Talk:Jericho (2006 TV series)/Archive 1

message: I'm reverting the introduction back closer to it's original form and dropping all of the extra "the" that have become present.  I think it's current form is better than saying the CBS dramas . . . the NBC comedies . . . the ABC reality . . . the FOX drama Bones.  Since abreviations are being used instead of the networks' full names, the "the" seem unneccesary
Phimu222 19:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction  

message: ive identified the music as best i could with some help from 
im not that good at wiki structure, so if anyone could clean it up a little better, please be my guest.
--Kommando 00:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Music

message: The article should be moved to a new name, as WP:NAME notes that "Series" shouldn't be capitalized because it's not a proper noun.  This article and Jericho (2005 TV series) have been playing musical chairs, so it's not clear what the best name for this article is...  maybe Jericho (CBS TV series) (and rename the other Jericho (ITV TV series))...  maybe Jericho (2006 TV series)...  maybe move this on top of what's currently at Jericho (TV series).  Take your pick, any of those would be better than "TV Series".  --Interiot 09:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: I made a navigation template, please feel free to add further categories as needed if you know how.  I added a simple list of episodes and a link to  a full list of episodes.  I also established an infobox for the series on the pilot page and started the pilot page.  I moved the music discussion to the pilot page itself.Transcendentalstate 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nav box, list of episodes, and links to episodes

message: If the show is already out somewhere then the article should not say that the show will premiere in "fall 2006", it should mention when the show premiered. However, I can't find any info on the web that indicates that the show has premiered yet.  tv.com says that the show premieres on September 20, 2006. SnappingTurtle 15:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is avilableas a dvd to a select ammount of people for critical commentery, reviews etc etc. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but I wouldn't call that "out" yet.  Preview releases are common in movies and tv, but the show hasn't officially premiered yet.  The definition of "upcoming" in this context should apply to what's available to the general public. I move that we put the "upcoming" template back in until Sep 20. SnappingTurtle 15:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show is already out? 

