- Chuq 21:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

One thing that can be a bit frustrating is where the media talks about wikipedia (especially their wiki page) eg: Get This is a radio show on Triple M and they always talk about their wiki page and from that there is constant vandalism (does not help when the DJ's discuss "vandalism" and sometimes even encourage it)...wikipedia is great but does not help when the media shines light on it and it's vandalism. --Mikecraig 22:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that page has been one I have been following. It seems awfully detailed for a page about a radio show that doesn't have national coverage, and I suspect it would be a bit shorter if all the un-verifiable info was removed. -- Chuq 23:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Does anyone think that a link at the top of the article to a page such as this: Talk:Jericho (TV series)/Television promotion - is a good idea? -- Chuq 23:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad one, but I'd reword the actual header to something more comprehendable by the average Joe Punchclock or Ethyl Soapsjunkie. Something along the lines of "Did you hear about Wikipedia from an ad following Jericho? Then please click *here* first!"Sixty Six 00:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes - that part above will be a separate page, the link to get to it will be different! To copy the notice at the top of the page and your comment, something like this:
Notice Were you directed to visit this site from an ad following Jericho ? if so, please read this important message!
-- Chuq 03:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Man, it's a scary day when Chuq and I agree 110% on something! C&P that to the top of the main article ASAP! Sixty Six 22:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:ASR. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you please explain rather than quoting acronyms and leaving the users to try to figure out what the heck you mean? I don't understand what I'm supposed to learn by being refered to that page. Thank you. Capricorn74 23:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The convention quoted is intended to help avoid situations where the article, or a part of it, focusses on Wikipedia. That is to say, we should convey the information, rather than being a part of it. However, I'm not certain that it applies in this case. --Ckatzchatspy 23:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... on the other hand, it might apply (if the message is intended for the top of the article, that is, as opposed to the talk page.) If we are intending to place this at the top of the article, the appropriate method seems to be to use the "self-reference" template:
Were you directed to visit this site from an ad following Jericho ? if so, please read this important message!
Apparently, this template tags the text to be removed if the article contents are then passed on to third-party sites or used for print or CD-ROM publication. --Ckatzchatspy 08:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
That's a good box and the sub-talk page is an excellent short explanation - there should also be a link back to the article on the page - the most obvious link now is back to this talk page trolleymusic 06:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The fact is though is it needed? Just seems like unneeded welcoming which can be done on an anons talk. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It's definitely debatable. Many other pages suffer far worse abuse due to anonymous or inappropriate edits (Pluto and Earth come to mind) without resorting to notes at the top of the articles. Others get spikes in anon editing due to the Slashdot effect, which then settles down after a while. Semi-protection should help to reduce the damage, and anyone willing to go to the trouble of registering can easily be given pointers as to what is appropriate and what is not. --Ckatzchatspy 08:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
As it is already semi-protected I think its best to not put the template on the article but rather at the top of this talk page where as things like ASR don't matter here. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)'
I disagree. This really needs to be added to the top of the main article and left there for the foreseeable. Especially if this week's ep on Oz TV has the same advert. To give an allegory, it's more efficient to put up a sign saying "No Littering" and expect all but the jerks to behave themselves, rather than to go to every single "violator" and "admonish" them when they unwittingly screw up. Sixty Six 20:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The issue with putting it on an anon's talk page is that a brand new user who doesn't have any idea what wikipedia is is not going to go to their talk page and read - they're just going to read the jericho article - trolleymusic 03:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, this is why I argue it needs to be placed on the *main* article page. Odds are the average Joe Punchclock who's using his Windows Media Version to watch TV and surf the net isn't going to have a clue what Wikipedia is all about, and while screwing around is bound to screw things up. To make another allegory, the guidebox is more along the lines of "Keep Off The Grass" or, considering some of the temperments around here, a "No Smoking!" sign outside and inside of an armament dump. Sixty Six 20:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The current template

Having an article promoted from an external location, saying that the article is something that it is not (a place to post/read "conspiracy theories") isn't a common thing. This is the reason why it is a special case and there needs to be a message of some sort. How long until Jericho is screened in the US? About 14 hours? IMO there needs to a be a message of some sort there before that time, in case it is advertised again. I tried to enclose the "box" version above in a selfref tag but it didn't work, so for now how about just the selfref version above, like this?

Were you directed to visit this site from an ad following Jericho ? if so, please read this important message!

Of course, feel free to modify the target page to improve it! -- Chuq 10:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It isabout 4-5 hours until broadcast, and no disagreements, so I have added the line to the article. It makes the top of the article look a bit busy, maybe remove the {{sprotect}}? (as this is caused by the TV ad) -- Chuq 20:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagreed with it.. the page is already semi protected.. what is adding a message going to achieve? They cant vandalise and if they click the view source it just tells them about the talk page, etc. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked the message slightly, for clarity, punctuation, spacing and so on. It now reads:

Were you directed to visit this site during a broadcast of Jericho? If so, please read this important message.

The disambiguation template has been moved above it, since that is the more logical flow. --Ckatzchatspy 22:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The ads also run - in Australia, at least - following and preceding other programmes; I just saw the ad in question before the current broadast of Futurama. So, I'm hanging it to the following:

Were you directed to visit this site in an advertisement for Jericho? If so, please read this important message.

Is that still aceptable? -Switch 08:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ten must love the Wikipedia connection... and of course the more accurate we can make this, the better. One question - do you think it should read "directed by an advertisement..." (bold for emphasis here only)? --Ckatzchatspy 08:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Good thing that the 16 November episode did not have Network Ten promote the wikipedia page again...I am sure there would have been a lot more vandalism if they did --Mikecraig 20:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Didn't they? Was I hallucinating? --WikiSlasher 06:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason we can't add an Icon or some small graphic to the main page redirection? I had a couple of casual web surfers look over that page, and both of them missed the message, and their vision's far better than mine. An *i* icon or even the "Stop" one might be sufficient. Sixty Six 02:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Something like this?
Were you directed to visit this site in an advertisement for Jericho? If so, please read this important message.
(Apologies - I should have tried that when I first found the "selfref" template.) --Ckatzchatspy 03:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly what I had in mind! Unless nobody objects, I second its addition. Sixty Six 10:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ratings section..

Some American television series are now adopting sections entitled "Ratings" — While they may be useful to a niche audience they don't really represent a worldwide view, now we could likely add sections for other countries but then the section would most probably become exceedingly unmanageable, which it is likely to become either way - I think it may be prudent to expunge it, or (like Veronica Mars on episode pages) making a brief mention on the individual episode page what the first airing garnered on the original channel rather then a large (and pretty ugly) wikitable. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps between the main infobox and the morse code infobox, something to the effect of "Nielsen ratings on initial airdate of (insert date here):" with ratings below? I'm not real good with tables and boxes, but I'm sure y'all get what I mean. MikeFTM 22:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
What about mentioning it in the lead-in to avoid getting to clogged with infoboxes, or a section? (example) Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
How are the U.S ratings a "niche?" The show was produced here, and its ratings here determine its renewal or cancellation. Edison 06:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Characters article page

Since nobody else seems to be reading the talk page for the separate character list page, I figured I'd bring the mountain to Mohammed as it were. The list of characters is starting to get a little unwieldy. While there are plenty of characters on there that deserve mention and don't have their own pages yet, there are quite a few that just don't seem to merit mention on a listing of what I would consider characters of major importance. Case in point, Skylar's whingey friend who was more concerned with the well-being of some scrawny Hollywood socialite (I forget which one exactly, they all kinda blend together after a while) than the people in her town.

