Talk:Jericho (2006 TV series)/Archive 4

message: I was able to visit the set a few weeks back and snapped a few pictures.  They are available on the commons (:commons:Jericho (TV series)) so feel free to add them to any articles as appropriate.  I'll upload a few more in the coming days.  As many of the pictures contain spoilers, I'll wait until the finale airs to upload the rest.  --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually we should probably hold off on using any images until this is resolved. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether the pictures are able to be used or not, thank you for sharing them.  What was the occasion of your visit to the set?  You must be the envy of many a "Jericho" fan.  209.247.22.62 06:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A neighbor works as a crew member on the set and he was nice enough to invite my family.  I have about 200 images in all, so hopefully the people at the commons will clear them.  If not, I may just upload them to flickr or something.  --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply, and I agree: if they can't be used here, they would be terrific on flickr, or any of the other photo servers.  I also agree with your decision to not post anything containing spoilers.  That can come after the season finale.  Hope we get a second season, I really enjoy the show. 209.244.189.27 06:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got the go ahead at the commons to upload the rest.  They will hopefully all be uploaded by the end of the weekend.  I have tried to provide a brief description for all of the images, but if something needs to be clarified, please let me know.  --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Gamer, your panorama of the Jericho main street is a real asset to the article on the town.  That is a stellar addition. 209.244.189.27 08:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free images 

message: The front page continues to state that the show reached a new low of 2.2 in early April.  It does not state what "2.2" means (I happen to know, but I'd bet most readers don't) and this number has been superseded by even lower ratings in subsequent weeks.  There is also the question of whether or not this is copyrighted information, since these are Nielsen ratings, and speak to a specific demographic.  For these reasons, I have removed the data, but reverts continue.  It seems to me that the simple mention of "lackluster ratings prompting concern" is quite enough and makes the point without the reference to arcane and outdated numbers that mean nothing to the average reader.  Feel free to debate or discuss.  Many thanks - 209.247.22.62 06:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it reads just fine without the numbers, but you initially also removed the time and source, prompting my revert of your first edit.  Don't really see a problem with it as it stands. MrZaiustalk 07:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, because unfortunately, that's not true.  It averaged 9.5 million viewers across all age groups.  209.244.189.26 05:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings, again 

message: Shouldn't this be removed as speculation until broadcast in an episode?  (Trailers are not always accurate.) -- Chuq (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, Chuq.  The section specifies that this is from the "teaser" for the episode, and I suspect that the network wouldn't show that flag without intending to use it in the episode.  At this point the flag has appeared, and the only speculative part is whether it will actually be in the show.  The flag has, however, been a subject of keen interest and extreme discussion on many of the "Jericho" boards and I suggest we leave it in for now.  Rebuilding of the fractured US government has been described as the key storyline/plot of a possible second season, and nothing illustrates it better than that particular image.  209.247.22.62 06:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I went in and altered the language for the section to try to make the inclusion of the flag image more palatable and its status more clear (or perhaps less clear).  Boy, it's hard to do that without using weasel words.  209.247.22.62 06:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag

message: Cloud02 has added the weekly Morse code text to the table at List of Jericho episodes. Please take a look and see what you think. Personally, I would like to retain it for several reasons. First off, it doesn't make the table any bigger and fills up some dead space in the "Title" column. Perhaps more importantly, however, it allows readers to see how the text is related from week to week. (For example, it is a lot easier to see the connection between "IT BEGINS WITH", "6 AND ENDS WITH", and "BLOODSHED" in this table than from flipping between articles.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 21:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morse code in the "List of episodes" 

