Talk:Jericho (2006 TV series)/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text:   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)
thread_title: Terrorism?

message: 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 &site=en.wikipedia.org count email) 21:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: What about mentioning it in the lead-in to avoid getting to clogged with infoboxes, or a section? (example) Matthew Fenton (talk contribs &site=en.wikipedia.org count email) 22:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ratings section.. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Split into minor and recurring like we did over at the 4400. Matthew Fenton (talk contribs &site=en.wikipedia.org count email) 21:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Characters article page 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you thank you thank you! My eyes thank you as well. :) Capricorn74 19:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive Please 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Synopsis Consistency 

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Question re: Australian TV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RE: Archiving 

message: Do we really need another imbedded table with the information on the International Broadcasts? Capricorn74 16:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Yet Another Table? (International Broadcasts) 

message: 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)
thread_title: Countdown information

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, 8:30pm AEDST Australian Eastern Daylight Savings Time - always good to check local TV listings/guides --Mikecraig 04:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Small error in reported broadcast times 

message: Where was it established that the show takes place in 2009? I must have missed that tidbit.DaveDorm 04:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow...I have not heard that before...when was mentioned? --Mikecraig 04:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Purged Info RE: "Ravenwood Solutions"

message: Wasn't it www.whodroppedthebombs.com?  I keep trying that and I get a search results page. --Fezir 19:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "whodroppedthebomb", no "s". Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 20:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Website address shown briefly during fall finale. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Jericho wiki 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Day After connection

message: Anyone know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.211.212.118 (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: How many seasons of Jericho will there be?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Are the episode observations original research? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Characters" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The War Game 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Off-topic list moved to independent article

message: 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)
thread_title: Black Jack information

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chinese Broadcast 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Black Jack 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Additional maps

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Chinese news broadcasts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Map

message: 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)
thread_title: Gettin' long

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Minutemen Missiles

message: 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)
thread_title: Similarities to The Day After

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Date of the attacks

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Season 2 was confirmed by producers as per here.--Kamikaze 18:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Season 2 confirmed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jericho on 8:00pm EST 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge of town articles