(Lindsay Lohan - which I think answers the present day/2009 question. No-one is going to remember her in 2009! : ) Mygoditsfullofstars 10:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

She's only had a handful of brief appearances in a few episodes. Not exactly a major contribution to the overall plot. Characters like Victor Miller and Payton, while they have had (at this point in the show) a fairly significant contribution to the show, were one-off characters, never to be seen or heard from again. I figured it might be a good idea to get a group consensus before I go off and do my very best "HASSAN CHOP!!!!!" impression over yonder. So group, consense away. MikeFTM 21:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Split into minor and recurring like we did over at the 4400. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive Please

Can a mod please create Archive 2 so we can start a new page? I'm not at all experienced enough with my Wiki skills to attempt this myself. The size of this page is getting unweildy! Capricorn74 01:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've archived the whole page as of the time of this post. Anyone should feel free to remove sections that are no longer relevant, and should remain only in Archive. --Puellanivis 20:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you thank you thank you! My eyes thank you as well. :) Capricorn74 19:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis Consistency

I apologize if this has already been addressed above; I skimmed the talk page briefly and didn't see anything addressing this section directly. I think that the synopsis isn't very self consistent because it doesn't: provide useful up-to-date information about the series, OR, provide spoiler-free information about the initial setting of the show. This suggests two approaches:

A. We modify the summary so that it is from the point of view of the first episode, or some other appropriate point in the series. --What is an appropriate point?
I.e. Remove the EMP reference.
This would eliminate the spoilers. The embedded lists on the page would have to be updated (more or less removed?) to be consistent with the no spoilers (in the main article) approach to maintain some consistency. --Is this a trait we want the main article to have?
B. We update and expand to summarize current developments. (My personal preference because the above is, well, silly.)
This presents spoilers in the first section on the page and would have to be well done to avoid the article from resembling a poorly written short story. (We could split this into multiple sections to avoid ruining the series for a virgin viewer.) --What developments are critical? Chaos in the outside world? Of course, but what about the grey area of relationships and such?
This has the advantage of providing a means to remove the nasty embedded lists. (See This article needs MAJOR work) because the significant content would be in paragraph form and the lesser content could be moved to the individual episodes pages. --Again, what is significant?

--KZeagle 06:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

One method to consider is looking at the approaches for both Battlestar Galactica and Babylon 5. Should the ratings hold and the series continues for 4-5 seasons, there's two ways we can approach this:

  • The basic synopsis explains the core of the series - nuke attack, Jake as the central character, brief list of main threats to the town, struggle for survival.
  • A season-by-season synop of the major plot points of each season, either as one or two paragraphs, or by single-sentence bullet point lists. Either one of these works, while the latter works more for brevity and helps to keep unwanted speculation down by simply stating the event that takes place, i.e. "Jake and Emily rekindle their relationship." "Green eliminates Grey as an opponent with a bullet after martial law is declared nationwide", or "Hawkins' laptop is stolen by two kids whose withdrawals from Evercrack addiction reach intolerable levels."

Either way, as long as we keep it to the *major* plot points, this list shouldn't become too bulky.Sixty Six 20:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Question re: Australian TV

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)

Done. — Deon555talk 02:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Why was this article advertised on Network Ten? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eli529 (talk • contribs)

Good question, please see sections Semi-protection and "wiki/Jericho (tv series)" advertised on Australian national tv. --WikiSlasher 09:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


After reading all the previous postings regarding channel ten advertising of this site. I have a theory which may or may not be the reasoning. The other two commerical channels in australia now have links to the yahoo and msn web sites with chat rooms for the shows these are advertised at the end of the programs for fans to log on and discuss. Channel ten is currently not affiliated with any web sites and as such has no place to match the other channels regarding chat rooms. They may have chosen this site as a viable option

If they'd read the talk page guidelines they'd realise this site wouldn't be the place. --WikiSlasher 11:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Las Vegas Survived

Whoever added the entry that Las Vegas survived, where did that information come from ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.99.210 (talk • contribs)

Kenchy tells Emily in Episode 9 that he started his practice in Las Vegas, but the town lost its appeal without basic services like electricity, so he left with a Red Cross unit. Had a bomb gone off in Las Vegas, it seems that either he would not be there to tell Emily, or he would have certainly mentioned it as a reason to leave the city. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 15:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I missed that last night. I'm thinking the note about Vegas should include why it is known to have survived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.99.210 (talk • contribs)
Done. MikeFTM 18:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Archiving

Thanks for archiving the talk page again. May I also recommend that we leave the section regarding the Australian TV ad on the active talk page until further notice, or at least until the issues regarding the ad die down? Those to whom the discussion is intended for may not be savvy enough where Wikipedia is concerned to catch the message and intent if it's "hidden" away in an archive. Geoffrey Mitchell 01:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Yet Another Table? (International Broadcasts)

Do we really need another imbedded table with the information on the International Broadcasts? Capricorn74 16:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it has to be in a table is debatable - but at least it's a lot more concise (and relevant) then the previous text, which went into detail on other shows airing at the same time on CBS. --Ckatzchatspy 19:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Advice Needed on Beyond Jericho Info

I've just gotten some info from a programming director for the local CBS affiliate where I'm located regarding the status of Beyond Jericho, but I'm confused as to how to go about including it. The issue is that the PD does *not* want to be identified, as the network is still dealing with issues surrounding the Writers' Guild threats to strike over webisodes. I'm posting the information on the talk page so everyone can read the info and hopefully help decide how to use it, if possible.

  • There were a total of four webisodes "in the can" before the plug was pulled. Their cancellation was, as reported, due to concerns involving the Writers Guild of America threatening to strike over royalties they feel should be collected from webisodes.
  • These episodes are no longer intended for airing, as the show's producers have decided to "retcon" - their words, according to the internal memo e-mailed to affiilates - Las Vegas into having survived the attacks. As BJ was set in the ruins of LV, and the new Doctor hails from there and self-evacuated due to supply issues as stated in the 9th episode, the four episodes would contradict what's going on in the story.
  • There *may* be an episode later in the season dealing with two of the surviving characters from BJ, but they will most likely be "retconned" into being from one of the other attacked cities.
  • Finally, Countdown is currently slated to only last ten webisodes.