message: Now that the season is over it's time to clean it up:
*The whole plot points section Needs to be moved to it's own article and a brief summary left in it's place.
*EVERY THING in Episode observations needs to be moved to it's respective episodes article.
*Mapping observations either needs it's own article or merged with the plot article from above.
Those are the three biggest things that need to be done right now.  Once completed we can start with the fine tooth comb.  -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  09:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it needs a huge amount of cleanup - however it doesn't make sense that "plot points" be moved to a separate article.  The plot is an integral part of the show.  It could be condensed and have items moved to the relevant episode articles.  -- Chuq (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original research needs to be cited or eliminated (the Mapping observations section is one example). --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What needs to be eliminated from that particular section?  I did quite a bit of cleanup of the article recently, including among other things, double checking and sourcing all the city locations, and developing a complex template to display the cities in an easily updatable format. -- Chuq (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire mapping observations section is original research.  I haven't had a chance to review the article for other instances, so the original research may just be limited to that section.  Claims like that need citations from a reliable source. "In the episode "The Day Before", Jake Green is seen passing a highway sign listing mileages to Jericho, Wichita, and Kansas City. This would be inconsistent with Jericho lying near I-70, as a mileage sign in this area would be more likely to list Salina and not Wichita, which is bisected by I-35. In dialogue and on the "official" map, however, Jericho has been depicted as being proximate to I-70."  The source is really just someone looking on a map and coming to their own conclusion (the italicized part), which violates our no original research policy. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Chuq that section is way to long for the main article.  Now that the season is over a summary should be left in its place with the existing content being moved to its own season recap article.  -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  11:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should be cut down, but to the relevant episode articles, or now that I think about it, to a season article (such as Lost (season 1), 24 (season 1)).  The core of the plot itself - that is, parts of relevance to the entire show - should be in the main article.  -- Chuq (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I'm saying.  Most of it should go to episode articles and a season recap article (ala Lost) should take the rest of that content.  Then on the main page a brief two to three paragraph summary should replace it.  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  13:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Chuq, if I'm interpreting the above note correctly, it's not your map that is problematic. Instead, it is most of the material labelled "observations", which consists primarily of speculative material. There's also a lot of stuff prefaced with "most likely" (and similar terms) that should either be sourced or removed. --Ckatzchatspy 17:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like we are in agreement then! -- Chuq (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just my two cents: Some of the "episode observations" and most of the "mapping observations," all those which relate to the location of Jericho, would seem to be better placed on the Jericho, Kansas (fictional town) page.  The location of Jericho is an endless subject of debate/discussion among aficionados of the show, and I think it's a legitimate point of interest, but I think it belongs in the article about the town itself, not here.  By the way, I have watched enough episodes to tell you that clues conflict, but I'd be happy to have a crack at collecting the "facts" we've been given in the series.  Your thoughts?  209.244.187.8 08:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Argash, I went back and grabbed the "episode observations" concerning the location of Jericho from episode three, and added them to the Jericho, Kansas (fictional town) page.  It's not on the individual episode page, it seemed worthy of inclusion in the town article, and I didn't want it to go unnoticed.  209.244.189.26 08:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Glad you caught that.  -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  17:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs a TON of work to clean it up 

message: I've basically finished most of the work.  I starte Jericho (season 1) and moved all the plot points section over there.  I moved the mapping observations to the Jericho, Kansas (fictional town) article.  Finally I deleted the episode observations section as it was info that will be detailed in the episode articles already and recapped in the season 1 article.  What I haven't done yet and will probably leave for someone else, is to put a brief summary of the first season where I carved out the plot points.  -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  20:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Argash, I went back and grabbed the "episode observations" concerning the location of Jericho from episode three, and added them to the Jericho, Kansas (fictional town) page.  It's not on the individual episode page, it seemed worthy of inclusion in the town article, and I didn't want it to go unnoticed.  209.244.189.26 08:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Glad you caught that.  -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  17:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Basically done

message: I'm not sure where to put this but this week there have been some tv commercials advertising the new series of jericho on channel 10 australia on the 25th of may, a search of ten's epg is http://www.ten.com.au/ten/search-results.html?search-text=Jericho which states that it is scheduled at that date.The commercials state that they will be new epesodes in a new series not repeats. With last season the program was shown within a day or two i would expect it to start soon. Feel free to clean this up i'm new to this.
--dns 12:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a new series, it is the second half of the first series.  If they claim it is a second series, they are treating their viewers as if they are idiots! -- Chuq (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok it was my mistake, i assumed that as they where shown at the same time and went on their Christmas break the season was over not broken up being an outside observer does cause confusion occasionally, no harm done. --dns 06:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Australian TV commercials

message: Shouldn't the image used in the TV box be this one instead of the screen capture from the episodes showing the title? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cloud02 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would that be used? Does that remotely resemble an intertitle? Matthew 12:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since that picture is the one that CBS started their advertising with. Eg. see here Cloud02 13:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err... that's not a very good rationale. The standard infobox image for a television series is its intertitle. Matthew 13:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: General consensus as always said use the title card unless a specific promotional poster for the current season that includes the title of the show is available.  So for example Lost (TV series) currently shows the season 3 promo poster while Heroes (TV series) shows the title card.  -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  17:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've actually only seen Lost doing the "promo" thing. That reminds me... I should go fix that! Matthew 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jericho Image 

