Talk:List of Jericho episodes

Morse Code title sequence

I have reversed the deletion of the morse code translations of the title sequence.

I beleive the placement of this information here is the best place. It does not belong on the main Jericho page as a list it will make the page very long. It also does not belong on a separate page as it is a fork that is un-nessesary. It also seems (we are only 4 episodes in) that each translation will be different and seems to be about that specific episode. To address the inevitable claim of original research, the morse code is simply a comunication in another "language" just as the chinese characters on the broadcast map were included as a translation in the main article.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 14:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A) It belongs in the episode article its self, b) externious info past 2 lines = messy table, c) This is a table of synopsises for the episode. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the infoboxes for the individual episodes have been modified to include the morse code sequences and their translations, I've removed the separate morse code sections from the articles. Not only was the information redundant, but it was also largely speculative in regards to the meanings behind the messages in a few cases. 199.79.222.119 17:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the way it is currently. Not a fan, but decided to look through the pages anyway. With some of the code from various episodes actually spelling out what appear to be three-part messages, it makes sense to include them here in the table, especially with the space already in the table anyway. No real reason not to include it, and with only the translation there (i.e. no speculation) it's fine. 4.238.11.31 17:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Page revisions and reversals

Mr Fenton, you seem very protective of this page. Anytime that changes are made to the table that do not reflect your esthetic style you reverse them with out any discussion. The esthetic issues are simply the way you see the article on your screen. The display is effected by each individual viewer's a) screen size, b) window size, c) font size and d) screen resolution. The reversal of content has happended with:

• the size of the screen caps,
• inclusion of the ratings,
• more then two lines of summary, and
• the inclusion of the morse code translations - they can exist in both the summary table and also the episode article itself.

I would suggest your behavour seems indicitive of you believing you own this article. I would suggest reading over WP:OWN. The changes people have made are them being bold and while you may not like the things done, I think it is incumbent that you should discuss these things rather then just delete them.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 18:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've checked on both 800*600, 1024, and 1280, page renders well in all three, morse code does not belong here - common sense dictates that this page be for episode synopsises. You'll likely find that all my changes benefit this article, while having unrelated OR does not. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

HAW! 66.90.151.114 20:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that you quote the essay common sense, I would say that it is common sense that the portion of the opening sequence of a television show that changes with each episode very much fits within the definition of a summary of the episode. Furthermore, I would like to quote some very intersting sections of the essay which I feel completely support my comments.

• "The problem is that no definition of common sense readily exists. The danger this leads to is the possibility that a user will confuse common sense with 'the way they would do it.' "
• "In practical terms, this means that when you are doing something and justifying it with common sense, you should run it by some other people"

Thanks for pointing me to a new essay to add to my discussion toolbelt.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 19:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Morse code doesnt summarise the episode, and its blatently OR and unverifiable unless you know morse code - I have no problem with it being on an episode page though where it is more uited to the episode at a whole, where as this should sumamrise the plot line of an episode.; in fact the morse code is already at Jericho (TV series) anyway. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit like User:Khaosworks with Doctor Who articles - he knows more than quite a few people concerning the show. But yeah, I agree, Morse code is rather OR, and doesn't really fit into the episode list (for example, #4's, "He knows Rob", would confuse rather than explain) Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 19:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

But where does the morse codes belong then? I, for one, are curious about learning their meaning. That was the sole reason why a bothered too look out this page. 193.217.148.50 20:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It's on the individual episode pages. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Aha! Finally found them. I kept looking at the bottom of the pages, at the Trivia-section ... 193.217.148.50 20:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

IMHO shouldn't this TV show have those kind of episode-intro-info details set up in the same way as, say, The Simpsons or Futurama intro bits?