Again, I'm not sure how to incorporate this into the main article, as this information comes from a source that does *not* want to be quoted, and as we all know cites are important. Any ideas on this would be appreciated. Sixty Six 04:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think it can be included, since (as you say) there's no way to verify the information. (Not that I doubt you, as it all sounds reasonable and I can't think of any reason why you'd want to make this up, but it needs to be something that a reader can reference.) I don't know enough about Wikipedia's guidelines to tell you if uploading a copy of the memo would be sufficient, although I suspect that might run afoul of several real-world regulations. I spent about twenty minutes trying to Google anything about this, with no success. (There wasn't even a mention about Jericho and the WGA; the closest was an article about the content dispute.) I'll keep looking, though, and post back if anything turns up. --Ckatzchatspy 10:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the idea of posting a transcription of the "twix" - they still call such messages "twixes" even though it's all sent by e-mail instead of on a wire printer - was raised, but we both decided that could raise some serious legal issues, especially WRT circulating internal memorandum. This PD is a friend, and I don't want that person canned over simply providing info for the Wiki article to set the record straight. As for the WGA issues, the Guild is not being as vocal about their grievance as they were. Seems that the reaction from the fans over their threats against the Battlestar Galactica: The Resistance webisodes showed that this might be a case that, regardless of right or wrong, striking over this issue might not be in their best interests unless all negotiation channels are totally exhausted.
In any case, considering you've demonstrated you've got a handle on what's essentially the way to post info to Wikipedia, I'll side with your assessment until someone either a) comes up with a way to post it with a disclaimer - i.e., "according to a source that requested confidentiality due to job security concerns..." and/or b) CBS and/or the show's producers reveal the info in a press release. Sixty Six 02:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Countdown information

Would it be possible for someone (with the ability to see them) to provide a page or some information on what is contained within the Countdown web broadcasts? Ravend 01:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC) I'd like to second that request Mygoditsfullofstars 21:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Small error in reported broadcast times

G'day. The article shows the broadcast time for Australia as 8:30pm AEST when in fact it is airing (at least in the southeast states) at 8:30pm AEDT (daylight savings time - one hour ahead).61.9.146.139 04:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 8:30pm AEDST Australian Eastern Daylight Savings Time - always good to check local TV listings/guides --Mikecraig 04:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
At least this Thursday (23rd Nov 06) airing will be at 2100hr (9:00pm) AEDT - No reason to the change of time is giving although its most likely due to sports :) 203.10.224.61 00:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Reason for the change in Australia for this weeks episode 23 November timeslot is due to a airing of "Jamie Oliver: Australian Diary" about his recent trip to Australia..etc and goes from 7:30pm to 9pm then Jericho will be on --Mikecraig 21:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
And they wonder why people watch channel BT! First of all the advertise the premiere at 9.30, and show it at 8.30, causing tens of thousands of people to miss it.. and now this! -- Chuq 05:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey all, I changed the Channel 10 showing time to what was advertised on the Channel 10

website. But now I see they changed it to the Pussycat Dolls, my mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.245.141.117 (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Timeline

Where was it established that the show takes place in 2009? I must have missed that tidbit.DaveDorm 04:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow...I have not heard that before...when was mentioned? --Mikecraig 04:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Aha! I found something on a Jericho forum that may clear that up. Eric and April's divorce papers had information on them in the screen capture of the episode.

It looks as if they were married June 15, 2001

The petitioner, April Green, resides at 4893 Deerborn Dr., Jericho, KS and had been a resident of the State of Kansas 15 Years, 2 Months.

The respondent resides at the same address and has been a resident of the State of Kansas for 8 Years.

We don't know exactly how long they have been married. But if you do the math there, it's 2009.

Also, Jake's DOB is shown on his passport when Hawkins pulls up the info on his computer. Also, it was mentioned in the pilot that Jake is 32. That would make the year 2009 making Jake really 32 years old.DaveDorm 04:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Eric and April portion, what would make you add 8 years to 2001? The show hasn't established that Eric moved to Kansas the same year that he married April; he could have lived there for three years before marrying her. Also, nothing in the document (as transcribed thus far) states that either April or Eric lived at that particular residence for X number of years, only how many years they lived somewhere in Kansas. So that's only one data point in favor of the 2009 idea, not two. --Psiphiorg 07:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well... the passport DOB for Jake Green is January 21, 1977 (sorry, I thought I posted that) and that is verified in screen caps of the passport document (which I am still looking for on tat forum). In the first episode, it ie mentioned in conversation between Johnston Green and Jake that he is 32. Again, do the math, comes out to 2009.--DaveDorm 07:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This point was argued to death earlier on this page (see archives). There are other clues (such as credit card dates and vehicle registration stickers) which point to the series being set in the present day. The Halloween and Thanksgiving episodes coinciding with the real-life holidays may be another clue. It is possible that the passport birthdate is forged, since other information on it is incorrect. I do not think that the 2009 theory holds enough water to be truly credible. 63.3.19.2 23:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

However, much of the series' dialogue strongly supports a future setting; for example, there's a bunch of dialogue implying that the events of the Iraq War were several years in the past, along with the government's eventual shiftover to private armies afterward; also, Jake (according to his words) was a mere "truck-driver" in that conflict, yet later seemed to become a full-fledged government "black-ops" agent, travelling from county to country prior to his reappearance in Jericho. Additionally, the dates on Jake's passport are extremely consistent with a mininum 2009 date -- he's been gone "for five years," and there are foreign entry/exit-dates going back to 2003 and 2004 listed there. So...the preponderance of the evidence seems to support the 2009 dating, and it appears to be the intent of the producers that the show is set that far into the future, but we've yet to hear it directly mentioned in the dialogue. -- The Bandsaw Vigilante 17:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Putting this debate to rest once and for all, the producers have stated in an "Inside Jericho" online interview that the series is set in the present day, and that the birthdate on Jake's passport is in error. Said interview can be seen via streaming video at the CBS Jericho web site. 209.244.189.26 04:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Sadly there is a preponderance of the evidence from non cannon sources (Dale's myspace videos; the commentary of the episode Vox Populi as seen on CBS internet, executive producer Carol Barbee states that Jake is the older brother of Eric at time index 4:52. Also at time index 6:29, Carol Barbee states that the 1990 song Nothing Compares 2 U was a hit when Jake was 16, therefore putting the date of events seen on the show roughly in 2006; etc.) I however do not personally like it one bit... Zoli Elo 00:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Purged Info RE: "Ravenwood Solutions"

Does anyone - especially those who called for the article's deletion - have a backup copy of the "Ravenwood Solutions" article that was believed to have been posted by the show's producers? I only read it once before it was expurgated, but from what I recall there was mention of one aspect about Ravenwood that might answer some of the questions posed by the "Red Flag" episode. Sixty Six 23:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do, nothing really jumped out at me except this: "some critics claim that in addition to the vast cargo fleet purchased by Ravenwood, a large number of Soviet fighter aircraft were also included as a 'bonus.'" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
If you manage to figure out how to get an e-mail through to me, I'd appreciate it if you'd include a dump of that deleted article. I suspect there's more to that thing than just some Hollywood producer trying to promote his show. Sixty Six 10:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Website address shown briefly during fall finale.

Wasn't it www.whodroppedthebombs.com? I keep trying that and I get a search results page. --Fezir 19:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's "whodroppedthebomb", no "s". Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 20:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm a little diappointed, though. I thought it was a new site, not just a redirect to the CBS site. --Fezir 22:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Jericho wiki

http://jerichowiki.cbs.com/. is this somehow linked to wikipedia?