message: I have removed the text about the petition, as well as the linkspam to the petition site. Honestly, this is not notable, and it is no different than countless other shows that have been cancelled. Efforts to draw comparisons between Jericho and Star Trek, insinuations about CBS' president, and other attempts at justifying the text don't change that fact. *If* multiple reputable news organizations give extensive coverage to the story, and *if* it has some effect, then it might be worth considering. Right now, however, it is only relevant to the disgruntled fans - and not encyclopedic content. --Ckatzchatspy 18:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The fact that there are thousands of disgruntled fans is a fact that is worth talking about and letting other people know about. And isn't that the purpose of an encyclopedia, to spread knowledge?  —  Rickyrab | Talk 18:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia, not a fan forum, and it is not our role to "let others know about" a petition drive. This show is neither different from, or more notable than, any other cancelled show with disgruntled fans. There is also no way of verifying the petition claim - how do we prove that there are in fact X number of unique signatures? Simply put, there has to be some recognition of the drive in reputable news organizations, or (more importantly) some effect on the series as a result of it. Otherwise, it is merely the co-opting of a Wikipedia article as a part of a fan campaign to restore the show. --Ckatzchatspy 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ckatz.  Revert anytime a petition is readded.  It doesn't belong in the body of the article unless it is picked up by the press.  It doesn't belong under external links as the whole idea of external links is to provide more detailed information not covered by the article.  The linking to these petitions is just spam. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could add a few words about fan reaction, though.--Kamikaze 19:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, if that can be backed up by a reliable source. -- MisterHand 19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Googling "Save Jericho" comes up with 11,800 hits. Does that count as a "reliable source"? Tea&magpies 02:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we need things like news articles and the like.  See WP:RS and WP:NOR for a better understanding. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. WP:NOR seems to suggest that in some cases (for example, when writing about current events), one may need to rely on primary sources. And that is okay so long as one "only make[s] descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person . . ." To state that there has been a fan reaction seems to me an easily verifiable descriptive claim about a current event. But maybe I'm not understanding the policy. Tea&magpies 03:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 30,000 signatures that could just as easily be 30 angry viewers with too much time on their hands.  This source is not credible.  24.222.54.66 12:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It has been removed. Again, there is no way of even validating the petition's accuracy. (As for the Stargate note, it shouldn't be there either - but the fact that one error exists doesn't justify adding another. Sorry.) --Ckatzchatspy 02:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec)The problem is that is unsourced.  If the petition is so big, then a media source should be easy to find.  Without a proper media source (newspaper, etc, see WP:RS), this info is all original research.  I've nuked the Stargate one.--PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent move, Ckatz! This will *hopefully* allow us to sort out this mess without either well-intentioned n00bs or pathetic trolls mudding up the waters any more than we currently are :) Geoffrey Mitchell 18:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Unlikely - one's a blog, and the other is an opinion piece. --Ckatzchatspy 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Alexa ranks jerichoboard.cbs.com and it was more heavily traveled than the notable 4chan board.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Crap, Alexa ranks part of a website's hits along with the rest of the website (I found it counting jerichoboard.cbs.com along with www.cbs.com.) I'll look elsewhere to see if I can get more info.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 20:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly enough, I see that www.cbs.com rose in anticipation of the schedule announcement just prior to May 15th, and plummeted on the 16th (no data available for the 17th or 18th). petitiononline.com, meanwhile, dipped during this time period and began an uptick on the 16th (although bear in mind that other factors may be causing this move).  —  Rickyrab | Talk 20:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This talk page is for the discussion of the article, not for the discussion of people's opinions of the show itself or its cancellation. So, of course, we are discussing the inclusion of petitions, etc., in the article itself. With that said, maybe I should recuse myself from editing this article any further, given the nonsense that surrounded the Bogdanov affair and the fact that participants in that affair harmed Wikipedia's impartiality in editing.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 00:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why I got involved in this discussion about editing was because I am kind of an inclusionist on this type of issue. There is a fundamental problem with Wikipedia's ideas of WP:RS - in short, it overly relies on corporate sources and large organizations to provide it with news, when, in fact, discussions can sneak "under the radar" of the major news companies (or other phenomena, for that matter). There is also a heavy reliance on officialdom (to wit: the debate over the planethood or non-planethood of Pluto). I also admittedly like Jericho and want to further the universe of that television show, which was the reason I am considering recusing myself - I wonder how much of a conflict of interest there is, and I wonder if there are better channels than Wikipedia that can help the causes of expanding the fictional universes of Jericho and other good cancelled shows (such as V, Quantum Leap, and Star Trek:Enterprise).  —  Rickyrab | Talk 00:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A hundred thousand isn't much online. The Pro-Pedophilia Protest on livejournal.com has gathered 40+ thousand "signatures" in like 4 days. This petition is rather weak in comparison. Kyaa the Catlord 07:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unverifiable signatures account for nothing. No producers look at PetitionsOnline when they want to decide if they want to renew a series or not. I could sign it 20 times a day, with 20 different names and 20 different e-mail accounts on 20 different free e-mail providers. And I don't think they have been very impressed about the glorious nuts either. What you can do is purchase Jericho material- like buy 20 episodes on iTunes every day. I'm afraid that's the only thing that could make a difference. » byeee 10:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the posts being made here these last few days are completely irrelevant. If it's factual and can be verified, then it might have a place in the article. Unverifiable individual research, personal bias and opinions do not have a place in the article. Unless the campaign to save the show succeeds, I don't see the petition as being notable; every show that gets cancelled has a petition to bring it back. In the mean time, I will be the second person to remind everyone that Wikipedia isn't a message board. CBS, however, furnishes a perfectly lovely one for you to debate the ins and outs of the cancellation. Trusilver 23:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petition spam 