Proper spacing

Okay, this might be a tad nitpicky of me, but it's in my horrible Virgo nature so I can't help it. Can we please remember that, when typing, you need to doublespace after sentence-ending punctuation? My perfectionistic, constantly-proofreading eyes keep catching missing spaces at the end of sentences in the episode synopses, and I can't stop myself from correcting them. It would be one thing if it was every once in a while, or just the odd typo here and there, but it's a constant, pervasive thing. 199.79.222.119 18:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Double spacing is wrong. Deus (talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you can point me to some kind of specific source for your assertion, I might be more inclined to believe you. However, being a professional data entry operator for many years, and having taken many months of executive assistant training in the past, I'm fairly confident in my previous statement. 199.79.222.119 18:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah... now I understand why MF was reverting your edits. A comment from him on his edits would have helped, of course, and double spacing is certainly not "wrong", as he claimed. I agree with 199.79.222.119 - using two spaces IS much clearer, making the text more readable. However, I believe that the Wikipedia standard is to use one space, and the software may even do so automatically. (I'll try to double-check this.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You learning how to operate a type writer does not make you correct (Also consider looking at my name) - Also read: Double_spacing#Spacing_after_full_stop, double spacing is a waste of time as it'll never get rendered. Deus (talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate the double-check, Ckatz, thanks. Now then, I didn't just "learn how to operate a typewriter," Matthew. I also learned a great deal about proper grammar, sentence structure, punctuation, and spacing for typewritten documents, in addition to a touch of accounting, transcription, shorthand, and probably a few other things I've since forgotten. I'm beginning to understand why others refer to you as some kind of "wikinazi" or "wikigestapo." Your heavy-handed style of "I'm right, you're wrong, that's all there is to it" is absurd at the very least. And before you go off on one of your "anonymous user" rants, I'd like to remind you that I've identified myself a couple of times now, and why I edit under an anonymous ip address while at work. 199.79.222.119 19:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You may of learnt xyz, it is still however inapr. for you to convert pages to your liking. You'll find 66. calls me a wikinazi because he doesnt get his way. Deus (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

By that standard, if you were to horrifyingly misspell several words, and someone else were to correct them, you could revert the edit just because you think it's right. Also, I've found that 66 refers to you as a "wikinazi" because you seem to have this "papa bear" attitude towards the whole of the Jericho article set, and get extremely territorial if anyone makes an edit that doesn't conform to your personal vision of what the whole thing should look like. 66 is not the only one who think so either. I've glanced at your talk page a couple of times, and seen plenty of other instances where other editors have questioned your motives, as well as the Jericho talk pages. You might want to consider just why people would feel this way, rather than just jumping to a knee-jerk reaction of "they're not getting their way." I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, until "double spacing is wrong." No explanation, no reasoning, just "I'm right, you're wrong, so there." 199.79.222.119 19:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Be serious.. You aint explained why an extraneous second spacing would be added because you like it? Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk • contribs) 19:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, yeah I did. In my first statement, and my first rebuttal to you. *sigh* I didn't come here to get into a pissing contest with you, Matthew. I came here because I enjoy contributing to this body of work. I enjoy the show, and I want to help make sure that if, for some reason, somebody is unable to view an episode or (God forbid) the whole series, they can still get a good idea of the meat of the subject. Well, that, and I have little else better to do right now. My "job" right now isn't really providing me with much "work" to do. Alas, I get paid to sit here and futz around on the intarwebs. O woe is I. 199.79.222.119 19:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The only reason you provided is that you prefer 2 spaces - either way its extraneous and unrequired. Adding two spaces (imo) makes etxt very hard to read. Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk • contribs) 19:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a very bass ackwards argument. Your reason for not doing so is because you don't like it. My reasons were based on training, and years of practical use and experience. *shrug* Evidently it's 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other, based on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_(spaces_after_a_full_stop/period) and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Spaces_after_the_end_of_a_sentence. I suppose I should thank you for instigating my search for further information. In the future, however, I'd prefer you did so in a less antagonistic, "my way or the highway" manner. 199.79.222.119 20:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "consider looking at my name" - if it looks like a Matthew Fenton edit, and (more importantly) if it is signed by MatthewFenton in the history, than it is a MF edit. Not sure why you're signing as "Deus", but whatever... Anyways, it's a good idea to fill out the edit comment when you revert, or else the edit might appear suspect. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Do a translation, hehe ;). Deus (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of the translation, thanks - it still doesn't answer why you're doing that. I'd hazard a guess that User:Deus would probably prefer that you stopped. You might wish to read this Wikipedia guideline, specifically the part that says "Signatures that obscure your account name to the casual reader may be seen as disruptive." --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Doesnt obscure it in the slightest as it is clickable, ;-) -- Eitehr way .. changed it for you :)! Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk • contribs) 19:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I invoke Godwin's Law! But seriously, I don't see it get rendered. Will ^{(message ♪)} 19:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Tsk. Some things *never* change around here. Matthew goes off on a wanton edit spree, gets called down on it, and Will steps up to be his savior and throw his admin weight around to back it up. Even though Matthew's right about the double-spacing after the punctuation, it still escapes that he doesn't realize that the way he handles himself - editing without explaining and/or hiding behind some obteuse Wikirule like mentioning the rule should make his edits unchallengable - it is what shoots his boat through the magazine and sinks it out from under him. At the same time, I can't help but wonder if his overconfidence has something to do with the fact that he and his savior, Will, re both teenage schoolboys in Englandland and are good friends?

