Talk:Jericho (2006 TV series)/Archive 2

message: Assuming nothing supernatural, (aliens, dream, etc.), the following is an examiniation of the primary hook of the show:  Who is responsible for the nuclear attacks on the US.  Feel free to add to the list and or the evidence.
:I assume this was someone who was a bit bored, right?  There isn't any intention for this to go on the main article, is there? -- Chuq 07:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea I think he was just trying to get thoughts down.  Because it's speculative it doesn't really belong here but its good speculative info so I'm hesitant to delete it. I'm thinking we might be best moving it to a subpage of this talk page. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  07:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Attackers 

message: borrowing from other shows articles i've tablefied the character list though i may double it up (two characters per row) so it doesnt take up so much vertical space / waste horizontal space  -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  01:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, now its unreadable. Kyaa the Catlord 05:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a seperation column a short while ago, did that help the readability?Mythdraug 16:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: looks good to me -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  23:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there any way to make the seperator a bit wider? Its a good start, but a wider seperation would aid in readability. Kyaa the Catlord 05:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  done -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  05:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  tablefied the character list 

message: There are no longer any active ICBM silos in Kansas (the Titan II silos around Wichita were decommissioned in 1984-1985) and a launch from the Minuteman silos in the Dakotas, Montana or Wyoming wouldn't be visible from Kansas. For the ground to shake the the sound to be that loud the launch would need to be no more than 20 miles away and probably closer. Even Titan silos in Kansas were "secretly" kept active, the location of the fictional Jericho at least 150 miles from the nearest one near Hutchinson (about 40 miles NW of Wichita). The only other realistic scenario (bearing in mind that Jericho is fiction) is that the Peacekeeper Rail Garrisons were not abandoned in the 1980s and there was one close to Jericho. Each rail garrison was to have 2 Peacekeeper (MX) missiles each. Dbromage 08:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A nighttime launch of an ICBM would be visible for at least 300 miles and probably a whole lot more. See http://www.moonglow.net/ccd/pictures/rocket/index.html for some nice examples and http://www.spacearchive.info/vafbview.htm for some more detail. Dziban303 19:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  Those were amazing, and quite beautiful.  But the scene from the show definitely looked much closer than that.  Then again, there's the whole creative license and POWER OF THE SCRIPT(tm) thing too.199.79.222.119 21:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It would certainly be visible from 300 miles away but they wouldn't hear or feel it. They would need to be very close for it to be audible and even closer to feel it. An absolute maximum would be around 20 miles and probably much less. Dbromage 02:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I could be wrong here, but if they were headed east, they could potentially hit Western Europe. (Maybe it is a plot by the French afterall.) Kyaa the Catlord 10:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The world is more or less spherical and not a flat map. The shortest route from Wyoming to Europe is not due east, it's north east over the Dakotas and Ontario. The missile route from Wyoming to Russia is over Manitoba, Greenland and Scandanavia, and to China or Korea is over Alaska. The Great Circle mapper shows this quite well (paths from Cheyenne to Paris, Moscow, Beijing and Pyongyang). The only great circle path directly east from Wyoming would be to somewhere in southern Africa (Cheyenne - Johannesburg as an example). Dbromage 03:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would agree.  I initially thought it meant the military finaly discovered the terrorists/nations behind the attack, but after the missles took to the air, the EMP burst came quickly so it was probably a launch against whoever hit us with the EMP.  Probably an EMP burst against them plus one nuke for their capital. 69.125.143.139 02:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Cleanup is good... but hold off on the assumptions. Really, we cannot claim to "know" anything other than what we are told on-screen. Honestly, I highly doubt that the writers are "expecting us to believe the ICBM launch originated from the 90th SMW at FE Warren in Wyoming" - I would be surprised if the writers KNOW that there is a base there. They're probably just assuming that most viewers think there are missile silos in locations all across the central United States. As for the idea of taking into account "time-on-target optimal" firing solutions... this is really wishful thinking. I'm not knocking the production staff in any way, but you have to take into account how television and film production works. Those considerations are generally secondary to whatever helps to advance the storyline in the desired manner. (Case in point, the initial explosion over "Denver", which apparently wouldn't be visible from "Jericho".) It really doesn't matter whether real-world physics dictate that the missiles would have to pull a u-turn in mid-air and fly around the moon to get to their scripted target - if it looks "cool" to have them fly over Main Street, and it amps up the perceived tension of the characters, then that's where they'll go. --Ckatzchatspy 07:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Reality is not a component of this show, true. But for people who take some interest in the real world equivalent, several sources show a range of "6,000+ miles" for the Minuteman III, one of which being Wikipedia's Minuteman III article. (). Others list the range, after various upgrades, at about 8,000 miles (, ). With those legs, missiles from Warren AFB could strike all of Europe and South America, the Middle East, the northern half of Africa and everything in Asia as far south as Vietnam. Dziban303 06:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Asia goes a little further than you think it does ;)  But true, it could hit all of far-east asia. --Puellanivis 07:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Or, to take that in a similar but different direction, one of the ICBMs detonated prematurely, producing the same result. 66.90.151.114 05:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would have to agree, at least in part.  I certainly don't think that Lost should even be as micro-analyzed as it is, but Jericho definitely more so.  There are a large number of very inconsistent factors in the show that shown that either continuity of the plot does not guarentee that small factors will have any truely meaningful impact, or that inconsistency within the system itself means that traditional logically analysis just isn't going to be particularly effective.  For instance, in Federal Response, Hawkins accesses a Turkish webpage, not only that, but the Turkish MSN page.  But on the page, there have been propped in with Cyrillic characters (that make about as much sense on a Turkish webpage as they would on an English webpage).  What can logically be deduced from this?  Nothing, the page itself is so self-inconsistent that the very language that it is supposed to depict is unclear... well, except that it was intentionally chosen to be non-English.   So, yes, I must agree with Vincentfox a lot, this series just won't stand up to very tight scrutiny and analysis.   But that's ok, but it's a really good show, and I like it! --Puellanivis 13:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICBM launch 