message: Been watching the recent changes for this via RSS and I came here thinking I'd protect the page, but it was already done.  Just wanted to register my approval.
To those of you who keep trying to get your stuff into this article: Wikipedia isn't your website.  Please follow Wikipedia policies.  If you don't like those policies, there are policies to change them: get involved and work to refine those policies.  Strangers showing up and insisting "this must be in the article" just don't really carry any weight compared to those who have been here for years and are more familiar with the mission of this site.
I'm a Jericho fan, too, and I hope it gets saved somehow.  But Wikipedia does not exist to save Jericho. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Note: this is taking from a combination of sections and/or pages related to WP:RS and WP:NOR
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely  not acceptable as sources. (my italics  —  Rickyrab | Talk)
(See e.g., Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Game_%28game%29_%286th_nomination%29 for an often-cited example deletion discussion covering this matter).
Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
However:
 
No original research: Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases).
Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as:
* it is relevant to their notability;
* it is not contentious;
* it is not unduly self-serving;
* it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
* there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.
There is a problem with that last point: one can reasonably doubt who wrote such documents as ancient histories, and yet we still use the sources of antiquity because they are the only options. Furthermore, the unknown status of the authors should not, in and of themselves, be reason to discredit sources, but it does make them suspect to comparison and greater scrutiny in light of the fact that more than one source may be the product of one person.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 00:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are guidelines. They are not ironbound rules set in stone.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 00:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is the proper place to debate philosophy of wikipedia policies.  If you want to change the policies then there are appropriate channels to do so.  As mentioned above, please refer to WP:SOAPBOX.  Implying this article is critically lacking in information because the agenda of an advocacy group is excluded is very POV. 71.7.242.116 03:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, exclusion of valid information regarding an article based on the agenda of an advocacy group is also very against NPOV, when you look at the situation from a more rational, detatched position. From what I've seen, those on an OR or NPOV crusade tend to go way overboard with their zealousness, and actually cause far more harm than good for an article's credibility and usefulness. Geoffrey Mitchell 17:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the above opinion.  There is a long argument about OR in the archives for this page, my primary contribution to which was to state my opinion that drawing logical conclusions from evidence presented in the series was not OR, but careful observation of the "facts" or the series canon.  Needless to say, not everyone agreed.  209.244.189.26 05:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:NOR]] Say 

message: Jericho, in spite of being canceled, is a creative work (present tense), as it's still in existence; this is the subject of controversy over how to edit the main article. Please read Wikipedia style guides (wherever they are). 68.36.214.143 17:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same thing happening over at the Heather Lisinski article, which I have been trying to maintain.  Maybe an issue for WP:SOAPBOX as it sounds odd to me to refer to events in the present tense that are over in the series, especially after the series has been cancelled.  Just my .02 -- 209.244.189.27 08:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't a WP:SOAPBOX issue - it is how Wikipedia covers fictional topics. They are considered to be in a "perpetual present tense" - regardless of whether the work is still in production. Accordingly, events that happen during the run of the series are written in the present tense. The past tense is used for events occurring prior to the beginning of the series. --Ckatzchatspy 08:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Clearly you don't know proper English then (as demonstrated by your reply). Matthew 22:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Was vs. Is