message: I liked the mushroom cloud image a lot more than the current image.  The mushroom cloud gives a more vivid description of the what the show's about.  It's also the image CBS uses in the official web site.  Opine.  SnappingTurtle 15:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the offical intro and thus should be used as it is the std. generally. I uploaded a mushroom cloud scene from the programe if you wish to view it its on the pilots episode summary. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That standard is only loosely followed and anyway it's a lousy standard.  A shot from the show is often a much better visual description of the show than the opening sequence. SnappingTurtle 16:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Disagree One thing rarely changes the intro. You are more likely able to identify the show via the intro. + The fair use argument is stronger. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *shrugs* We'll agree to disagree. I'm more concerned that the show get listed as "upcoming" until Sep 20. Any thoughts on that? SnappingTurtle 16:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well if you believe it should be listed on futre tv as its not been on tv yet, just dvd ill revert it now. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  It occurs to me that the future tv template says that that article contains "non-definitive" information.  Obviously if you're drawing from an official DVD that's not true.  It might make more sense to just put the article into the "Upcoming television series" category w/o using the template.  SnappingTurtle 16:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Or we could use  as that has the advance publicity part in it. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  certainly makes sense.  However, it doesn't add the future tv series category to the article.  My vote would be to add  and also manually put the article into future tv series. SnappingTurtle 16:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Kindly cease removing this information.  If the lead character is driving east on a Kansas two-lane highway with a road sign that reads "Jericho 47, Wichita 196," it is fair to assume that Jericho is approximately 149 miles distant from Wichita.  Western Kansas is straight and flat.  I have added the word "suggests" to placate the nitpickers in the crowd, and have removed any indication as to direction, even though the context of the series indicates that Jericho is in the northwestern corner of Kansas. 64.12.116.138 05:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is only fair to assume that the character is currently 47 miles distant from Jericho and 196 miles distant from Wichita.  If Jericho is not on the same path as the road to Wichita, your calculation (which is not verifiable) is incorrect.  Lets look at this map of Kansas.  Pretend that we are nearing the point marked Pratt (to the west of Wichita) and that the distance to Jericho could be the distance from the sign before Pratt then along the highway from Pratt to Hutchinson (NE), or it could also be the distance to Jericho on the highway from Pratty to Wichita.  The latter situation would make your calculation accurate, the former would likely make your calculation completely incorrect.  At that poin the distance from Jericho to Wichita would be calculated either over land, or by road (from Jericho to Pratt to Wichita OR from Jericho to Hutchinson to Wichita   I am not trying to use those numbers to identify where Jericho is, according to the scale of this map, I'm simply using Kansas' map to show how the road network's geometry can easily make your calculations speculative... a guess.  You are assuming that Jericho lies on the highway to Wichita, and it could easily lie off the road on another highway.  It is for this reason that I will continue to remove the information that is based on a calculation.  - BalthCat 06:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter that the show is about speculation, what matters is that Wikipedia is not about speculation.  As the show progresses, as media explores the show, sources which can be cited may pop up which speculate as to the location of Jericho.  However, for the moment, you are engaging in WP:OR, and speculation.  Your current version is less speculative, however it's still speculation.  Using the map and using those numbers I could place Jericho to the South West. Do either of us know how far away a mushroom cloud is viewable?  I'm betting no :)  It's only been one episode so far, there's no rush. - BalthCat 08:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Trivia sections are bad, sorry. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet they are all over Wikipedia.  I do not believe either blank was constructive. - BalthCat 08:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, one was :) - BalthCat 09:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe my tone isn't great, but "drawing logical conclusions from the evidence presented" is precisely what original research is.  And while I'm not "indicting" you in a nasty sense, that is what I see happening, and that is one thing we are supposed to avoid here.  I will admit that my knowledge of Kansan geography isn't great, so you may be right that to see the mountains that close may mean that the town would realistically be in NW Kansas, however we may find out soon that it is in fact in the SW and that the producers made a geography mistake.  (The promo poster of anything shouldn't be taken as indication of anything really, those are liberally doctored and spruced up all the time.)  I also don't know how Kansan road signs work, but here, having two cities on one sign does NOT mean they are in a line, *especially* on a highway.  It simply means that, regardless on where your turn offs are, you are currently that distance from arriving.  Like in the Pratt/Hutchinson/Wichita scenario I explained above.  In fact, you can be headed almost *away* from a place and still see the city listed if a common off-ramp is coming up.  Again, all depending on the road geometry.  Not that anything that radical has to happen in this case.  The very plausible scenario I presented above invalidates speculation based on the numbers.  I am curious to know if you are a driver?  Because the "just off of" part really doesn't sound right in my experience.  If it's a big enough population center (like Wichita would be, in Kansas) it will be noted even if it is out of the way.  (Driving through Quebec was like that, NONE of the tiny towns were along the actual highway and they were ALL off to the side.)  And again, even if it's the most obvious thing in the world, if you can't WP:CITE the information, it technically isn't right for Wikipedia.  So regardless of the mountains, regardless of the fact that you HAVE to be in the west of Kansas to be that far from Kansas City... it's still just speculation and OR. - BalthCat 09:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I'm sorry you feel that I was merciless, but "presuming" and "deducing" based on posters and scenes in the episode is still presuming (assuming) and deducing, even if you could show the second at which those scenes appear in the episode.  The producers might have fudged it and may come out and say that Jericho is in SW Kansas.  *I* didn't know that you can't see the mountains that well from SW Kansas, maybe they didn't and forgot to check.  If they say it's SW, it's SW, even if the mountains are in the wrong place in the world of Jericho.  Doesn't make you wrong, doesn't make them right (about real world Kansas).  It just means it shouldn't be in this article because it isn't a Fact about Jericho.  It's an assumption.  - BalthCat 21:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, though I am not sure how to edit it properly, so I'm not sure if I am going to edit it.  I have not seen the movie, and as such might make a mistake in removing content.  I checked one of the older versions that had a better wording for it, as well.  So for now, I'm not sure I plan to edit. It *is* still assumptions. I'm not sure why this is so important to you... - BalthCat 23:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just trying to make the point that if the standards are going to be enforced (and rather strictly so with respect to the "Jericho" article), then they ought to be enforced across the board, no double standard.  Perhaps this article merely has more hall monitors.  I have seen "The Day After," and the paragraph in question goes far beyond assumptions, and in the spirit of equanimity, it has now been edited, by me. 152.163.100.138 14:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Just because this discussion interests me... the problem with your theory here is that distance markers on highways aren't as the crow flies, and -- especially out in the middle of nowhere -- a route may go at right angles to its intended destination for quite some distance without really getting any closer to where you're going, even though the mileage still counts.  (An example: if you're north of Luray, Kansas, heading southbound on US 281, you're very close to being due north of Great Bend... but once you hit Luray, US 281 turns west along KS-18 for almost 15 miles, actually going away from Great Bend even though eventually it turns back to the south and ends up in Great Bend.  It's around an extra 20 miles, which is significant considering, as the crow flies, Luray's only about 50 miles north of Great Bend.) JFMorse 02:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: On the second thought, it can't be a high altitude explosion because we see a mushroom cloud. Besides, an EMP would not just disrupt radio and TV, it would fry all electronics in the city.  --Itinerant1 09:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, didn't anyone else remember seeing Jake getting off a train Denver, Colorado and picked up his car in the parkade and started driving? He was definitely driving east towards Jericho. --Kvasir 07:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above.  This has been argued to death.  205.188.116.138 05:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The presence of I-70 converging with the numbered "routes" 40 and 83 at Jericho seems to be more than coincidental.  Oakley is evidently in keeping with the other determinations about Jericho's location.  I have merged all of the information into one paragraph in the main article, being careful to note that Jericho is a fictional creation, and so is the map on the CBS site. 205.188.116.138 03:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Drawing reasonable conclusions from information that has been presented to you is not original research. bob rulz 00:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that statement one hundred percent. 205.188.116.138 08:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Way to just reprint everything I said in a more long and drawn-out format.  And CBS DID publish a road map of Jericho , it just happens to be innacurate and does not exist in the real world Phimu222 11:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was intended as a summary, not a repeat.  The entire community does not exist in the real world, and the CBS map shows the configuration of roads IN Jericho, NOT its location in the state of Kansas.  There is going to continue to be speculation on the exact location of Jericho, so we can either prolong this discussion (notice we have a "page length" warning already) or acknowledge the obvious: that the speculation exists, and that from the "facts" presented in the series and the map, we have been given pretty good clues to where Jericho is located.  (I'd E-mail the producers, and specifically ask them, but that would violate WP:OR, no?  It might be worth it just to end this debate.) 205.188.116.138 22:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you made the right call in removing that sentence.  I tweaked the verbiage a little. 205.188.116.138 22:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and it's a little odd that this is the single largest section in the discussion area. Point of fact- it's a TV series, and while it shows something that may well be an increasingly possible event, the series itself, the town, and the people in it are not real. I'd rather see a section this large on "Lessons that can be learned from the series" or some such, not where a fictional town is located.--Breandán 20:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: On the "official" map of Jericho shown at the CBS site, I-70 runs right through Jericho.  That makes it official whether they've mentioned it on the show (yet) or not.  As for Jake's route to Jericho, perhaps he just prefers the back roads. 205.188.116.138 07:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interstate 70 has been established in dialogue as of the third episode, and we have another clue as to location: Goodland is established as being southwest of Jericho.  This places Jericho further north and east in Kansas than had been previously speculated.  Time to look at the little towns along I-70 again. 152.163.100.138 08:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at I-70 in Western Kansas, the only point that one can call "northeast" of Goodland (and barely so) is near Colby, Kansas.  The rest of I-70 dips south as you go east.  So I'd say this vicinity is a good bet for the location of Jericho.  205.188.116.138 02:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the geometric map is a work of art, but I agree completely with its removal. 152.163.100.138 08:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Dont list it in a trivia like sense then (You've just copied the bullets to a new section) reformat it into paragraphs and only include relevent cited information. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There will always be speculation about its location.  In episode three we learned that the town is a bit further northeast than previously discussed (Goodland is southwest of it).  I think the current paragraph in trivia is fine - it sticks to the facts, both real-world and "fictional" - but I have no objection to making it a new section. 205.188.116.138 02:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of Jericho 