No. Probably just the producers set up there own wiki when they realised wikipedia isn't actually a conspiracy website.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
not related to wikipedia. It's through wet paint. It's hosted on the CBS website, so it's definitively related to the producers. Should it get mentioned under the web tie-in section? --24.195.148.215 21:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
May not be related to Wikipedia, but they're damn sure ripping off a lot of our content almost verbatim. Remember the observation I made a while back about most, if not all of the cities having NFL teams? Or the comment about ports and civilian targets? Or the question as to why Omaha wasn't listed considering its importance to national defense? If anything, I suspect the network probably set this site up after having all the Ravenwood stuff punted. Again, it's the "Is what the Creator says always Canon if it's never shown on TV?" question, rephrased for new technology. Sixty Six 23:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, that's my bad... the comment about NFL teams was me. I put it on the JerichoWiki. I was not aware that sharing ideas was "ripping off content". If you are tremendously offended I will remove it. I did go back and edit the content to credit you. It was not my intention to make any trouble. It's not like I have been cutting and pasting Wikipedia wholesale, I just made a reference to that ONE point. -- DaveDorm 04:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Content posted on Wikipedia is copyrighted by the poster, and made available under the GFDL, a license which allows the content to be copied given certain restrictions. One of those restrictions (as I read it, though IANAL) is that copies may not be re-published under a more restrictive license. In checking the CBS Wiki, I cannot tell what license their content is published under, so I can't tell whether or not it is legal to use Wikipedia content on the CBS site without the consent of the person who wrote it in the first place (the original poster, of course, can post another copy of their work on the CBS site since they retain copyright). You might want to check into that. --Psiphiorg 21:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The fact they haven't stated a license will cause serious problems. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"Date Of Attack"

This text was added a short while ago (I've removed it for discussion):

"Based on a blog entry on Dale Turner's Myspace, the attacks happend ether September 12,13,14, or 15 of 2006. The last blog entery is a dated September 12, 2006, and it talks about how Gracie is talking about the Hawkins family moved into Jericho. Based on information in Episode 8, "Rouge River", Bill and Gary mention that the Hawkins moved to Jericho three days before the attacks, there for the attacks happened on one of those dates."

What is the consensus here on trying to date the series? I seem to recall that we were avoiding this detail because the details so far are somewhat inconsistent. Further to that, are the "dates" at Myspace considered at all reliable in terms of the show's setting? --Ckatzchatspy 23:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Dale's MyWasteofSpace has never been mentioned in the show, I don't think it can be considered canon. If anything, it probably belongs in the same category as the wiki articles the producers cooked up for Ravenwood. You gotta give those guys in the marketing department credit though. They're thinking outside the box. MikeFTM 17:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
We're seeing the same debate that occured when JMS declared that the Babylon 5 authorized novels and comics were canon even though the events depicted may never be mentioned on the series. Is it proper, then, to ignore those "outside of the box" elements just because they haven't been shown on the series itself, but are known as canon as having originated by the show's creators themselves? IIRC, the concluding argument went something like this:
"If a tree falls in the woods and there's nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
"Yes, it does."
"How do you know? And why should I take your word for it?"
"I'm God. I created the woods, and the trees, and even made the damned-by-Me tree fall down, and I say there was a sound. Care to question God on anything else?"
"Uh...no, not at this time. Thanks."
Of course, there's one other thing that hasn't been explained: How the frack does Dale access his MySpace page on 11/27/06, which, depending on your frame of reference, is either a month or so after all the computers execept for Hawkins' has been fried and the Internet had already been shut down to begin with, or at least 3 years before the bombings. Tempus Frackwithus, anyone? Sixty Six 21:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Day After connection

The reference to Lawrence, Kansas being attacked is pretty clearly a reference to The Day After, however such a statement would need to be sourced (I have instead used some alternate wording to point out the coincidence). Have the producers or writers confirmed anywhere that Lawrence was mentioned as a Day After reference? It would seem logical as there are some similarities between the two stories (except that Jericho is somewhat more upbeat). 23skidoo 14:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the real test is whether or not we see survivors in Fort Repose, Fla, or a news bulletin that says US Subs stationed in as part of CINPACFLT that were previously stationed at San Diego will now be granted temporary home ports in Melbourh, Oz, with a live CNN report from the conning tower of the USS Sawfish. All we need to make it complete is for Los Angeles to be overrun with bacteriologically-mutated albino crazies led by a charismatic TV news anchor, all bent on destroying all vestiges of technology.

"I am wishing that Dr. Nevill was being here. He was the best biowar researcher I ever had tea with!" - Dr. K

Sixty Six 23:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Has anyone seriously considered the fact that this series may actually be a BSG spinoff?

I can see it now: "Emily is dreaming again, and it's Jake standing before her, buck assed nekkid, with - to her tastes - a beautiful erection that we can't see because the censors won't allow it. They embrace, and wind up on the bed. While Jake is passionately pumping in and out, we see a red glow begin to move up and down his spine, much like the Cylon eye moves back and forth. Suddenly, the camera moves back to reveal that Gaius Baltar and Number 6 are watching the whole scene. Baltar says nothing, but is altogether stimulated, confused, and curious as to what this is all about. Sensing his unspoken questions, Six-In-Baltar's-Head responds that this is what life is like on Earth, and that the Cylons have already beaten the Colonists to Earth. Sadly, they couldn't infiltrate the primitive computer systems controlling all the nukes, but they did the next best thing. Now they're just waiting for all of humanity to arrive so they can kill a few billion birds with one big stone..."Sixty Six 01:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Just as a point of interest, Sprague Grayden (Heather Lisinski on Jericho) has admitted to being a major BSG fan. 63.3.19.2 23:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How many seasons of Jericho will there be?

Anyone know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.211.212.118 (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

No, nobody knows. The producers don't know, the network doesn't know, and the viewers don't know. Nobody in fact will know until either (a) the network decides to not renew the show at the end of a season, (b) the network cancels the show in the middle of a season, or (c) the producers decide to conclude the series on their own. --Psiphiorg 17:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

They'll attempt to milk it as much as possible (i.e Lost). But if it loses viewers, they'll cancel it. So just keep watchign he ratigns and if it slumps down low, you'll be sure that that will be the last season.

-G

Where the devil are the character images?

All red links now. Were they moved? Deleted? Did CBS send a cease-and-desist due to their own wiki site being activated? 209.247.22.62 08:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The person who uploaded the images did not include a fair use rationale, so they were deleted. See the log for the Michael Gaston image for an example.
Most often, there is a grace period where the images are commented out of all pages they are included on to alert editors that they are about to be deleted, so that somebody can if appropriate add the rationale, but it looks like the admin skipped that particular step this time. (I don't know if that's a rule they're supposed to follow or if it's just a courtesy extended by some of the admins.)
Anyway, since they were not deleted for being a copyright violation, but instead for simply not having an explanation of why they should be considered fair use images, they can be re-uploaded and an appropriate explanation added. Also, I'd suggest that this time, the images be correctly named with an "h" in the name of the show. --Psiphiorg 18:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually those particular images probably do qualify as a copyright violation as I believe they where tagged with {{promo}}. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm all for respecting copyright issues and intellectual property rights and explaining fair use rationale, but I think the admin who deleted those images was a bit overeager (see his talk page, I'm not alone) and I can't imagine CBS would object to such promotional pictures being used in articles which describe their ongoing television series -- that's presumably why those pictures were created. Unless, of course, CBS chooses to be jerkish because their own "official" Jericho wiki is now online, but it doesn't look like that's what happened here. It's going to be a major project for someone to find and upload all those images again, not to mention renaming all of them correctly. Meanwhile, Jericho on Wikipedia now looks like a piece of Swiss cheese. 63.3.19.1 00:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It would be easier to cap character images from the show rather then use promos, there is also then less ambiguity regarding copyright. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It has been part of the speedy deletion criteria since 4 May this year that images uploaded without a fair use rationale (with or without generic tags like {{promophoto}}) may be deleted a week after uploading. The obligation is clearly on the uploader to provide a fair use rationale. --bainer (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm with the poster above, the "Jericho" articles are all suddenly missing their pictures and there is no explanation to be found anywhere, unless you start digging into deletion logs, and user talk pages for admins, the average reader isn't going to do that, this looks like slavish adherence to rules and it sure doesn't serve the end user very well as far as I'm concerned. 209.247.22.62 04:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It is also possible to address the issue at Wikipedia:Deletion review to request the images be undeleted. It is suggested on the template that images tagged for speedy deletion have a notice placed on the pages the image is used, but it is not required. Perhaps if the images are undeleted, User:MatthewFenton could apply his handy-dandy licensing tag which details the fair use issue. The undeletion issue still would not address the mis-named issue.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 00:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