message: Washington DC was gone, noted in the Long Live The Mayor episode 7# preview for next week B-1B SAC 01:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editing and adding to articles is part of the Wikipedia experience, any user cna edit the main page. Give it a shot, add the information you want and click Preview to make sure it turns out how you want, also make sure to include a short summary of why you edited the article in the summary box. --Skywolf talk/contribs 01:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't get too far ahead of the story line, that episode has not aired yet. Keep it on the talk page for a day or two to see what other editors think about it, then change the article or have another editor do the change. --Skywolf talk/contribs 02:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I noticed you gave editing a shot, as I mentioned before the preview button comes in real handy,. I preveiw every edit I make, even on talk pages (ignore the spelling mistake on my first comment lol). It will allow you to see your change before it is posted, then you can make changes or save from there. --Skywolf talk/contribs 02:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: See my reply in the above Cities Proof section about why I feel Washington DC should be left off the list. OverlordQ 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Information previewed in commercials for upcomming episodes that have not aired should not be included in the main article.  Commercials tend to be misleading and we already know that this character has ulterior motives so it's best to hold off until the episode airs.  -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  02:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. In quite a few cases where a TV show's production schedule is tighter than what's considered the "norm", studios and/or networks will take footage from other episodes, often unfinished shots or trims made in post - used to be they got them off the cutting room floor before digital became the choice - edited together to give the networks something to tease audiences with to entice them to watch next week's show. So, until the 7th episode airs, let's keep DC as a bullet, and then we add it to the map and the chart. Provided, of course, that we don't learn later on in the ep - probably through "Hawkin's":-) discovery on his trusty Invunerable Swiss Army Notebook - that the informant isn't making this up as part of a plot to oust Mayor Green. 66.90.151.114 18:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Washington DC

message: So I just noticed that all of the character images are misspelled "Jerico" instead of "Jericho".  Do we want to take the time to move them to the correct spelling and update all the links? -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  04:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  character images 

message: Just a caution... I've had to correct three or four entries that used "Hawkin's" - keep in mind that the character's name is "Hawkins", with an "S". --Ckatzchatspy 18:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the corrections, Ckats 66.90.151.114 18:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Hawkins 

message: Can someone create a main article for Countdown? 66.90.151.114 19:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point in time, there isn't a need for an entire article dedicated to Countdown. There's not really a lot to say about it that hasn't already been said, or that can't be detailed here. --Ckatzchatspy 21:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, so you're saying that the synopsis for each webisode should be folded into the corresponding broadcast episode? If that was the case, why was there a main page created for the aborted Beyond Jericho?66.90.151.114 02:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I didn't comment on folding, synopses, or corresponding episodes - I just said there wasn't a need for a separate article for Countdown. As to why an article exists for Beyond Jericho, well, you'll have to ask the creator. It's not necessary either. --Ckatzchatspy 08:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you clarify why you don't see this as necessary? 24.227.251.199 18:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I'm curious as to why you don't see a separate article as necessary? A summary of the current clip is something I plan to work on in the next day or so, but before I put out the effort I want to see what one of my major detractors has to say about why such an article should not be created. 66.90.151.114 06:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a good justification to me. Any objections, Ckatz? 66.90.151.114 20:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not from the States either, so I can't see Countdown - but I still feel that it can be adequately covered by a synopsis on the related episode's page. However, WP's all about "consensus" - if most editors don't have an objection, than by all means create an article.  --Ckatzchatspy 05:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we know for sure that it's going to be 1:1 then I would say it would be best to just put the info into each episodes existing article under a ==Countdown== heading.  If it's not going to be 1:1 then I would say a seperate article would be justified.  -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status: 05:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in theory it should be 1:1, to include "backdated" webisodes corresponding to the previous 5 Jericho episodes.  The nav bar at the bottom of the current Countdown clip has designated slots for 22 webisodes.  However, whether this version takes or goes the way of Beyond Jericho is anybody's guess.  For now, I'd say just keep it as additional information on the main page, and if it does take off and do what it's supposed to, go with Argash's suggestion of inclusion in the episode article.  199.79.222.119 20:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countdown 