message: When does Jericho premiere?  I haven't been able to find any authoritative statement on that detail. SnappingTurtle 16:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wednesday, 20th of September.. per theoffical website. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah... that official site.  Got it.  Thanks!  I've changed the "Official Site" listing in the article. SnappingTurtle 17:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cool . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premiere date? 

message: Someone write a summary of the pilot episode. `84.234.110.198 09:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Pilot (Jericho episode). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Pathetic. --Mhking 00:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no indication (as of the pilot episode) that anyone was able to "bomb all America," just Denver and Atlanta - and it is still unclear exactly what happened in both cities.  Future episodes should tell us more. 205.188.116.138 07:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: um, I'm not sure what do you mean User:Mhking. The series is pathetic or the idea itself? 195.177.225.226 20:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on a careful viewing of this scene, it appears that the other car's occupants were looking at the nuclear explosion, veered out of their lane and into oncoming traffic, and then were killed in the collision with Jake's car.  (Jake was also looking at the explosion, but they were in the wrong lane.)  So I'd say the other car's driver was at fault. 205.188.116.138 07:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary needed 

message: Just in case people aren't aware - when naming articles, generally don't use disambiguation unless necessary.  For example, Jake Green (Jericho character) should be at Jake Green, but Robert Hawkins (Jericho character) is fine at its existing title because there is already a Robert Hawkins article (about a Canadian politician).  I'll move the pages affected by this now. -- Chuq 01:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character article names 