From my own experience in publishing and broadcast journalism, if a photo is labeled as being for promotional use by the copyright holder - in this case CBS - then Fair Use is automatically applied to the image. This means that the copyright holder has accepted in advance that the image is cleared for free use for informational and promotional purposes so long as no remunerations are charged by the user for access outside of those normally charged - i.e., magazine cover price, cable access fees, etc. As far as I see it, all that's needed is to restore each image, add the Fair Use justification, and if push comes to "Shove it, you powertripping jerk!", contact someone at CBS for permission to use the images and add the link. Again, from my own dealings with the media, the only reason they'd refuse the exposure is if the Jericho producers are still pissed about the reaction that some of the more "elite" contributors took towards their planting of what'll probably become canon information on Wikipedia a while back.

Of course, the fact that the "admin" in question is infamous for being "trigger-happy" on his deletions only makes matters more difficult, natch, but seeing as how he's "on vacation" getting this resolved might be easier. Sixty Six 21:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for so eloquently stating in your first few sentences what I had believed from the beginning. Now, can someone please restore those images with the appropriate fair use statements? I am not experienced enough with Wikipedia to do that. 209.244.187.29 00:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Are the episode observations original research?

The episode observation section appears to be some particular viewers' opinions on what is significant (according to who-knows-what metric) in watching the TV show; that sounds like original research to me. Furthermore, Wikipedia's not an instruction manual or a TV guide; we write articles about TV shows, not in-universe accounts of their stories. -- SCZenz 07:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what, go to every other TV show-related article and purge those Observation sections first, then come back and discuss this. We already went through one war over the Trivia section, and it's not a good idea to start another one over the compromise. Seriously. Sixty Six 08:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, friend. But the rules are rules, and this sure looks like OR to me. Whatever appears on other pages notwithstanding; wherever OR is found, it should be removed. --Chancemichaels 17:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels
Sixty Six that's some pretty flawed logic right there. If they fall under original research rules and violate them, pull them. If it's against wikipedias rules it's against the rules. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a fan site. If people start defending things 'because THEY do it over there!!!' then what little credability this site has (and from any academic and logical standpoint, it's already piss little) goes out the window. Now if people go through them, check wikipedias rules and definitions, and they fit sure keep them. But the defense of 'someone else does it too!' stops being a good one past about 9 years of age and isn't a counter for the question asked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.156.26 (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

There's a problem here

It seems that the article suffers from a problem that crops up a lot- it's written by fans, and while they understand it, people who aren't fans can't understand it. I've never seen a single episode (didn't even know the show existed until recently) and I have no idea what's going on here.

For example, the "Aftermath" section starts talking about Chinese things... but China had never been mentioned previously in the article. So what's with all the Chinese stuff? The article doesn't say. Then the "Federal Response" and "Observations" section just seem to be big crufty lists that really don't belong here. With all due respect for my fellow editors, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a fan page for working out theories.

As it is, I can't make heads or tails of this. Cheers --DarthBinky 17:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Never fails...someone whines, then signs off with "cheers" hoping it'll make things all better. In any case, I made a brief edit to clarify what the Chinese broadcast was, without getting into too much speculation. Hopefully that'll suffice you, and if anyone wants to tweak it, feel free to do so. "Cheers" 66.90.151.114 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to be a jerk about it, I'm just trying to help make the article better. I don't watch the show, and know nothing about it, so I can't fix it myself (or I certainly would).
This article was obviously written by fans of the show who've forgotten that the article should be written in a way that non-fans can get an idea of what it's about without needing to be fans already. While your edit to the Chinese broadcast bit helped a little, that same section still has problems- it talks about some guy's map and cockpit voice recorders with no frame of reference, not to mention there's no explanation for why people in the middle of nowhere in Kansas are watching Chinese tv shows in a bar. There's a big section on government response... but no explanation for it. Same goes for the observations section. There's no frame of reference- it just starts talking about these things like we should already know about them. Someone who's never seen the show will just be lost after the Synopsis section. --DarthBinky 05:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this happens not so much when fans leave out info they take for granted, but when those with Admin powers wantonly edit articles without making sure that their edits don't cause far more problems than they think they're solving. In any case, I'll look over the section in question, because I believe the Chinese broadcast was explained, although it wouldn't surprise me if [you know who] expurgated it on some "original research" excuse. Sixty Six 08:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The "blame the admin" nonsense aside, I went back a month in the history and the problems I see have been there at least that long. Cheers --DarthBinky 16:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Then try going back further. 66.90.151.114 04:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Which is exactly my point, thanks. Cheers --DarthBinky 05:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
That bugs me in general too Darth, but I don't see it going away and you've got to have thick skin if you want to bring it up. A non-fanboi comes out, posts a legitimate point about how an encyclopedia article should be, and all the basement dwellers (in mind or body) get upset that this isn't a fan page and someone dared remind them. I would care more except it happens on every sci-fi/fantasy/alternate fiction show on here at some point or another, so it isn't exactly like it will go away. From now on I'd advise just make your point, hope reasonable people see it and make some changes, and don't expect scholars out of TV viewers. Myself included, if we were the type of people that could write a bang up encyclopedia article (i.e. neutral) we probably wouldn't be the type of people watching so much dang TV drama.

"Characters" section

First off, I've added a short setup line to the "Characters" section, as per what was done at Heroes. I've also added Bonnie to the list, since CBS includes her on the official cast page. This is consistent with how other series approach characters. That aside, I would like to get some sense of how to handle the "Characters" section on the main page, as well as what is appropriate for the template. What inspired this question is the fact that an editor keeps adding the deputies ("Bill" and "Jimmy") to the list, moving them to the "Main characters" section of List of Jericho characters, and adding them to the Jericho template. What criterion should we use for each? Are all minor characters to be added, only the main characters (as defined by the producers), or what? I don't think Wikipedia should be making the decision as to who is a lead, and who isn't. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 19:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The War Game

I'm not going to add anything myself as this seems to be the sort of page that sparks of arguments and bitterness very quickly (man you've all argued a lot) BUT (and my other reason for not adding anything is my lack of evidence at the moment) I find it hard to believe that The War Game hasn't been some influence on the show. Even if it is not it still deserves a mention in the 'related' bit as the grandaddy of all the realistic post-nuke fiction.

I'll run away now before more birds come flying.

BSG spin off??? Seriously? Ooooook...AlanD 20:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

So, it was confirmed after all? Jericho is a BSG spin off?