message: MatthewFenton disagrees with the standard set in the Television Wiki Project regarding episode names, and reverted the edits I made in response to the to-do request (which Matthew has since removed). His proposal is that we use "Episode Name (Jericho episode)" and not "Episode Name (Jericho)" as was earlier requested. I am fine with it either way, but can we have some discussion so a consensus can be determined? If "(xyz episode)" is preferred, should we then remove the  infobox, since that seems to go against the project standard? (As I mentioned, Matthew, I look forward to your input on this.) --TobyRush 20:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The project you cite has a whole 6 members, of them 3 particpated in that small discussion.. with one person implementing his suggestion.. and as noted there all the major shows do it "(xyz episode)" (Star Trek, Prison Break for example..) — That project its self is pretty dead tbh, its been running since 2004. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then do we remove the  infobox? --TobyRush 21:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, why would we do that? There to seperate projects? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant, do we remove the infobox from this page? To me, an admittedly novice Wikipedian, the infobox says, "We, the group of people editing the Jericho pages, are subscribing to this standard." If we are not subscribing to the stated standards of the project, regardless of how many people are actively discussing it or how active the project is, then why do we have a big, bright, bold link to it at the top of this page? --TobyRush 22:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A project doesnt exist to set its own "policys" but will generaly create guidelines, a guideline isnt set in stone and should be treated like.. say something bendy.. there a flexible type of thing, and It exists to offer colabaration.. each page though has its own ways of doing things as well however though. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  so guidelines are bendy eh... the same way that "avoid trivia sections" was bendy?  Interesting philosophy.  I see it changes to suit your way your estetics of how things should be done.--Gay Cdn  (talk) (Contr.) 23:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  What *he* said. 66.90.151.114 02:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why would we bend guidelines to stick trivia in an article? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I'm beginning to understand why so many people are pissed with you, "Matthew". It's your tone. You come across as if you think you own Wikipedia, or at least this article. Chill out and quit trying to run things. 24.227.251.199 18:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are these "so many people"? - You, you and you? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeez, don't you read your own talk page, Matthew? Or are you just blinded by your power tripping? 66.90.151.114 06:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You can count me as one of those "yous". Your pompous attitude is really annoying, almost like something out of a British aristocratic stereotype. 24.242.148.169 02:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a discussion about this going on at Project Lost; As Matthew mentioned, many shows use the "(xyz episode)" format, but it appears that the Lost folks are using the shorter "(xyz)" format. As I've mentioned, I don't really care which one is used, but I'd like to see it match prevailing standards... --TobyRush 06:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: General naming conventions prefer disambiguators such as (Australian politician) and (Canadian politician) as opposed to (Australia) and (Canada).  TV episodes should do the same (ie. define what it is, not just where it is from) - so (Lost episode) and (Jericho episode) should be preferred over (Lost) and (Jericho).  I'll check out the TV episodes WikiProject and see what they have to say. -- Chuq 02:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The episodes WikiProject seems to recommend the shorter form, but it's unclear whether or not it's been discussed much... and Matthew implies above that the guidelines of this WikiProject should not be followed anyway. Wikipedia:Disambiguation also seems to suggest a shorter form, but (as I mentioned in the Project Lost talk page) I don't know if television episodes warrant an exception. --TobyRush 05:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That's great, Argash. Will you post here when you start the RfC? I look forward to the discussion and results. --TobyRush 13:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The RfC has been posted, since the issue has come up for Jericho, Heroes and Lost (probably others as well) I have put in a singly topic which you can read and discuss here  -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status: 14:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Television Wiki Project and Episode Names 