message: I don't know who thought it amusing to replace the name of Jericho producer Carol Barbee with the name of alleged Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbee, but I have corrected this and put Ms. Barbee's name back where it belongs.  152.163.100.138 18:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fitting.  "This content is not viewable outside of the U.S."  That's pretty damn horrid. -Emhilradim 01:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Where is the evidence for San Francisco being hit?  I've been through the third episode with a fine-tooth comb, including going through the Chinese TV broadcast frame-by-frame, and can't find any proof.  Is it in the spoken Chinese dialogue? 152.163.100.138 09:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether there is or not, please try to avoid putting spoilers in section headers - these show up in edit summaries and as a result in watchlists.  I've changed the heading appropriately. -- Chuq 11:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tutorial on that, I was completely unaware of it.  I will be more careful with future postings. There is also a legitimate question as to whether or not New York City was hit, so this might as well be the "cities" section anyway. 152.163.100.138 19:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The red concentric circles in the northwest are definitely at Seattle - they're too far north for Portland.  Emily (Jake's ex-girlfriend) also mentions other cities (Los Angeles, Wichita, Des Moines) that may have been attacked, but she is in a state of shock as she believes her fiance has been killed, and there is no other evidence for them, so I don't think they should be included.  Someone keeps adding them to the article, and I keep trying to take them out, but most of the AOL proxy IP addresses are blocked at the moment. 152.163.100.138 22:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Moved this discussion to the "cities hit" section.  If you've got a map with a target that looks like New York, and the Chinese characters for "New York" are present, then I think that's an established fact, and NYC should be added to the list, even if it hasn't been revealed in dialogue or to the characters in the series.  The newscast got the rest of the cities right, and it IS a newscast, so I think we have to take it as factual, even with the possibility that they might not have data on all the cities that have been hit.  The cities that Emily babbled in shock (Los Angeles, Wichita, and Des Moines) should be removed, there is no corroborating evidence for those.  I'd do all this myself, but, those AOL proxy blocks again... 152.163.100.138 04:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was finally able to get at the main article and have made the changes noted above. 64.12.116.138 06:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, the characters on the Chinese map read "Los Angeles," at the point that everyone has assumed was San Diego (marked on Hawkins' map).  Also, we have Emily mentioning Los Angeles in dialogue and it occurs before she becomes hysterical.  This appears to be two factual plot points, and so, I have added Los Angeles to the list of cities presumed to be hit.  (Leave it to the producers to give us key clues in Chinese!)  205.188.116.138 07:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it should be put in as a possiblity, or questionable since it isn't confirmed through TV, morse code, or any other way other than a possible person knowing the skyline. Just my thoughts.--Kranar drogin 00:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. Yeah, I knew it would be a "Questionable"... Not to mention our secretive friend (Forgot his name too XD) rolled his eyes when Eric said it. But here is another possibility: Wright Patt. Air-Force Base is in the "General Vicinity" (IE: At least in five counties of Cincinatti)of the city. So perhaps the Nuke was detonated at or near Wright Patt. And the images they are seeing are pictures of the mushroom sweeping through the city, or of like the looting or pandemonium the detonation caused. 67.142.130.43 01:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved this discussion to the "cities hit" section. As was said in the fourth episode, "Cincinnati is a question mark," and I think that stands just fine as stated.  205.188.116.138
Regarding the word "possibly": the section is called "Cities believed to have been attacked and/or destroyed," the word "confirmed" is not in there, so I think "possibly" is redundant and I am removing it.  We have two relevant plot points each for New York and Los Angeles, so I think we can take those two as confirmed. 205.188.116.138 05:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cities hit (or not hit) 

message: As the CBS 'innertube' site mentioned for watching episodes is only viewable from inside US, is there anyway around this? i.e. some software that routes an internet connection so the episodes can be watched from other countries.220.245.137.174 14:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could, in essence, using a proxy.  Either way, it's tacky and in my opinion absolutely ridiculous to host content that only US citizens can view. -Emhilradim 01:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyright, sales and legal issues. (not that I like them) 205.188.116.138 02:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit tricky with proxy.... javascript on the page now won't work.... :( --Kvasir 06:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside US? 

message: Get with it people! A CHINESE person can speak Mandarin, Shanghainese, Cantonese, etc. In this sentence: "During a Mandarin news broadcast intercepted..." The language is to be emphasized, just as the characters were trying to figure out at first. Why not clarify that right in the beginning? Afterwards the NATIONALITY can be used interchangeably. Yes, one can be 95% certain it was a Chinese person, and to the trained ear one can even discern it is the Mainland accent. But it is certainly no original research that it was identified correctly by Hawkins that the LANGUAGE was Mandarin. --Kvasir 03:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, is the phrase "Mandarin Chinese" accurate?  And what was being said in Mandarin by the newscaster? 152.163.100.138 04:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be accurate, if not a little redundant itself. However, it would be clear to those who are unfamiliar with the Chinese languages situation and with the language family to which Mandarin belongs. --Kvasir 06:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese vs Mandarin