Current reverts

  • Red Dawn, a 1984 film about freedom fighters in a small town in Colorado after an invasion of the United States by Soviet and Cuban forces who used nuclear weapons as a targeted first strike.

Is being reverted as too wordy. It is hardly a long section. Reverting for "wordiness" would suggest paragraphs to me not this small sentance. The reason I have restored the sentance is simple - I believe it is important in justifying the Red Dawn link to Jericho. Simply saying the soviets invaded the US has no relevance to the TV series Jericho. The few extra words that point out that this refers to a "small town" and is post "nuclear" justify its inclusion in the article and give people a reason to click through. This is a little silly to be honest, as I said we aren't talking about paragraphs of text, just a sentance. Please explain fully why this is being deleted constantly and how taking it down to "being a film about the soviets invading the US" is in anyway relevant to the article or justifies its inclusion in the article.

ohhhh burnt me breakfast!!!! Thats why I'm cross, plus this is silly over a few words (and saying you can click through isn't right either otherwise most articles would be trimmed to hyperlinks with a few huge wordy ones... plus in the editted version of this section I don't want to click on Red Dawn, it has no relevance. With the slightly (very few words) longer one I do want to explore it as it is relevant to the main article)... ooops gone off on one. Didn't mean to be so aggressive or confrontational, not like me at all, sorry. Please explain your side guys/galsAlanD 09:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a bit wordy considering that it's supposed to be a "See also" link, rather than a paragraph of text. Matter of personal preference, I suppose. (Plus, the nuclear strike wasn't anywhere near as central to the story as it is in Jericho.) Anyways, the line could still use some tightening up. How about:
  • Red Dawn, a 1984 film about freedom fighters in a small Colorado town during an invasion of the United States by Soviet and Cuban forces.
(The resistance occurs during, not after the invasion; again, the nuclear strike isn't critical in terms of linking with Jericho, and is implied given the general knowledge of Soviet-U.S. tensions of the era.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 10:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
mmmm getting there. As far as I see it as long as it points out the small town aspect... perhaps the Soviet and Cuban part are the the superfluous ones? They don't relate to the link between the film and Jericho. While the nuclear strike is not as central it is the reason for it being included here (I assume). mmmmm
  • Red Dawn, a 1984 film about freedom fighters in a small Colorado town during an invasion of the United States following a nuclear strike on America.
Hows that?AlanD 12:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Other than both Red Dawn and Jericho being set in a small town, there is no similarity between the two concepts. Jericho concerns nuclear terrorism (guys in rental trucks with nukes in steel barrels) while Red Dawn was totally unrealistic in that there is no way the USSR (back then) would nuke US land based missile sites with ICBMs and not be totally annihilated by a US counterattack - the US submarines alone would have been enough to reduce the USSR to ashes; plus during the 1980s B-52s were constantly in the air over Alaska waiting for the orders to head into the USSR at a moments notice at their fail-safe points. Red Dawn was a fun movie at the time but just totally unbelievable. ANONYMOUS 10 January 2007 11:30 PM EST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.253.10.108 (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
I would think anything below a sentance would be fine. To the Anon above... both show and movie illustrate through the nuclear fears of their time (soviets in the 80's, terrorists now) the heightened survival ability of the small town, close community mentality. Both delve as much or more into the interpersonal relationship and individual mindset of the parties involved then into the struggle itself. Both tackle the issues of kids and young adults growing up and doing jobs that normally would be taken care of by experianced adults. No they are not exact copies (Jericho being a series and Red Dawn having been a blockbluster alone mean they have differant goals), nor are they even as similiar as some other influences suggested already. However they are close enough to note. Perhaps more importantly, I hate to tell you this, but both are about as realistic. That you had trouble suspending your disbelief in Red Dawn is fine... that you say so in a way which at least implies you can believe Jericho tells me you're being something of a fanboy. Both are fictional disasters that require a suspension of disbelief in their events and the response that follows. Neither could happen and both play more off of potential fears of 'worst case scenarios' of their respective times then off of real probablity (though limited forms of both were a very real possability, although it's doubtful the events or the after effects would be so dramatic, as both show and film are in essance dramas). Once you've suspended that disbelief, both convey enough similiar themes that despite your harsh opinion of one and respect of the other, you need to respect what other people are saying here. They are related. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.156.26 (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Off-topic list moved to independent article

The See Also section of this article was becoming a list of other works only tengentially related to this one. It was moved to List of nuclear holocaust fiction along similar, redundant, frequently overlapping lists from Threads and The Day After. See Talk:List of nuclear holocaust fiction. MrZaiustalk 05:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me you missed the point: Several of these books have been cited by the show's creators as being inspirational sources. The Day After and Alas, Babylon are two specific examples, and Warday and Threads have been mentioned at least once. You really should not have removed this, and I strongly urge you to put it back. 24.242.148.169 20:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't looked back at the history that far, but did the article actually state that Movie X and Book Y were influential (with references), or was it just a list of links under "See Also" ? If the latter then the change is entirely warranted. -- Chuq 05:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Black Jack information

There is a bunch of information, including a screen shot, from the episode "Black Jack," which doesn't air until 28 February. During the first part of the season we were holding off on that kind of information until the episode aired, figuring that it is speculation until that point. Are we changing this approach, or should we remove the information based on that episode? There have been times (in other shows, at least) when a scene included a preview does not show up in the actual episode, so it feels a little presumptuous to me. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 04:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Flagcruft?

A user boldly removed the flags from the international broadcaster's box. Is there consensus that these are useful visual aids in this article to restore them? Kyaa the Catlord 14:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:FLAGCRUFT - Also I find it peculiar that you've recently began showing interest in a lot of things I edit (but alas, I will AGF that we just have a lot of the same "interests" ;-)) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's coincidence. I like Heroes, I love Jericho, and I peruse AfD. :P Sorry if you feel like I'm following ya, I'm simply lost! :) Kyaa the Catlord 14:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I could go either way on the flags, but since we're citing WP:FLAGCRUFT, my initial thought is that the broadcasters section might fit in this category:

They can be aids to navigation in very long lists of countries: the flag of the individual country one is looking for may 'stand out' to the eye more immediately than the name itself.

However, I can see both sides of the argument: on one hand, the flags would make it easy for the reader to quickly pick out their country and pertinent broadcasting information; on the other hand, it's not a very long list (yet). --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 14:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Second Season

Since Heroes has been picked up for a second season. Is there any information that Jericho has been picked up as well? Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.229.186.113 (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