This is a disappointment. I'm gone for a couple of months, and these two British schoolboys continue to lord over the Jericho articles. Which begs the question: how *do* -British- schoolboys watch an *American* TV series? Could they be pirating episodes off the Internet? CBS's official website blocks all IP addresses from outside the USA, so they can't be watching it legally, can they? 24.227.251.199 03:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I smell very severe "Old Boys' Network" bias going on here, people, and if Godwin were here - yes, I know him very well - he'd make the same observation.

Bit accusations aside, I'm going to make a passioned plea here to both Matthew and Will: Please, you two - the season's about to start anew. The two of you kindly keep the Wikinazi games out of it this time and don't ruin it for everyone else like you did during the first half. I can see stepping in when things get out of hand, but this bit about double-spacing is so fracking anal that it's just too damn disgusting to tolerate, regardless of what "admin" games Will will attempt to play. This time, act like adults, and don't screw things up for everyone else here, ok? Enough's enough. If you want to guide, fine, but acting like a couple of little Hitlers just won't work. Sixty Six 06:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the Chicago Manual of Style (CMS), the double spacing was originally used as a way to ensure characters didn't get crammed together. With the advent of the word processors and the computerization, the need for double-spacing was rendered to be only user preference. Please feel free to contact CMS and browse their frequently asked questions page for specifics on this obviously touchy topic. Happy Thanksgiving to all!

I can second this one. Having worked in the print journalism industry, I can testify - gee, that's not "original research", is it? - that double-spacing is no longer required save for some local courts which require submitted documents have the double-spacing after punctuation marks. The irony here is that they require it because they're using older scanners and OCR software, and this helps reduce scanning interpretation error, and the documents produced themselves are *stripped* of the extra space! Sixty Six 06:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Episode summaries

Tweaked these a little this morning as some of the earlier ones still read like coming attractions. I also added in episode 11, although we don't know much about it yet, except that it's their season-ending cliffhanger for the fall. 205.188.117.5 14:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

2007 episodes

Does it make sense to add the Feb 14 and Feb 21 episodes to the list? We don't have titles, but we know that the Feb 14 episode is a recap, and that Feb 21 focuses on the day before the attacks. I'd say Feb 14 probably doesn't count as an episode for numbering purposes. 205.188.117.5 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why we couldn't add Feb. 21st episode.. would need to be cited and try to avoid any serious depth into the episode :). Matthew Fenton (talk • contribs) 00:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Making it even easier, the cite already exists (#1, the "split season" from Zap-to-It) and can certainly be re-used. While it is a "future event", the existence isn't speculative since CBS has announced the episodes. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Preview clips available on whodroppedthebomb.com are available for Episodes 12 (recap - what is actually going on during the series of rapid fire scenes is speculative of course) and Episode 13 (short clip where Jake, his father, Dale and Heather drive into Black Jack Fairgrounds which has been turned into trading post - the clip ends with a sighting of a theif hanging from a gallows.

How do we know the titles of the two February episodes? Would someone cite them --Zr2d2 02:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Production code

Further information: Wikipedia:WikiProject List of Television Episodes/structure § Standard table

According to the guidelines for an LOE, production codes should be part of each season. I am adding them a second time, since for some reason they were deleted. —Cliff smith 03:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted the addition again:

1. TV.com is not verifiable (Someone else has also added different production codes before..)
2. There is no guideline stating LOEs must have production codes (nor do all of them actually have them..)
3. There is also no "guideline" on that WikiProject page, there is an example table..