message: There were some comments about trivia and location at the bottom of this page.  I moved those comments to the sections on trivia and location; no sense in having redundant sections.  I also renamed the latter section to simply "Location of Jericho," since that's really what the debate is about (the longest debate I've ever seen on Wikipedia, although I'm sure there must be longer ones).  Not sure about the policy on editing talk pages but I did not remove any comments, just moved them to the appropriate sections.  152.163.100.138 21:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem at all with moving discussion to appropriate sections - thanks! -- Chuq 07:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of talk page 

message: In the opening of the shows (when "Jericho" is displayed) is the sound in the background SOS in Morse Code? Paulvil 00:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's different morse code messages in each episode.  In the third episode, it was "Jericho Three", which may have simply referred to the episode number.  The fourth episode's morse code was "He knows Rob", which was a little clue about the refugee from Denver for those who stopped to figure it out.  Unfortunately, I don't have the first two episodes anymore, so I don't know if they had messages over the title screen or not.  The morse code mentioned in the second episode's page is from later in the episode, over the radio.  Can anyone help with this data?  --Psiphiorg 05:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, InnerTube came in handy.  The first two episodes were "Jericho Pilot" and "Jericho Fallo" (short for "Fallout", the title of the episode).  So really, the fourth episode was the first one that held a clue, rather than a description of the episode.  --Psiphiorg 06:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SOS?

message: If at some time Darcy can get get own entry, please fine some information on the actress, April Parker:
"A native of Durham, N.C. Parker's stage work includes: Darleen in "Fool's Gold," Lynn in "Mercedes," and work with The Chamber Theatre Touring Company. She has done a number of independent films, her most recent being Joy. Along with the new abundance of inspiration she houses in her one-year-old daughter, she is excited to grace the theatre and screen world with a greater passion and motivation. " - Short bio info from her role in the 2002 film Joy 
Tony Hecht 02:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: April Parker as Darcy Hawkins

message: Q: Since Denver was apparently nuked, how long will it be before Trey Parker and Matt Stone show us how South Park was affected, and whether or not it was Cartman who caused it all?
::OMG They nuked Kenny! Those bastards!
::Thelastemperor 02:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Most Important Question This Series Raises

message: In the basic facts box, the show's running time is listed as being 60 minutes. Shouldn't this be the average of ~43 minutes, which is what each episode would run w/o commercials? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.138.81 (talk • contribs) 
:Done. If anyone knows exactly what the run time is sans commercials, please adjust accordingly. --Ckatzchatspy 07:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Each episode runs slightly different, but averages out to about 43 minutes. Most likely when the DVD release arrives we'll be able to determine actual ep lengths and adjust each entry. However, most CBS affiliates get this info e-mailed to them, so if anyone who works for the network can provide these, they'll be appreociated. 24.242.138.81 20:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually watch the show through a local cable company's on-demand service. The description page says that each episode runs 43 minutes, but there are also about two minutes worth of promos in it, so that might not be as accurate. alt_trav 00:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Running Time