In the recent online interview/talk show at CBS.com, the producers said that it hasn't yet been renewed. 209.247.22.62 18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
From what I can find as of April 1st no word is out on if it's been renewed, and it took some rating hits. Mentioned in I think it was Variety magazine, was supposedly due to being up against American Idol. No word has yet come that it's been cancelled, but apperantly neither has word come of it being given a 2nd season... which sucks because at this point the season one plan appears to be to end it on a cliffhanger. I hate when networks kill things without giving decent writers a chance to at least do a rushed series wrap up.
Update (April 9): I've tried to keep an eye out and read some promising rumors... podcasts and the like have trickled out recently from cast/crew/etc that a Season Two is about to get the green light from CBS, slated for very late '07, early '08 likely. However currently it is still in the 'talks' stage and thus isn't a fact yet (thus not appropriate to put on the Wiki itself... yet.) Still, it means folks should keep an ear to the pavement. Hopefully in the next week or two our final answer will come out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.156.26 (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
I was able to visit the set last Wednesday (April 4) and I asked if anyone has heard one way or the other about season two. I talked with Kenneth Mitchell and an Assistant Production manager (I believe that was her title), among others and they all seemed very hopeful for a second season but they had no information beyond that. They said that they were still waiting on CBS's decision which should be announced the second week of May (IIRC). They did say that CBS told them to do a "half-wrap" (as opposed to a full wrap up). I do know that the crew was given a budget increase part way through the season for improvements to the set, so that is encouraging, but I am not sure how much can be read into that. Do you have a link to the podcast? --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry no... I discovered it while doing a bunch of google searches with the words 'Jericho', 'CBS', 'Renewed', 'second season', '2nd season', 'season two', 'season 2', 'word on (jericho)', and so on so forth, and then reading any articles that looked helpful. Since the article didn't actually give an answer, and so I couldn't link it here as a source for the actual page, I just read it then carried on the rumor to the discussion page here since it sounded more credible then most in regards to finally getting an answer to this question. (I know cast/crew aren't the same as CBS or the shows Executive Producers or Writers/Directors, but I figured they must be closer to the loop then the average viewer, though obviously given some past show cancellations that isn't all the time). Also, Kuddo's to you on getting to visit the set!

Chinese Broadcast

I see that someone rewrote the chinese city names using simplified chinese, which is probably ordinarily a good idea. But it seems to me that the article should show these as they are shown on the Chinese news broadcast seen in Mary's bar back in episode 3. Unfortunately, I've been looking for the past fifteen minutes and cannot find a screenshot of that scene anywhere. Can anyone confirm that the Chinese characters in the article match those seen on the broadcast and, if not, change them back? --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 16:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Black Jack

"Black Jack" is in need of a plot if anyone wishes to take on the task of writing one. Matthew 20:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional maps

right|thumb|episode 12 - Robert's computer right|thumb|episode 13 - Black Jack Fairgrounds right|thumb|episode 14 - Rally point house Here are some additional maps/screenshots in case they are useful in resolving disputes in the list of attacked cities.

Note that IMO, cities that appear on the list on the computer and nowhere else should not be listed - they are only a list of INTENDED targets. -- Chuq 03:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful shots, Chuq. Excellent distinction on the last point, as well. For example, we know the attack on New York City failed (the producers have even said so) and the fate of St. Louis is still in question. 209.244.189.26 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Chinese news broadcasts

Chinese news broadcasts are referred to throughout the article but nowhere does it ever say how or why people in Kansas would be watching news broadcasts from China. This should be explained clearly and fully. Badagnani 02:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The people in Mary Baileys bar were watching a satellite TV and were scanning thru the frequencies looking for anyone broadcasting anything and came across the Chinese broadcast and stopped on it. They also got the garbled scenes of damaged cities from the same TV, recorded those and kept looping them as some people in the bar about watching the same images over and over. After the high altitude EMP bomb on day 5, presumably the satellite TV system was fried and they never used it again. Anonymous 23:13, 20 March 2007

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.201.235.84 (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for catching that. I've expanded the text at the first mention of the broadcast to explain where it was seen. --Ckatzchatspy 03:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox - Flags

Looking at various TV shows (eg: House, Veronica Mars and Boston Legal), they all list the "Country of origin" including the flag. Where is it WP policy that this it not to be included? --Mikecraig 04:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is it that they are? I can quote just as many that don't. Matthew

Map

Regarding this edit with the "make a better map" comment - there IS a better map, directly below it! My reasons for removal were:

  • Poor quality (image quality)
  • Related to this, it is JPG format, whereas the other map was SVG
  • Various font sizes made it difficult to read

Also as Matthew said when he reinstated the map, unknown source & copyright issues. -- Chuq 21:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And if we want to have a map that shows the regional capitals, I'd already created one anyway (it's up in Fate of Los Angeles and other cities). --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Australian TV - Why's it not on here anymore?

Does anyone know why we aren't getting Jericho over here?(Australia) Did Channel Ten not bother buying the second season/the rest of the first season? Or have they bought it and are saving it for later? Either way it's very frustrating...I wanted to watch this thing, and not be behind the US audiences without having to download the episodes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.236.202.159 (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

This is from the Channel Ten website (forum for Jericho) - "Ch10 Admin have posted the info below over on the General board in the Programming and Scheduling queries thread. "
Jericho - It's great that Jericho has such a dedicated following amongst Australian viewers. We're currently holding off airing the most recent eps as we'd like to assess the storylines before confirming a new timeslot. We appreciate how much Jericho is enjoyed by it's loyal fans in Australia and for this reason we need to be careful where the series is placed to ensure the long-term success of Jericho on Ten.

--Mikecraig 03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You would think they would realise that anyone who watched the show before and liked it is now "assessing the storylines" of the show themselves without Ch10's help! -- Chuq 10:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You'd think they'd realize that, much like Stargate on Sci Fi in the States, 'delaying' a show in a region just means a good portion of the fans will download the episodes off Limewire or Kazaa or whatever is the popular file sharing service of the week. Then watch it from there, so they won't need to turn to the channel. Out of curiosity, can foreign viewers watch the episodes on the U.S./CBS Jericho main website? Or is it regionally blocked?

Gettin' long

Some of the charts of observations and affects of the attacks are starting to dwarf the rest of the article, when taken in combination. Might it make sense to break some out into separate articles? MrZaiustalk 07:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC) So is the discussion page!!

Minutemen Missiles

In Episode 5 you see the Minutemen missiles from Wyoming being launched to the East (since they were facing north and they were going to their right). Was there anything mentioned in the show after this episode of where they were sent? It is now clear to viewers that it isn't China who attacked the US, which wouldn't make sense since the missiles were going East, but there is still the question of who sent it and where it was sent. If there was no longer a unified country who had the power to launch the missiles? Especially since most of the sites to send the missiles were destroyed (missiles can't just be fired but need the updated codes and etc.) Was it Hawkins' group or one of the "Presidents"? SonnyCorleone 02:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the missile launches have been mentioned at any occasion since Ep. 5. 75.180.24.44 04:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)JeffHCross
Also given (much like the Rocky Mountains) it's unlikely the people of Jericho would even be able to see the missiles as they did, be careful of putting so much real world speculation into it. You make more then a few assumptions there that have basis in facts that may not be facts of the fictional world of Jericho. Also correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't neccisarily shoot an ICBM in the direction of your target on the map... you shoot it contra-rotary with the Earth so the Earths spin aids its delivery. Again, way too many real world and detailed assumptions for a fictional world. Plenty of stuff to talk about on fan sites sure, but not enough yet to put in what is essentially an encyclopedia article. Also keep in mind, even 'news' from Blackjack might be rumor. What news their was also might be out of sync with events... the presidential split if it is real might have occured after the nuke launch, or the launch might have been a joint decision by more then one of the "presidents". Or of course since one is the 'proper' in line succesor, he/she may have had the codes and made the decision alone. Plenty of possabilities to go... but all are just speculation for now. Nothing is fact till the show or someone on the shows staff legitametely say it is. (if you want a real nightmare, check out the BSG page... that shows head writer made the comment on the record a few weeks ago [and took some fair critical heat from other professional writers] that he doesn't consider himself even bound by stuff he's already written or put in the show in the past as facts! You could put an actual true fact up there, and have to change it later). In the world of TV, ALL is fair game and the writer is the god ref of that game. All we mere mortals can do is slap up the info here as they put it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.156.26 (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Similarities to The Day After

Just a basic observation, but the movie The Day After, about the aftermath of a US-USSR war and its impact on Lawrence, Kansas, shares some similarities to Jericho. Perhaps this is why Lawrence was bombed in Jericho instead of Kansas City(as one of the deputies pointed out)

Like Jericho, "The Day After" was morally and politically ambiguous.Scott Adler 05:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What happened to all the food?