HTH HAND. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"IMDb not verifiable"

I earnestly look forward to the person who made this claim (in the edit history) supporting said claim with documentation, justification, or rationale. Aside from user comments, submissions are reviewed by IMDb database editors: "They will be examined and if approved will be included in a future update." If there is a Wikipedia policy on same, let it also be quoted. 209.244.187.29 09:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Return to Jericho

Has the morse code for "Return to Jericho" been translated, and is there an appropriate place to post it, given the (understandable) lack of an episode page? --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 14:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it'd make a bit of sense to have an episode page for "Return to Jericho." Although it was mainly flashback snippets (some of which were out of order), there was the Hawkins voice-over as well as the various morse code bits. If it were me, I'd do it as Hawkins voice-over, morse code, snippet a, snippet b, etc, lather, rinse, repeat. Any other opinions? MikeFTM 06:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Most shows don't generally have pages for their specials but if you can think of enough to write I don't see a big problem my self as long as it has potential to grow. Somebody has linked it now as well. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The morse code translation for the "Return to Jericho" episode is "BACK NEXT WEEK" Ragdata 11:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Episodes yet to air

They should really have citations so that they can be attributed to a reliable source. Cliff smith 01:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Renewed or not?

I've noticed most my other shows around this time have been updated on Wikipedia in regards to if they are being renewed for another season or not, both new shows and old ones. I don't see anything on that here though. Am I just missing it, or has it not been revealed if another season of Jericho will follow this one? this was just posted on the CBS Jericho wiki..."Question:

Future of Show Is episode 23 the season finale, or the series finale?

Producer's Response:

Episode 22, entitled “Why We Fight,” is most definitely not a series finale! In fact, by the time it’s over, you’ll have some great clues about where our story is headed in its second season.

74.69.159.42 05:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

See CBS producer's response dated 5/3/07. They make it clear that CBS will announce its fall lineup on 5/16/07, and that the series has not yet been officially renewed. 209.247.22.62 06:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to create precedent disallowing individual episodes

There is discussion at WP:AN/I#Fancruft_issue_again, and an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man that is attempting to create a precedent disallowing individual episodes. Matthew 18:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And do you really need to post that on every episode list talk page?--Kamikaze 18:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

How 'bout yea? Effects the project as a whole :-). Matthew 18:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

-- Ned Scott 18:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like "Not" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.37.141.254 (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Screencaps

All are missing or no longer linked from main article. No indication of deletion or other changes on history page. No references to deletion. No invoking of orphaned images, fair use problems, etc. No indication of any images marked for speedy deletion criteria. No discussion of any of this here, no link to any discussion of it elsewhere. This would seem to be poor etiquette at best. Explanation requested. 209.247.22.62 06:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The template was edited to remove the field for the screenshots. See discussion here. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I read the page to which you linked, and was immediately reminded of the once-famous quote of Edwin Howard Armstrong (the inventor of FM radio), fighting for his patents in court: "(It is) a world where men substitute words for realities and then talk about the words." The page to which you directed me was a mouthful but I take it to mean that there was an administrative decision (without consensus) to remove screencaps from episode lists, not merely for "Jericho" but for all series. It's precisely this sort of thing which turned me from an active participant in Wikipedia into an occasional contributor, and even those contributions are reverted more often than not; I don't even bother signing in any more. This is a terrible loss to Wikipedia readers, IMHO it was unannounced and unapproved, and is a good reminder that my time and effort are better spent elsewhere. Feel free to copy my comments to whatever administrator's talk page applies; this is an objection, in the strongest terms. 209.247.22.62 07:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it impacted all tv shows that use that template. I do completely agree with you that the admin who did that jumped the gun and should have waited for consensus or at the very least, given more of a heads up. However, s/he was following their interpretation of WP:NFCC and I do agree with the end result. The English Wikipedia should limit fair use images as much as possible. Lists of TV shows generally abuse fair use images as they are just there for decorative use. Other Wikipedias such as the German one have outright banned fair use. Fair use just goes against the "free" (as in free to distribute, etc) part of the motto, although I do believe that there are limited circumstances where fair use images are necessary. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Casus belli

The Casus belli summary links to an article about this subject in general, and not to Casus belli (Jericho episode). Could someone who knows how to please fix this? Safebreaker (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just seen someone has done this. Thanks! Safebreaker (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Morse code