message: Since it's apparent that each episode will bring a new morse code message, should we add a "Opening Morse Code" entry to the episode template instead of including the ever-growing table here on the main page? --TobyRush 20:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The morse code belongs on the indiv. episode page. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it belongs on both the episode pages and the main page. That's where they'll stay. 66.90.151.114 02:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would it belong on both?  Each message so far has revealed information that foreshadows that specific episode, with no reflection on the series as a whole.  There is also one message per episode, always following the Jericho title as per CBS' episode template. It belongs on the episode template for the wiki as well. --24.77.160.66 05:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Burden of proof is on you, son. Why would it *NOT* belong on both? 66.90.151.114 05:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like it was said above, this isn't your own personal wiki. Learn to use logic, son, but, if you don't there are other editors that will. --24.77.160.66 17:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's say the show continues on for five years... that's a very large table to have on the main page. The main Simpsons page doesn't include a table listing every chalkboard and couch gag from every episode; it includes them in the episode templates on the individual pages. I don't know much about creating templates, but I envision a Jericho episode template that includes the opening morse code. --TobyRush 07:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How about we just put it on both main and episode page for now; if it goes into a second season, we can take it off the main page then.  -- Chuq 07:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with this one. For now, we leave "66's" contribution in its current format, then when/if the series gets a second season, we move each entry to its respective episode, and leave a master reference link from the main article stating that each episode has its own morse intro message. 24.227.251.199 18:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "when/if"? It's little slips like that that can make the Great Pumpkin pass you by... :) --TobyRush 06:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HAH! Considering that See-BS used to air that particular cartoon before they botched the negotiations with that "great eastern syndicate" that runs Christmas, there's some incredible irony in that statement! 66.90.151.114 06:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ckatz, that looks great... just as I had envisioned it. I changed "Morse Code" to "Opening Morse Code" which I think clarifies it a little... is there a better way to say this? --TobyRush 06:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morse Code Table 

message: Rolex watches are self winding and mechanical (do not use electricity) and would not be affected by an EMP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.214.190 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 28 October 2006
:If true (and a quick Google search says it probably is; the Rolex page here isn't explicit), this may be a sign that she got a fake Rolex.  Trust the IRS auditor to get a cheap knockoff!  --Psiphiorg 10:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, now, let's not speculate here.24.227.251.199 18:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironicallly, the some three dozen fake Rolexes I've seen were all self-winding, just like the "Ovega" Omega knockoffs of the early 70's. My father still has one, and claims I'll get it when he dies because that's the only thing he willed to me. Regardless, this looks like a gaffe, and probably should be added to the Observations for that episode. 66.90.151.114 06:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: FYI, brass is not magnetic. WarFighter 01:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Warfighter.  The effect I'm talking about doesn't require a magnetic material, just a conductor.  Do a search on "magnetic ring toss" and you'll find clips and simulations showing how you can fling an aluminium ring up using magnetism.  On reflection though, I am sceptical that the share of the EMP received at a watch part would be sufficient to dislodge even a small cogwheel. The geometry of the parts and how they move in the field would need to be right too.  It doesn't prove that her watch couldn't have stopped working, and I've got no way of knowing the values involved, but my gut feeling says it wouldn't stop a clockwork mechanism - especially if it was well machined with closely fitting parts. If someone would care to send me a genuine Rolex I would consider experimenting ; ) Mygoditsfullofstars 11:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Granted.  However we're talking about episode 9.02 which featured a high-altitude airburst causing the town to suffer the effects of EMP. Mygoditsfullofstars 20:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, point taken. The handling of EMP effects in the show does seem rather sloppy and poorly explained. --Vincentfox 20:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolex watch 

message: Here are some screen caps which should answer questions as to what was and wasn't marked. -- Chuq 03:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawkins' map 

message: Hiya, I know that the RfC was mentioned in an above section, but I wanted to ensure that this didn't get buried, since we'd like as much participation as possible: There is an ongoing poll and Request for Comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC Episode Article Naming conventions which has relevance to how to title the Jericho episode articles. All interested editors are therefore strongly encouraged to participate, to ensure that your wishes are incorporated into the consensus process. --Elonka 23:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming conventions poll

message: Just so I don't tick anyone off I thought I would bring this up for discussion here before doing it.  I am suggesting the following three characters be removed from the main character table until such time they start getting focused on regularly, or in Sheps case show up (could be this week after seeing the previews):
*Shep Cale: Hasn't been heard from in several episodes and all indication is he's dead.
*Skylar Stevens:  a secondary character for fleshing out Dales story line. Granted she's seen in almost every episode but the story doesn't really focus on her so much as it focuses on Dale.
*Gracie Leigh: See above, again the she is there primarily to support Dale's character.
If there isn't any major objections I'll go ahead and remove them in 36 hours or so. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status: 10:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with removing Shep, since he's all but vanished off the face of the earth.  I'm inclined to keep Skylar and Gracie on the list, though.  I get the feeling Skylar's contributions to the storylines will be increasing shortly, particularly if the teaser of NY still being around is true.  As far as Gracie goes, she's not just there to support Dale's character.  She has a small focal point of her own, being the owner of the only grocery store in town.  I didn't much care for the treatment they gave her character over the pesticides, but I think they're slowly fleshing her out a bit as well.  Just my .02.199.79.222.119 18:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I take Dale as a main character, and Skylar is intertwined with Dale in the current storyline, so I think she should stay on the list.  That might change in future episodes, in which case it can be revisited, but for now, she seems to be fully integrated into the plot.  152.163.100.138 02:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominating the removal of "main" characters 