Why is Jericho hungry? It makes no sense. Jericho is an agricultural town. It would have grain elevators filled with thousands of tons of wheat. They would have had more seed than they could have possibly eaten! The producers really need to explain what happened to all the wheat, corn, and soy -- not to mention all the hogs, chickens, and cattle. This is one catastrophe that makes no sense without an explanation.Scott Adler 00:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Jericho is a salt mining town, not necessarily a farming town. Although there is some farming done there, the show has never indicated that there is any type of grain elevator in town. Since the pilot episode takes place in the fall after most of the harvest, most of the grain had probably already been shipped off to the big food companies like ADM and Cargill that control most of the food supply in the USA. And when has the show ever indicated that there are large herds of cattle, or pigs and chickens around. Maybe they were killed by the fallout. Remember all the dead birds in the road that Emily finds in the first episode. One of the main themes of the show is how little prepared modern society is for being "bombed into the stone age". The kids in Jericho played video games, talked on their cell phones and hung out at the Internet cafe, they weren't learning to farm and raise chickens. Most small towns in America get their food the same way people in the big cities do. It's delivered to the local supermarket by truck or train two or three times a week. In the show, those deliveries haven't happened for months. Do you have any idea how much food it takes to feed 4000 people for 6 months? Quite a lot, I'm sure. Just because something doesn't makes sense to you, there is no reason to post it on the main page. This is a ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a message board for complaints to the show's producers. The producers don't need to explain anything. Jericho is a work of fiction, and the food shortage is a plot device. --Jnbwade69 22:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually they do have to explain in order to maintain a suspension of disbelief (which is why there is so much techno-babble on Star Trek and Stargate). This story takes place in KANSAS. A "salt mining town" is a corn town with a deposit of halite underground. It is well established that there are plenty of prosperous farms around, which also means in that part of the world, poultry, beef, and pork are raised. And since the attack took place in the fall, these was little need for fertilizer -- the crops were already largely grown. A thousand acres, one reasonable prairie farm, would have easily fed everyone in Jericho. (So would five hundred tons of properly mixed chicken feed -- which consists of corn, soy, alfalfa, calcium and vitamins -- and some leafy greens.) The producers could have accounted for the shortage by saying something like "a flock of birds ate it" -- they didn't, so they lost credibility. They should have done more research.
You're right, this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA -- it's not here to defend the show's producers. Please note the following at the top of the page under NPOV "Some information regarding the attempt by broadcasters to hijack the article seems relevant, as the article is not solely about the happenings within the fictional framework of the show, but the show itself." And that includes everything from cast changes (or whatever) to contradictions in the premis. Scott Adler 04:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Jericho Wikia

Hey theres a Jericho wikia, Here. Junior Skeeter 18:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

1) Your link doesn't work. 2) Unless there has been a significant amount of content added in the last few days, it shouldn't be linked to on the article. One of the criteria to external links is that the link must be a good resource with information that isn't on WP. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a Jericho wikia at jericho.wikia.com.--Kamikaze 13:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't meet the criteria for linking. Matthew 14:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I was simply shedding some light on what that guy was trying to tell.--Kamikaze 14:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Date of the attacks

The main article says Tuesday, September 19 (2006). From what source is this derived? It does not appear in the episode "The Day Before." 209.244.187.8 03:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Season 2 confirmed

From this source it appears we will enjoy a second season :). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.244.14.2 (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Rumours are better than no rumours, I guess. But lets wait for an official announcement from CBS for declaring it 'confirmed'. 24.89.242.240 01:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Season 2 was confirmed by producers as per here.--Kamikaze 18:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
That's confidence, not confirmation. CBS has not yet made any sort of renewal announcement for "Jericho" (or for that matter, for any of its other shows). 209.247.22.62 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Jericho on 8:00pm EST

Fixed the time, it used to be on at 7 and got moved to 8 when the second part of season 1 started.

It could not have ever been on at 7 p.m. ET. That is a non-network time period. -- Gridlock Joe 21:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ratings

I now watch Jericho on Saturdays on Space in Canada, because I want to watch other shows that are on Wednesdays. Also, are they including the ratings on other days or only those on Wednesdays?

Merge of town articles

I've tagged Rogue River, Kansas (fictional town) and New Bern, Kansas (fictional town) for merging here. Each of them is about 20% info about the town, 80% templates, nav box, and see also's. If it is too much info for this article, perhaps they could be merged with Jericho, Kansas (fictional town) into a new Fictional towns in Jericho (TV series) or Locations in Jericho (TV series), or similar. -- Chuq (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Calling the New article Fictional towns in Jericho (TV series) is a good thing. Merge--Brown Shoes22 00:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, as it would allow the article to be more about relevant information, rather than a fan page. I'd be more inclined to suggest "Locations" though, as it would give more flexibility - the salt mine, the trading grounds, and so on. The "Sheriff's Department" article could easily be condensed and folded in as well. --Ckatzchatspy 03:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
While we're at it, we should consider a second proposal to clean up and merge the articles about secondary characters. Most of them are largely "fluff" anyways. --Ckatzchatspy 03:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, we have to rearrange the info so that it gives more info about the fictional cities. Probably, more will be revealed about New Bern in the next episodes. At least Jericho, Kansas must remain as a separate article. In the beginning i also wondered if it was a real or fictional town. -- Magioladitis 19:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It is important to remember that at least half of the material in the Jericho town article is going to have to be removed anyway, as it is speculative and/or original research. --Ckatzchatspy 19:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
May I also suggest that the "episode observations" for episode 3 and the "mapping observations" regarding the location of Jericho, both in the main article here, be moved to the "Jericho, Kansas (fictional town)" page, where I think they would be much more relevant. Is this the sort of thing that must be voted upon? I would be happy to sign in and take on the task of editing. 209.244.189.27 05:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
ok. I agree with that. I just say that we have to keep the articles in case someone types New Bern, Kansas in Wikipedia as i did. If at the end of the season we see that the info about the town is not enough or something like this we can change New Bern, Kansas to redirect to somewhere else. Sinse the end of season 1 at least i see no reason to merge the articles. -- Magioladitis 20:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The redirects can still be in place... I agree that it will help with searches. In the same way, references to New Bern" (for example) can be linked directly to the relevant section. My concern is that the New Bern and Rogue River stand-alone articles will become as cluttered as the Jericho article. Sometimes, having a short article (because there's no significant information to add) invites trivial details as people seek to fill out the space. --Ckatzchatspy 20:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
ok i agree. But let's wait first until the season ends, to be 100% sure that this is the right thing to do. -- Magioladitis 09:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - Good compilation page. As (if) new cities appear, it's a good place to put them, good reference source for info, good all around, in my opinion. -AtionSong 22:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)