Cloud02 has added the weekly Morse code text to the table. I'd 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? --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. No reason NOT to have it, and I've yet to see anyone advance a good explanation for why they shouldn't be there. As someone completely new to this series and article series, I appreciated the morse code renderings being right there on the main "List of episodes" article. 4.238.11.31 17:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Linking together morse codes

i have discovered the morse codes are linked together to tell you something, here is a list of the morse code stuff

JERICHO FALLO

JERICHO THREE

HE KNOWS ROB

THERE IS A FIRE THE EMP HITS

PRAY FOR NYC

ROB NOT FBI

AOV SURPRISE

IT BEGINS WITH

6 AND ENDS WITH

BLOODSHED

BLEEDING KS

4 DOWN 4 TO GO

THEY WILL NEED IT

A COSTLY DEAL

ROB EXPOSED

WHO RAN RED BELL

ONE GOT AWAY

WE PLEDGE

ALLEGIANCE

TO THE FLAG

i am assuming the next one will be of the united states, there are 2 groups that say something so perhaps more can be linked to tell something. like a story, or a fact. --Superchad 02:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)superchad

Series Finale vs. Season Finale

The last episode "Patriots and Tyrants" was labeled "Series Finale". According to http://www.cbspressexpress.com/div.php/paramount_network/original/release?id=251&dpid=70&rid=18150, which is one of the references for this page, this is the "Season Finale" not the "Series Finale" (ie the end of the show in the entirety). Thus, based on the primary sources for this page, it is only the end of this (half-) year's run.

I have thus changed this to "Season Finale".

This is a USA produced show, so one uses "Season Finale" to indicate the end of a year's run; "series finale" means the last episode of the entire program(me). I realize this differs from UK usage.

Please stop reverting "Season Finale" to "Series Finale", unless you have a reliable and documentable source that this is the absolute last episode of this show, and are going to reference such evidence.

This caused me no end of consternation as I thought it meant "Patriots and Tyrants" was supposed to be the absolute last episode of the entire show. This is not the case. According to references #2 and #3, there are more in production.

Chevalier3 (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Except the show was cancelled on March 21st, meaning Patriots & Tyrants was in fact actually the Series Finale/last episode ever, which makes this whole rant kind of redundant. Here's a link to the notice of cancellation: http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-News-Blog/Todays-News/Cbs-Cancels-Jericho/800036005

Re: Series Finale vs. Season Finale

I agree with Chevalier3, because this is a USA-based show, "Season Finale" is more fitting. Do you all think it would make more sense if everyone just used these terms the way the Americans use it. I personally think it'd be more more universal if you were to use these terms literally. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude, Jericho was canceled. Tuesday's episode was the last. If it gets picked up by another network in the future, we can change it to Season, but right now, it was the Series Finale. ---- JT^Holla! 15:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge of episodes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was not merged. --BDD (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

---

At present the individual episodes consist almost entirely of in-universe plot summaries. With the exception of the pilot, all episode articles fail WP:EPISODE. It is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) explains further:

When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources — this will also ensure that there is enough source material for the article to be comprehensive and factually accurate.

Episode lists pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Wikipedia is not a directory.

Therefore individual episodes should be merged and redirected to List of Jericho episodes. McWomble (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• I would be fine with a mega-merge if, and only if, the information on those pages is preserved, so that the synopses on this List page are a couple paragraphs long instead of just a couple sentences long. But provided that we're not destroying information, yes, I agree that it's appropriate to consolidate pages for an off-the-air TV show. --M@rēino 18:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • That is not an option. A core policy is that Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. Articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance. If the plot summaries are not trimmed to about one paragraph then every single one is open to being nominated for outright deletion. McWomble (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

All these articles just contain plot. I support the merge. The list of episodes is nice. I would only add viewership for each episode if it was possible to find it somewhere. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the merge. Kuralyov (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Just about every major TV show has summaries for every single episode, Wiki has always done that. People want it and there's no reason to get rid of them besides "cause we said so". I definitely oppose merging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.67.87 (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I vote against the merge! Are1981 (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a voting. This is a discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. There is more information than just plot within each episode article, such as on-screen cast and crew information. Cowbert (talk) 09:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to preserve information such as the special guests/cast of each episode. Netmouse (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge templates

Please don't use "Subst" on merge templates. {{Mergeto|List of Jericho episodes}} is what is needed. Subst breaks a load of stuff sooner or later. Rich Farmbrough, 17:18 7 December 2008 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Morse code and episode summary removal

What is the rationale behind removing the morse code and summary for each episode? I am strongly tempted to reverse the edits to this page to bring them back as there does not seem to have been any discussion or reason given.