message: I took the references to the specific episodes and logic pathway that sets the show into 2009 out of the summary.  --KZeagle 02:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Potentially a good idea, as in Fallout, Robert Hawkins is shown driving a van with Kansas plates that expire in 2007.  I don't particularly know how long one could drive with expired tags, but I only made it about 6-ish months myself.  Basically, until something canonical establishes the year, anything regarding logical pathways to the year is speculation, and likely subject to change by the authors. --Puellanivis 04:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was one of the first people to jump to the 2009 conclusion, and later, I was one of the first people to decide that I had indeed jumped.  It's just as likely that Jake fudged the birthdate on his passport, and other clues (like the expiration stickers above, the expiration dates on credit cards seen in the series, and Dale's MySpace blog, point to the series being set in the present day.  Jury's out on 2009 for now.  152.163.100.138 03:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: They're going off the passport birthdate, which I think is wrong (either deliberately or unintentionally), and a few lines from Eric and April's divorce papers which turned out to be inconclusive.  As I wrote, I jumped, and I've jumped back.  I think it's set in the present; witness the Halloween-themed episode that aired the day after Halloween here in the U.S.  I think 2009 is still in the Heather Lisinski article, and I'm now going over there to remove it. 152.163.100.138 13:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Late September/Early October ("Rogue River" takes place on 1 November, which takes place a month after the bombs), to be precise. Will (message ♪) 23:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I wasn't asking about that, but alright. What my post actually says is that contrary to the 2009 date being talked about, the blog says 2006. Bronzey 05:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the 2009 theory has been thrown into serious question; see the long discussion above.  It's possible, but other clues point to the show being set in the present day, which I think is the case.  205.188.116.138 13:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving the conversation to the "Setting: 2009" section on this page, as this one is redundant.  205.188.116.138 13:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, I am one of the people who originally argued for 2009.  I think it has been called sufficiently into doubt that it ranks as speculation.  The birthdate on Jake's passport may have been forged for reasons relating to his "mysterious" past, the divorce papers are not conclusive, and we have expiration dates throughout the series that point to the present day.  So 2009, though possible, is speculation until we have more definitive evidence.  P.S.: Sign your comments. 205.188.116.138 00:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Setting: 2009 

message: For those who are interested I just ran the article through the automated peer review script and here's the results.
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.  See footnote 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status: 07:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken your recommendation to cut out the "Rally Point" subheading, and made it part of the other observations.  At this time, it's difficult to cut out the Morse Code, as if any part of it goes, one could justify removing the entire subheading entirely.  I could only think of the best solution to keep the information, yet drop the subheading would be to make another page for the Morse Code, and then link to it in "other observations".  But this doesn't seem like an ideal or clear solution to me at this time. --Puellanivis 23:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to suggest this as well. Unless the "Rally Point" becomes a major series plot focus that's at the forefront of every episode, it probably should be folded into the "Other Observations" section. 66.90.151.114 00:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's still too much about Beyond Jericho.  I think it could be summed up in one paragraph that there was one webisode aired, the feature was pulled and replaced with "Countdown" and the other "webumentaries"/prequels that are supposed to follow.  This section and the Morse code seem to border on the fannish, if not the obsessive.  Just my two cents -  152.163.100.138 02:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the information about Beyond Jericho is good to have, particularly since it was originally supposed to be an important tie-in and plot device within the show itself, but I agree it seems a bit lengthy for the main Jericho article.  Beyond Jericho at one point had its own article, but that was scrapped since it was more or less the same information found on the main page.  Maybe we should resurrect the separate Beyond Jericho article, leaving a brief synopsis of what it was on the main page.  199.79.222.119 19:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As clarified below, my intentions of spinning off all of the web-based content onto its own article is to avoid it filling up the main article.  If we make it more generic than just "Beyond Jericho", then it will include the reasons why Beyond Jericho was cancelled, why Countdown is a webumentary instead of a webisode, and actually provide a synopsis of each.  As it stands the article has a lot of information that colors and is more relevant to all of the web-based content, than just Beyond Jericho, yet that information is still headed under "Beyond Jericho".  --Puellanivis 22:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As the one who created that table, it may come as a surprise to some that I agree with Puell's observations to some point. If this series does go, say, three or four seasons, and the opens continue to feature the morse snippets, then the table *will* get rather bulky for the main article. What I would not be adverse to is to move the morse table to its own page, much as was done with the episodes list. 66.90.151.114 08:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the more likely thing that will happen is to break it out into the individual episodes, most likely in the infobox, since together they don't have much context and would probably not muster up to WP:Note. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  08:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm about the only person working on the Heather Lisinski article (it's okay, she's all mine, heh, heh) and it's the same problem over there.  Right now I'm briefly listing her activities in each episode, but if we get to 22 episodes this season, that list will be untenable, not to mention subsequent seasons.  I plan to go back in and retcon the details at a later date.  Maybe the Morse code should be handled the same way, or it's going to be a long list.  64.12.116.138 08:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated peer review 