message: I have watched and re-watched the scene in question, and it seems impossible to me to determine with any kind of confidence the exact nature of the objects observed flying overhead at the end of the episode. 
I noted this in the article, as someone had previously made the assumption that these were ICBMs. While this might seem logical, it is also speculatory, so I noted the alternate possibility. However, someone then changed the wording around to further endorse their original presumption. Now I have reedited this again, drawing out the possibilities and fully noting that it is, at present, UNKNOWN. Here is what I put:
"At the end of the fifth episode, there is a rumbling and people rush outside to see at least 2 unidentifiable objects moving through the sky accompanied by a loud roar. The objects appear to be Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), but could also be some sort of air craft. As the shot of the objects is brief, it is difficult to identify these objects definitively. Their trajectory may imply that they are missiles, or air craft at a high rate of climb, but visual perspective makes this difficult to determine. Their single engine plume, further implies these objects are missiles, though they could be any of numerous aircraft with a single contrail (from a single engine). Also, the amount of time that elapsed from the time of the shaking to the observance of the objects was too short for the take off of an ICBM from its underground silo, depending on the distance of the launch origin. This could be an instance of the TV show condensing time, a minor oversight, or could simply be relative to Jericho's location in relation to the missile silos. However, it should be noted that the shaking could have conversely been caused by a sonic boom from a super-sonic jet. If the objects were ICBMs then it is very likely that they were part of a retaliatory nuclear strike against those responsible for the attacks on the United States. Such a response would have likely occurred sooner after an attack, however. If this line of reasoning is correct, it has significance: 
A) it makes it very unlikely that Denver and the other cities were attacked via ballistic missiles, because NORAD would have detected them and responded immediately (this also makes it unlikely that the culprit was North Korea, China, Russia or another major state, unless they used asymmetric means of attack). Thus, either the U.S. early warning systems were compromised (or the chain of command interrupted, thus delaying any response), or it can be assumed that the attacks were made via unconventional means (this corresponds with other clues that suggest a ground detonation took place in Denver). 
B) If the objects are ICMBs, this also strongly suggests the U.S. is retaliating against one or more nations, probably due to their involvement in the attacks. 
As the objects were far off, and only briefly shown, it will be impossible to identify them exactly until the next episode."
Now, seeing as how I gave a fair rundown of both possibilities and the related premises and arguments, I should hope that no one feels the need to go back and again assert the supremacy of their theory, no matter how obvious they might think it seems. Thanks.Thelastemperor 23:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above text has been removed. No offense to Thelastemperor (and apologies for misspelling your ID in the summary!), but it is far too long, involved, and speculative. This article is not intended to be a forum for debate about all the possibilities if this were a real-world event. Instead, it should summarize what impression the viewer is left with. --Ckatzchatspy 23:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Neat. And loud, no doubt. Hope you're not put out, but I edited your text as well in an effort to keep the length of the note under control. I think the three listed points (trajectory, plume, and vibration) are verifiable because they are in the show. Sound could be considered somewhat speculative, simply because it is very likely that the noise we heard is a combination of several different effects, some or all of which may not have anythnig to do with missiles... --Ckatzchatspy 23:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not put out at all. I'm new to contributing and appreciate the feedback. And yeah, the noise is incredible! From miles away your guts quake like you just ate in Mexico. dziban303 23:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Belay that. Someone already did the analysis based on the CBS website map and a cap of the show. If the trajectory is eastward, and the missiles were launched from Colorado, then that would be the shortest ballistic trajectory to targets in the Middle East. Were the ICBMs headed to Russia, they would have been a more northward direction, and while possibly seen to the West near the horizon by the inhabitants of Jericho, they probably would not have been heard. Had China been the target, the missiles would have gone Westward and would neither been seen or heard.
Juust to put in my 2 cents.  I showed Ep. 5 to my father who was stationed in Nevada in the 40's-50's and he said they appeared exactly as Minuteman missles would look at night from ~50 miles away.  He said he's seen enough test fires to have a good idea of what they'd look like.  He also said that in all likelihood there would be a minimum of 10-15 in each regional grouping (of the missles), so either not all were fired, or the producers just decided to use two.Satmaster12 00:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICBMs or No ICBMs 

message: I understand how analyzing the frames may cause someone unfamiliar with a USA passport to mistake the character for a G.  However, On a USA passport the script in that region is highly stylized and over a mesh of blue.  Yet, there is a void in the pattern in the middle of the U that could easily be mistaken for the interior return of a G. Mythdraug 11:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: USA/GSA Passport

message: Does anyone know/remember what time of year/month the story so far is taking place?  My best guess is perhaps late summer butdoes anyone have any other clues?
Ferd Blivid 13:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its probably not too far into fall since noone has made any statements regarding needing to get to the farm to harvest... Kyaa the Catlord 13:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that may be because they realise that this years harvest can't be used. I believe Hawkins informed them of that already if I'm not mistaken.  -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  15:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They celebrate Halloween in an upcoming episode.  I would say the show roughly corresponds to our current calendar dates - although there is speculation in the main article about the show being set in 2009, q.v..  64.12.116.138 06:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Month/time of year

message: I'm considering flagging this article as being vandalized considering Matthew Fenton's censorship activities of late. Comments are welcome on this one. 24.242.138.81 21:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seriously need to learn what vandalism is and read Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Er, not to pick nits or anything, but he didn't add the link for the Minuteman missiles, I did.199.79.222.119 19:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Who is we? Where is your invisible consensus? Have you read Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Matthew Fenton: Vandal?