message: Why is Jericho being considered a scifi show?  Because it deals with terrorism, nuclear weapons, torture, guns, and Jack Bauer (whoops on that last point)?  Point is, 24's page doesn't even have the word science on it, let alone science fiction (not even the letter combination 'sci'), so how is Jericho different from 24 in any way in relation to science fiction. 209.43.40.143 16:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't science fiction.  I'll remove the tag. Val42 17:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a science fiction show of the "aftermath" sub-genre. Novels and stories of this kind have been part of the science fiction canon since before the first A-bomb went off. Noted science fiction author Cy Kornbluth, for example, wrote his classic "Not This August" in the early 1950's. Science fiction (we call it "SF" in the trade, NOT "sci-fi" -- that's about bug-eyed monsters attacking top-heavy actresses) is about whatever happens after something has changed. It doesn't have to be about spaceships or time travel. Merely something changes that affects the human condition. Such as a nuclear war. Jericho, I'm afraid, was part of a sub-sub-genre of science fiction called "Hollywood liberal paranoia fantasy" -- not as common in books as it is on the big and little screens.Scott Adler 05:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean some trumped up rubbish magazines call it "SF" (ess-eff)... most people "in the trade" correctly refer to it as sci-fi :). And no, Jericho is not really sci-fi, it's post-apocalyptic fiction. Matthew 15:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, until recently, this article carried a category that associated it with science fiction.  Courtesy of Val42,  this edit removed the association.  - Bevo 18:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some people really don't know what Science-Fiction actually means. Jericho is clearly fiction, but not science-fiction. Science-Fiction has a clear connection to futuristic science and technology (think Star Trek). If Jericho were science fiction, so were all the shows that are not based on a true fact - more than 98% of the movies and shows I've seen. » byeee 20:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just my opinion: This seems to be what writer Harlan Ellison calls speculative fiction, a story in the "what if" genre.  The premise is not unbelievable; it could happen, some have predicted it will happen in our lifetimes.  I believe that "Jericho" is much closer to speculative fiction than science fiction.  209.247.22.62 10:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm writing my Master's thesis on Scientific romance in Britain and I've corresponded with some of the major editors in the Sci-Fi field. They have discussed this show at times. I don't watch it myself, but based on what I've seen Jericho is science fiction. It concerns science or technology radically changing society and individuals. It's science fiction in the way Alas, Babylon is science fiction, but that book is placed in :Category:Science fiction novels. In addition :Category:Post-apocalyptic fiction is a subcategory of :Category:Science fiction themes and :Category:Science fiction genres. In the case of 24 it does not focus on science/technological change (progress or regress), so far as I know, so is not science fiction.--T. Anthony 21:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science Fiction 

message: I've got to wonder at this point if this is perhaps what CBS and the Jericho staff are hinting at when they said things might not be settled. A 2 hour movie or a 5 total hour miniseries at this point could wrap up the shows plot, and probably guarentee ad revenue rates greater then a season of the show done conventionally at its current ratings would produce, and factor in only a fraction of the production costs. Not to mention you'd be guarenteed a return on investment of DvD sales (since people would buy a Season 1 DvD set, then the miniseries DvD set to have the whole story). I wish I had more to go on then the veiled hints of CBS and show staff about the show possibly not dying but not coming back as a series, but given the trend of other high budget/limited but loyal fan base shows like Stargate SG-1 doing it I've got to wonder if that's not what they're saying but not saying with their choice of wording in the articles linked and quotes avaliable here and at other sources. Just a theory of mine right now, not fit to be put up in the article (WAY too original research and heresay), but I'm keeping an eye out for it and we can all hope.
:I'm not sure this is the place to discuss such ideas. Maybe a message board would be the best. And, in fact, I had already stated that while one whole season is very unlikely (and lacking plot twists), one or two movies would be the solution. At least, that's what I get out of we'll provide closure. Rest assured, they won't just end the series with a cliffhanger. It didn't have such low ratings to be completely cancelled. » byeee 05:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Made4TV Movie

message: Sorry to all the anons and new users that are editing this article, but I've requested semi-protection for this article. Hopefully it'll be a short protection. Until then, feel free to request edits on the talk page and hopefully an established editor will make the changes you requested. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 2 

message: The way it's currently worded, it sounds like the network is still producing Beyond Jericho episodes, and just not releasing them.  Perhaps the statement "CBS has since decided to scrap the current webisode storyline, and instead release a new series of "prequel" webisodes named Countdown..." should be reworded?  Maybe something more along the lines of "...decided to scrap the Countdown storyline, and instead..."
Thoughts?  MikeFTM 19:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This section seems like way too much information now.  Beyond Jericho has been dead for quite a while.  I think this should be condensed and re-worded.  209.244.189.26 05:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web-based tie-ins section