message: Could someone add a sentence or two explaining the ratings numbers? MrZaiustalk 17:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Qualitative analysis of ratings requested

message: Matthew Fenton created a page for the 11/22/06 episode, and entitled it "Red Flag". However, has given it the synopsis for the previous week's episode, which is still titled as "TBA" by all sources. Would Matthew please correct the discrepancy, and cite the source for the "Red Flag" title? Thanks. 66.90.151.114 00:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So noted.  Just for continuity's sake, I've renamed the 11/15 episode Crossroads as well.  It looked weird for the 11/15 episode to be named TBA, and the 11/22 episode to have an actual name.  199.79.222.119 17:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TV Guide Online is now calling 11/15 Crossroads, and 11/22 Red Flag, with spoilers in the descriptions.  I think we can take that as being reliable.  64.12.116.138 08:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflicting Entries for 11/15/06 and 11/22/06 Episodes

message: as per episode now showing. 204.52.215.107 01:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh!  Keep spoilers out of headings please! -- Chuq 01:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New city info 

message: Of course, if he did have just the flu, antibiotics wouldn't be of any help at all.  From a medical viewpoint, the only good reason he would be on antibiotics is if he got a bacterially infectious pneumonia in his weakened state caused by the flu.  Of course, the fact that the show isn't very accurate about this is simply an indication of how various other small factors in the show should not be blown out of proportion.  Such as the actual location of Jericho, the date, etc.  As always, it's important to realize that we're dealing with a non-self-consistent world, and that canonical information may conflict with reality, or with inferences that could be deduced from other material.  So, just a nice friendly reminder that speculation is a VERY bad idea in any TV show, and especially in this TV series. Any show that would be so inconsistent with reality as to say "The flu is getting really bad, he needs more antibiotics!" should not be confused to be self-consistent even with itself.  ;) --Puellanivis 23:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The line about "canonical information conflicting with reality" is a good one when it comes to this series.  Oh, and the official CBS site does say that he's suffering from the flu, but since the flu can't be cured by any antibiotic, we can presume it's a secondary infection on top of the flu that requires medication.  I'll make that presumption here, but not in the main article.  152.163.100.138 08:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Mayor and Antibiotics: Why you need to keep speculation out of the way 

message: Since we're not sure if New Orleans was in fact attacked, or if the missing pushpin was just a continuity error, should this city be listed as actually having been attacked? I'm wondering if it's inclusion as such is more speculation than fact. 66.243.163.194 10:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically most cities in the list are included on the basis of them "possibly" having been attacked.  Only a few (like Denver) are definite.  New Orleans is just as much a "possibly attacked" city as the rest of the list. -- Chuq 11:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Orleans: Gone Or Continuity Error?

message: Please restore the Morse Code table to the main article, or create its own page and add a link. Thx. 24.242.148.169 02:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would not be an ideal thing to do to return the Morse Code table directly to the article.  We have already discussed that this table would eventually become incredibly unwieldy and only hinder the article itself.  That withstanding, you are perfectly within your position to start the page that you are suggesting, people will add and build upon your contribution... no one person need feel the burden that they must do a perfect job on wikipedia.  I would actually welcome a page exclusively covering the Morse Code from each series. --Puellanivis 06:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The code is quite adequately represented on individual episode pages. Adding it here won't help this article - I believe an earlier analogy was to The Simpsons article, which doesn't list all of the show's blackboard jokes. --Ckatzchatspy 10:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually find it *easy* to -miss- in that small box. The original table should be restored, but as I pointed out above as the series progresses it would be more apropos if it were restored to it's own page. 66.90.151.114 02:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When do you intend to either restore the section to the main article page, or set up a separate page? Thanks. 24.227.251.199 00:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue I have is that these "other wikis" stand a far greater chance of disappearing than Wikipedia itself does in the forseeable future. Whereas Wikipedia has a stronger support base, the smaller, more topic-specific ones are usually supported by no more than one or two individuals, funded on their own dime. I believe we will find in the long run that it'll be better to not blindly shunt off information on Jericho or any other topic to one of these "other wikis". If there is a rational, logical reason to keep each article's information down to the barest possible minimum, I would appreciate hearing it. Provided it doesn't come across as "Newspeak" in sheep's clothing, please. Geoffrey Mitchell 00:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hosting at http://www.wikia.com could fix that problem - Wikia is a commercial entity that hosts Wiki's for anyone, are funded by banner ads - and although separate to Wikipedia, are run by some of the same people who are part of the Wikimedia Foundation (the organisation that looks after Wikipedia.) and are going to stick around for a while.  I believe the Smallville episodes follow this format.  Disclaimer: I have no association/link to Wikia.  -- Chuq 00:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Morse Code Table