message: *NOTE: This section was moved for clarity WRT Matthew Fenton's unwarranted editing/deleting of the Trivia section.
Whaa?  Deleted the trivia section completely?  Isn't that just a little heavy-handed?  I thought there was some rather useful information in there, although I was not too keen on some of the later additions.  I have restored some of the relevant material. 152.163.100.138 05:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps.  It should have been put in its own section on errors or what not on the show.  The whole EMP thing could go there too.  I had just noticed that the handhelds used by the convict deputies were radio scanners.  The radio in the car was a CB radio.  The scanner cannot receive from the CB radio.  The CB radio cannot transmit to the PR 400 radio used by Jake.  Definately doesn't really affect the story line of the show, just a trivia thing.  Perhaps I should have left in the part about they wouldn't work together, would have made the inclusion seem more obvious.  Mcmillen76 04:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Errors or oversights in this particular show would be a long list.  Perhaps it would be more like a list of improbabilities.  Honestly, I don't even want to go there.  205.188.116.138 07:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Tried to rid the page of insignifcant trivia before.. will run annother cleanup soon to purge the page of the unneeded stuff. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last sentence is an assumption.  I agree, the first part seems to be sufficient as a "historical fact" for the trivia section.  One would think that Jericho might even have predated 1922, it could be a pioneer town for all we know. 205.188.116.138 02:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to be a pain, but the 1922 inscription above City Hall is not WP:OR, it's clearly visible in episode two, and it appears to mean what it means.  I have reinserted this piece of information into the trivia section. 152.163.100.138 20:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has no relevancy to the artile, it provides nothing meaningful. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but this provides the date of the establishment of the town, which seems to be a point of information that is worth including in the article.  I re-worded this slightly to make it less speculative. 152.163.100.138 20:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Read Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles - If you can cite you trivia please do, but it will still be removed if: a) provides nothing meaningful except uncited facts, b) has no relvance to the article as a whole, c) Could be integrated into text (ie. location trivia shouldnt be here it should be in teh Jericho location article). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Provides nothing meaningful" is in the eye of the beholder. Wikipedia is full of trivia sections (good and bad), and the trivia section in this article provides backstory either on the series or the fictional town of Jericho.  If there is a Jericho location article, please direct me to it.  You are also welcome to call to my attention any points of trivia that are not based on "facts," either those in the real world, or in the fictional world of the series, but deleting the entire trivia section is not helpful to anyone and seems to reflect your personal preference that there simply should not be any trivia sections, anywhere.  "Avoid" is one thing, "delete" is another. 205.188.116.138 09:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very hard to have a discussion with you if your IP keeps changing, please sign up. Secondly the article is here. Thirdly, if trivia can be avoided the it should, its already been purged a number of times, and unless it is required then it shouldnt be there. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether I have signed up or not (or choose to or not) is irrelevant to the discussion and at best is a red herring.  I read the Jericho, Kansas location article, and it's full of speculation and ends with the erroneous conclusion that Jericho is in fact Oakley, Kansas.  This has been disproved by evidence presented in the series itself, which was also presented in the trivia section before you deleted it.  The actual location would be closer to Colby, Kansas.  Another piece of deleted information in the trivia section, regarding the population of Jericho, was a key plot point in the second episode.  As far as I can tell, the only person purging the trivia section is you.  I believe you simply want it your way, and won't assume good faith on the part of the other contributors.  Also I don't think it is your duty to define what is "meaningful" in the context of the article since you have already taken out one key plot point without regard to its relevance to the series.  In a similar way, "required" is also in the eye of the beholder.  Now, I would ask that you back down and permit those who wish to add, rather than subtract, useful information to do so.  Thank you. 205.188.116.138 09:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's original research/uncited and will be purged as it has no relevance in this article. - and population information does not belong here either. If text can be brought into context then it should be, which your trivia can be in Jericho, Kansas. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Matthew, I would much rather post useful information than argue, but I think your purging has been excessive (you have purged the ENTIRE trivia section AT LEAST twice) and I don't think that is helpful.  You have said yourself on this page that you don't like them ("Trivia sections are bad, sorry") and others have disagreed with you.  When I have the time, I will repost the relevant pieces of information in the Jericho, Kansas article and put a link in this article to direct people to it.  Some of the information (such as where the pilot and series are filmed, which is clearly relevant here) belongs in this article, not the one on the (fictional) town.  Finally, noting on-screen information which is presented to us for the purpose of further understanding the plot and background of the series is NOT original research, it is careful observation.  NONE of the cities mentioned or seen on the show have, as yet, been proven to have been attacked.  All is presumed from the information presented, some of which is highly nuanced or only suggested.  I realize that there are standards and policies at Wikipedia, but I find the constant "hall monitoring" and what I'd call "slavish adherence to rules" (without regard to common sense) makes it extremely discouraging to contribute.  It is a waste of time to have one's work and contributions constantly reverted or deleted based solely on someone else's opinion or interpretation.  Off my soapbox now. 64.12.116.138 16:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I noticed someone restored part of the trivia section, but it seems a few entries short. Could someone restore the complete section before Matthew got a little heavy-handed with his attempts to mold this entry unto his image? 24.242.138.81 22:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehem? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting quote, "to mold into his own image".  I expressed the same sentement on the Talk:List of Jericho episodes talk page.  Mr. Fenton seems to have ownership issues with these Jerico articles.--Gay Cdn  (talk) (email) (Contr.) 23:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  From my own encounters with Matthew's ego today, it's obvious that his success with the Lost pages has gone to his head. When time permits, I'll probably go surf those pages - even though Lost isn't a show I'm one iota interested in - and see whether or not he's encountered the same derision and rejection for his rather heavy-handed actions there as well as here.
It would be nice if some of the anon users calling Matthew Fenton a vandal here actually registered accounts so that we know who we are talking to.  I know I shouldn't discriminate between registered and unregistered users, but if we could link your comments to your edits and see what kind of editor you are, it would really help a lot in determining if you are really a bunch of concerned users who co-incidentally are almost all unregistered; or a group of trolls.  Not that I'm saying you are trolling, but no-one can really tell if you are or aren't when you are anonymous. -- Chuq 20:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Not to speak for others, but for myself, although I do have a registered account, I don't like logging onto it at work, so I just do all my editing anonymously when at work.  Ironically, I get more time to play on the interwebs at work than I do at home.  Go fig.  :\ 199.79.222.119 20:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia section - Matthew Fenton, Read & Heed