Aine (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a bold move. Everything can still be found at Jericho (season 1) and Jericho (season 2). NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll be similarly bold and revert the whole table back. I don't care how nice the colour scheme is, or if they can be found on another page; the facts are what is important and should not be deleted on a whim. See much preceding discussion.Barsoomian (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked over the preceding discussion. I see consensus for keeping the Morse Code, but that does not mean it has to be on this page. nevertheless, I will shift around some stuff to keep the morse on this page. Also, your edit wiped out a huge amount of the work that I did, especially for the lead, so I am going to partially revert back that at least. Please be careful. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I frankly didn't understand the new formatting, so I could not pick and choose, I just went back to the last edit before the Morse disappeared, it seemed urgent before too many changes were layered on it. When you make a "bold" edit, maybe wait for a while to see the reaction before building on it. But glad to see you worked it out in the end.Barsoomian (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

NW, while your changes look good, the split to separate articles is not needed unless you are planning on developing those articles. Otherwise, we have three pages doing the work of one, which causes problems with keeping the information synced between them. Please let me know if you intend to significantly expand the "season" pages in the near future. If not, we will have to merge the three pages back together and restore the summaries. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the split in two separate articles. This is a full season and 6 more episodes we are talking about. We can fit in a single article. It's easier for readers. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That is true, but there is a significant wealth of information out there, and I hope to expand into it. Ckatz, I do intend to significantly expand the season pages in the near future. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Heck, you guys are probably right. I am going to restore the episode summaries. Unfortunately, this means extra work before FLC, but one page rather than three is justifiable. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Title of first episode

Someone had changed the title of the first episode, removing the quote marks (which every other title has), with the comment "'pilot' is a description, not a title)". But still, he left Pilot in the title slot, so I don't know what the point of that was. Looking at the press release from CBS we see:

SKEET ULRICH, GERALD McRANEY, PAMELA REED, LENNIE JAMES, ASHLEY SCOTT, SPRAGUE GRAYDEN, MICHAEL GASTON, BRAD BEYER, KENNETH MITCHELL, ERIK KNUDSEN AND SHOSHANNAH STERN STAR IN "JERICHO," A NEW DRAMA PREMIERING WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 20 ON THE CBS TELEVISION NETWORK
"Pilot" -- Skeet Ulrich, Gerald McRaney,....

-- So CBS seems to think "Pilot" is the title. Interestingly, I found this at TVGuide: Jericho Episode: "Pilot: The First 17 Hours"; but haven't seen this cited anywhere else.

Anyway, very many series have "Pilot" as the first episode title. It's treated as a "title" the same as any of the following ones. Titles ARE descriptions of a kind anyway. Barsoomian (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this; I too have seen "Pilot" as the beginning episode for many series (e.g, Premiere (The O.C.), 30 Rock (season 1)). I haven't seen the TVGuide description anywhere else either, so I think just "Pilot" would make sense. NW (Talk) 14:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

A bit more digging turned up what seems to be the original script. This has the title: "Pilot: The First 17 Hours". And on this DVD cover "Pilot: The First Seventeen Hours" (note, word for "17" here) was used too... So this seems to make it fairly official. And just found it's noted on the Wiki page Pilot (Jericho episode) too. I'll update the title accordingly, ugly as the formatting is. Barsoomian (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies to all re my edit! Usually "pilot" is a description not a title, but if the creators titled their script as such then obviously the quotation marks are valid! Bradley0110 (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Jericho episode articles being deleted