message: Just added semi-protection as a very short-term solution. A moderator can monitor this from now on.
I think with the show actually promoting the address on national TV contributed to so many edits.
:I had requested it no more than 2 mins ago --Mikecraig 10:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This place was badly vadanlised. I've reverted. --Shaoken 10:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If they did that then protection is a bad idea. Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk contribs &site=en.wikipedia.org count email) 11:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. Is there anyway we can figure out what they wanted when sending everyone here? Cause I just saw the link myself. --Shaoken 11:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They want people to catch up on the plot so far.  The longer the series goes on the harder it becomes for people to start watching because so much knowledge of the plot is assumed. --202.139.23.204 12:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I'm not in the US - what exactly happened?  Sounds very interesting, sending people here to read speculation (and potentially add their own), when that is exactly what we are trying to get rid off.  Thanks, CBS (or whoever did it!) -- Chuq 12:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same end promo at the end of the episode was also aired on Network Ten Australia, but with the wrong address (missing the en). I presume it was the same wherever the show is simulcasted with the CBS airing. - Boochan 13:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The address in the Network Ten airing is valid, as www.wikipedia.org takes you to the Wikipedia root directory, which has a "Pan-Wikipedia" search engine at the bottom of the page. It can search all of the Wikipedias, but is set to English by default. ThirdEchelon 02:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Network Ten advertised it as www.wikipedia.org and then type in Jericho --Ravend 02:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we consider adding an extra disambiguity link to that one? Just typing in "Jericho" takes you to the Biblical city of Jericho.Sixty Six 22:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at Jericho, it doesn't need a link at the top of the page for this show. The link to Jericho (disambiguation) covers it appropriately. However, I have rearranged that page to move the TV links higher up (hopefully without offending any fans of The Band...) --Ckatzchatspy 03:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I second this, so long as the protection is eventually lifted. Lifted as in a couple of weeks, and not permanent. Thanks. Geoffrey Mitchell 00:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, if for no other reason than, if it is permanent, I won't have anything to do while I'm at work.  :P  MikeFTM 02:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thirded - Fourthded? - on Chuq's protecting the main article. Not sure if he did so for the episode pages, but for the main article it should be sufficient. Good move, Chuq! Sixty Six 00:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything this is all publicity for Wikipedia. I thought it odd to have WWW.WIKIPEDIA.ORG in an ad, but whatever gets us more contributors to expand the encyclopedia and blah blah blah --WikiSlasher 09:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No I haven't touched any articles except for the main one, I'll probably remove it after a couple of days.  I notice we have had a couple of "contributors" below who seem to think the site is a discussion forum.  Oh well, any publicity is good publicity. -- Chuq 11:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let'em discuss all they want. After all, it's not cluttering the main article, and so long as they don't go changing and adding a bunch of unnecessary crap, they're not hurting anyone. On the other hand, I could just see someone - guess who? - chasing too many people off, and next week's episode will have a disclaimer "don't go to the Wikipedia site, as they're a bunch of jerks..." :-) Sixty Six 22:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Who? You? --WikiSlasher 07:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: These are all speculations. I just want to share my theory.
If Hawkins is a terroist, in my own opinion, it would be very uncreative. There are already many other reasons provided by others defending him, so I am not going to repeat all those things here. My main focus would be Gray.
*1. First, I strongly believe there would be a "major bad guy" in Jericho and he or she is probably already introduced by this time.(8th episode) Introducing a new character as an inside enemy would be difficult, though not impossible. The new actor would have to be very good to fit into the show.
*2. Other characters except Hawkins just don't fit in the role of being the inside enemy. The school teachers(Heather and Emily), the bartender(Mary), the mayor, the teenagers, the shopkeeper(Gracie, the old lady), the IRS agent are all very unlikely to fit into that role. In the case of the Green brothers, Jake is the main character. It would take a very brave and creative writer to make him the bad guy. It would also take a too dramatic change for Eric to be the bad guy. 
*3. Gray went out of the town for a period of time and his story was not told except from his own mouth. He could be lying about NYC and the drum thing just to frame Hawkins.
*4. Gray tried to question every one new to the town using his authority figure. This action can be interpeted differently. One might think that he is protecting the town. It is also possible that he is after people just like Hawkins, a possible government agent.
*5. This one is out of the content of this series. Michael Gaston's previous role as Quinn in Prison Break just keep reminding me that he is a bad guy. 
The one reason troubled my theory the most is that this guy is running for mayor, and why on earth would he blow up his own town? Nevertheless, I think a good writter should be able to solve that problem easily.
We have only seen 8 episodes and all things could be changed. The plotline is still open. So all things I wrote here are just guessing works. There could be no undercover terroists or agents other than Hawkins. Hawkins may not be a good guy after all or maybe they may never tell us. 
One thing I am worried about shows like Lost and Jericho is that the producers may never explain some of the mysteries in the show to the viewers. "Who attacked the US?" fit right into that category. Either all the questions are going to be buried at the end of the show or the series just gets cancelled and leave an open ending. Let's just hope that's not going to happen.
Nothing is perfect here so I am open to pros and cons as long as the comments are polite and I would be glad to hear them. 
There is also one tip from me. If anyone outside of the United States wants to watch Countdown on CBS official site, then use a proxy server based in the USA. I live in Canada, but I watched it by using one. --Swimfan 14:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gray Anderson as the terrorist hidding in Jericho and some of my other opinions about the show