message: (Note: this talk section copied from the Episode 5 talk section)
According to the FCC's official Emergency Alert System website, and the Part 11 rules governing the EAS, there are currently no plans or procedures in effect to implement the type of EAS "lockdown" on the Internet as seen on all the computer screens in Jericho. As it can be derived from Jake's age and his date of birth on his driver's license, it can be argued that by 2009 such capabilities would be in place.
Q: should this observation be included on the the main article page, or is would this be another of Matthew's little "no-no's"?66.90.151.114 05:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your observations negate your conclusion, Aaron. The fact that it is *not* possible for the Federal Government to shut off the Internet "with a switch" as seen on Jericho, mention should be made on the main page of this fact. However, from my understanding of the EAS - and especially first-hand operational experience with it's predecessor, the Emergency Broadcast System, as well as the original plans for CONELRAD, the total government takeover of all terrestrial and satellite TV broadcast systems is not by any means out of the question. In the case of Jericho, keep in mind they are receiving a signal from apparently one or possibly two satellites, and with most - if not all - commerical uplink sites most likely disabled by the attacks for any number of reasons - loss of power, lack of operational personnel due to evacuation, EMP damage to equipment, outright annihilation of facilities due to being way too close to Ground Zero, etc - it's quite probable that a Federal Government uplink would have the capability of sending a signal coded for simulcast over all active downlink frequencies available on a particular satellite. 66.90.151.114 06:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emergency Alert System 

message: New York City wasn't hit. The map shows the hit in Philadelphia. Remeber the second episode, Robert Hawkins' map has Philly hit. 
BTW- Any ideas of the delivery of the initial hits? The president was on the air when it happened, so I think any airborn raid, be it ICBM or whatnot, can be ruled out.
*We don't know that NYC wasn't hit. Hawkins could be getting incomplete information. "No honor amongst thieves" and all that. --Aaron 05:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York City Wasn't hit, the original hits

message: Kudos to CKatz for the change to the shorter word. That was the word I was initially looking for, but didn't grasp at the time.66.90.151.114 06:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath Subheading 

message: I've added a section dealing with the Morse Code messages received in the series. . -. .--- --- -.-- / ..--.. / 66.90.151.114 07:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morse Code Section 

message: Here's a proposal to settle this dispute between Matthew, myself, and several others over the Trivia section debate. Instead of "Trivia", we change this to "Observations", which should be acceptable as the entries would, in fact, be direct observations of things and events seen on the series. This would allow for minor tidbits that may actually be clues to the various mysteries the series that, if added to the episode synopsis, would arguably unnecessarily fatten those synopses. I personally would not object to such a reclassification, and it would be a logical compromise that would settle the matter. 66.90.151.114 08:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to Change "Trivia" Sections to "Observations" 

message: Q: should we be numbering episodes with a single or double-digit sequence number, as we're doing now, or should these be listed instead in the more familiar shorthand of SxEE, where "S" is the season or series number, and EE is the episode number?66.90.151.114 03:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A: Do series with only one season also follow this shorthand?  Until the show is renewed for a second season (and I am hopeful that it will), I think it would be premature to add "1x" (or even just "1", as I've more often seen) to all of the episode numbers.  --Psiphiorg 03:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I did some quick searching, and series that have only one season appear to be listed by single or double-digit and not the shorthand. However, if the ratings trend persists, a second season has a good chance of happening, and we'll most likely "retcon" the listings accordingly. I'll consider the issue tabled for now if no one objects. 66.90.151.114 03:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode Numbering