Talk:Jericho (2006 TV series)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jericho (2006 TV series) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jericho (2006 TV series). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jericho (2006 TV series) at the Reference desk.

Television Unassessed

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Cruft

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed a higher that usual amount of fancruft getting into Jericho articles, as opposed to (say) 24 and Lost articles? Recent edits to articles have included things such as:

What specific characters are thinking (only the writers know that)
That the camera lingers on the main star, with suggestions that there is some sort of meaning to it
That something on the Chinese news report is related to the lead actor's - not the lead character, the lead ACTOR's - childhood nickname?

I mean Lost has an absolutely HUGE amount of potential for speculation and suggestions to bog down its articles - but the editors of those articles manage to keep most of it at bay. Why are Jericho articles different? I think we need to be more vigilant with reverting this sort of thing - I think the articles will be completely unreadable if left alone. Comments? -- Chuq 12:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes Chuq, too many episode specific items are showing up in the main article. Too much speculation is being presented. I'm not sure what needs done to prevent/remove this type of information from making the article unreadable. But I do agree that we need to nip this in the bud. Mythdraug 19:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that episode-specific items should be relegated primarily to the pages reserved for the episode(s) in question, but again we can't degenerate this into absolutes. There *will* be exceptions, the key is to keep them as limited in number and strongest in importance as possible. If a certain few start playing "Wiki Nazi", you -will- wind up stifling contributions; after all, who's going to want to take the time to improve upon the articles if someone's going to come right behind them and delete their entire work for what can be argued as really pedantic reasons?

Do -not- attempt to misconstrue what I'm saying here. I absolutely am *NOT* calling for chaos to reign WRT contributing to articles. What I *am* calling for is a restraint on wanton deletions caused by following some obteuse Wikirule to the letter. There has to be some thought put into keeping things running smoothly, otherwise it's all going to backfire.

Of course, I fully expect my detractors to claim I'm the one responsible for all this, but my point's still valid.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.151.114 (talk)

I believe there is room for the trivia and random observations, but that for the most part it doesn't belong in the summary article for the show. So move the content to a more appropriate episode or character article, just don't necissarily delete it.Mythdraug 21:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"66", whether you realize it or not, you are making some pretty broad statements about the intentions of your fellow editors. You ask for restraint from the "Wikinazis" (your term), while at the same time presuming that anyone who removes the aforementioned material isn't putting any thought into their actions. You might want to consider thinking through your own posts BEFORE hitting "save". (I make that request based on personal experience, since you've already made several attempts to put a decidedly negative spin on my edits.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will add to what has been said that by saying that Wikipedia's rules about original research, notability, and speculation are not "obteuse Wikirules" - they are what Wikipedia is built on - see Wikipedia:Five pillars. Restraint on wanton additions is just as important as restraint on wanton deletions. If contributions are useful, but out of place, they should be moved to the episode, character or town article if appropriate, but if they are not useful at all, there shouldn't a problem with them being deleted. -- Chuq 09:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Attackers

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ok it erked me long enough. It's great info so I don't want to trash it completely like we should but it's still speculative so doesn't really belong so I'm moving it here for those that still want to contribute to it. I'm also placing a link to it in the archive box. -- Argash | talk | contribs 10:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tablefied the character list

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)[reply]

Ugh, now its unreadable. Kyaa the Catlord 05:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a seperation column a short while ago, did that help the readability?Mythdraug 16:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

looks good to me -- Argash | talk | contribs 23:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

done -- Argash | talk | contribs 05:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ICBM launch

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

well, the action is supposed to take place in 2009. a lot can happen till then.

Cities Proof

In an attempt to clean up the article a little, I deleted the 'conversation at the bar' from the supporting evidence section but somebody put it back. I think we should be avoiding such pure hearsay. Personally, the only source I'm trusting is Hawkins. He's knows what's up JonnyDomestik 11:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking it's all hearsay, whomever is feeding Hawkins his intel could be feeding him a line of BS for all we know. -- Argash | talk | contribs 12:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally dont think speculation from trailers of future episodes should be used in the main article. There have been many instances so far where scenes from trailers have not actually occured in the Episode when it aired (Vehicles rolling into town "Federal Response" for example, no second phone call from the Govt) OverlordQ 01:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it's already listed in the bulleted list OverlordQ 02:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washington DC

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) Can some one add that to the main page[reply]

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)[reply]

could some one add DC to the box of cites nuked, I am haveing a hard time doing it...please then could you show me how to do it after that?B-1B SAC 02:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Inconsistencies in "Federal government response"

If you watch the five episodes aired to date the origin of the tanks seen by Stanley on I-70 is NOT known. To assume they are from the Kansas National Guard, or even domestic is incorrect. This is one of those "yet to be determined" facts. Capricorn74 01:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the origen of the tanks is not known, but that could be said for more than half of the entries on the main page - not "known". ~~SB

True, but it is important information. I reinserted the information as a bullet-point, rather than in the table, and included the fact that we don't really know where they came from.199.79.222.119 22:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]