message: Does anyone know how much time has passed since the attacks as of the latest (8th) episode?  --Dziban303 03:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's about 1 month as of the start of "Rogue River" (you can see by going to the episode summary page). Bronzey 03:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of time passed since the attacks 

message: For anyone who may be interested, this map has recently become interactive. By clicking on the various Jericho landmarks, you get an infobox and sometimes a picture. For those who may want to consider this information as being canon, there are some interesting tidbits of information there (probably would be "trivia" to the main article). P.S. Isn't it about time to archive this page (again)? 64.12.116.138 04:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jericho map on official CBS site

message: What do you think is happening in places like Alaska or Hawaii?  Or in Canada?  Mexico - maybe there is a lot of illegal immigrants going into Mexico from the USA?
What do you think international reaction is like - do you think most of the world knows who is responsible?  Or is it just as a secret to them as to the people of Jericho?  What about bombs going off outside the United States (maybe attack their allies)?  Lots of questions... so few answers.
-Paul
Hi all, im actually in australia and the last episode to go to air here was where the mayors sons go to kopekka to get the medicine, so Im just wondering how far we are behind. As for whats happening out side continental USA well one can only guess, the focus of this series is on Jericho and its residents, sure we have seen the Chinese news report (so at a wild guess) I say that we know atleast China has not suffered any attacks/or have they???.
Eelman007 11th november 2006
:Hi guys, I'm guessing you have both come here due to the message at the end of the most recent episode?  CBS has kind of done the wrong thing here, as this isn't really a site for general discussion and chat about the show - talk pages (like this one) are for discussion of the article, not the show.  Not that occasional chatter doesn't happen, but you may not find a whole lot of replies.  For more about what Wikipedia is, please have a look at this page!  TO answer your question about how far "behind" Australia is - well, we aren't at all - only a day or so - all of this information is in the article itself Jericho (TV series) -- Chuq 07:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You *really* think they're going to listen, Chuq? Sixty Six 08:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as a help (well, perhaps) to the newcomers, both IMDb and TV.com have very active "Jericho" message boards that have dissected the show down to its very molecules, and there are plenty of other "Jericho" forums; they will turn up in any Google search.  64.12.116.138 11:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside the Continental USA 

message: In anticipation of another Matthew Fenton hack'n'slashfest, would Quotes sections for each episode be against his will? Sixty Six 22:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a few selected quotes would be suitable in each episode article, but not the main one.  I'm not sure if Wikiquote would be better for them or not?  And can you please not get personal with Matthew Fenton in every single comment you make?  It is already getting you unwanted attention, it would be easier for everyone if you just discussed the actions that you didn't like, and not the person making them.  -- Chuq 01:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me ask a corollary question: are quotes from the characters appropriate on the individual character pages?  They've had some good ones, but I don't want to get into fancruft, and since these are fictional characters, I'm not sure if Wikiquote is appropriate.  This is probably in the WP:MoS somewhere, but I haven't seen it yet. 205.188.116.138 01:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure - it's not something I have looked at in the past - maybe look for other fictional characters' quotes' on Wikiquote and see where the line seems to be at the moment? -- Chuq 01:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I will have a look.  I also asked a question over on the Talk:Heather Lisinski page about whether or not the main article was written "out of universe" enough, or needed a little more distance.  So far no one has answered (I am almost the only person working on that article).  Thanks - 205.188.116.138 02:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I would think that a few quotes here and there, say one or two on each episode that are crucial or important to the plot, might be acceptable.  But it would have the potential to get seriously out of control and fannish, to the point where you just know someone is going to sit down and transcribe the whole episode verbatim, complete with facial expressions and hand gestures.  Maybe there's room for one or two quotes that accurately sum up the feel of the show as a whole, but with the show as new as it is that might be a bit presumptive yet.  It is an interesting question.  MikeFTM 16:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes Section?

message: 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?
Of course, feel free to modify the target page to improve it! -- Chuq 10:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 ? (as this is caused by the TV ad) -- Chuq 20:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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 &site=en.wikipedia.org count email) 20:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The current template 

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)
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)
thread_title:  Question re: Australian TV