It seems someone is going thorough all the separate articles for Jericho episodes and deleting them, without any discussion. Currently the first 9 episodes have been deleted (technically "redirected", but it amounts to the same thing). Anyone want to respond to this? Barsoomian (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Episode articles need to establish real-world significance and need to be more than a plot summary. The pilot article was the only one that provided any more than a plot summary (it had information about setting and viewership, which was moved into this page). Most TV series don't have the notability to create an article about every episode, and this one certainly does not. And, for the record, I did like the show when it was on. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, please stop doing this until there has been at least a pretence at discussion. There is no urgency in deleting these articles. The Pilot episode] for instance had three references and sourced info about the production. That looks viable to me as it is. The others could be looked at. But none could be rescued after you've wiped them out and delinked them. Barsoomian (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The content and references were transferred into this page. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the redirects and restored the links, following the R in WP:BRD. D follows if there is any dispute. Barsoomian (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That's what we've been doing. At this point, you haven't really presented a reason not to, other than being too bold. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It was pretty damn shocking to see 8 or 9 articles deleted with no warning or discussion. "Bold" is an understatement. And you haven't given any reason to delete. In any case, just wait a few days at least to see if any other editors come out the woodwork. At worst it's crufty. There's no threat to anyone, no need to settle it right now. Preferably someone else can take up the cudgels, I'm pretty tired of the arguing here.Barsoomian (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I came here looking for a merge discussion and found this one, so I may as well join in. To begin with, Donde raises some good points and, having seen some of the articles still proposed for merging, I am compelled to agree with her/him. The individual episode articles are currently little more than plot summaries. Some date back to March 2008 so there has been ample time for interested editors to turn them into something encyclopedic. Furthermore, although there is indeed "no need to settle it right now", some of these articles have been proposed for merging since as far back as December 2008. (To put this in perspective, there are now only two articles on WP with merge proposals dated prior to that month.) Accordingly, I think that all the Jericho episodes should be merged and redirected into this article. If, in the future, substantial noteworthy information is added, then the idea of separate articles can be revisited. Regarding the pilot episode, the reception sections will be just as useful in this article as in a separate one. ClaretAsh 12:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

However, while individual episode articles may have been tagged, no discussion followed up there either way, and nothing at all was posted on any of the main Jericho article discussion pages, such as this one, which I do have a watch on, until I noticed a bunch of articles had suddenly, without any discussion or warning, been deleted. I'm trying to scare up some editors to flesh out the articles. So please restrain that itchy trigger finger for a while longer and perhaps we can make something more solid out of the articles. Also, while you may say "merge", in effect, all the articles were simply deleted and redirected, which amounts to the same thing but avoids any AfD, and there is no real hope at all of "noteworthy information being added". They'll be gone for good. The Pilot episode is certainly one that already merits remaining as a separate article. I'm aware that WP:OTHERCRAP isn't a compelling argument, nevertheless I will point out that there are a lot of articles of equal or less merit that are unthreatened by deletion. The articles for each and every Buffy episode, for instance. Barsoomian (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries. My trigger finger can remain itchy for a while longer. Nonetheless, I'll tag each of the articles for proposed merging (or update existing tags). That should get some more interest in this discussion. ClaretAsh 23:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've checked back through the various article histories and it appears none of them were deleted, merely redirected. Deletion is entirely different in that only an admin can undelete a deleted page. Redirecting, though, can be reversed by anyone who wishes to flesh out an article with substnatial content. Please try not to confuse the two as it only risks accidentally misleading others.

Also, I don't know why you refer to me saying "merge", above, as if I was talking about Donde's earlier redirects. I'm not involved in Donde's previous actions and expressed no opinion on them. I merely agree with Donde that the articles should be merged, that is all. Can we please move on from Donde's redirects. That was in the past. It was reverted by yourself due to lack of consensus. The only way for consensus to form is by discussion. The discussion is occurring now. I'd advise both you and Dondegroovily to step back and allow others to approach this discussion with fresh views, unhindered by past redirects/reversions.

You're right, by the way, about WP:OTHERCRAP not being a compelling argument. I rarely use it myself as it can swing either way; either, "other crap exists therefore this crap should stay", OR, "this crap should go, therefore so should all the other crap."

Having said all this, though, please don't think, Barsoomian, that I'm trying to somehow attack everything you say, even if it seems that way. I merely want what's best for both WP and its coverage of Jericho. As I said, I want this discussion to move on beyond the past, and for us to start discussing whether separate episode articles should remain and why. Also, we need to discuss what sort of coverage each Jericho episode should get within the scope of an encyclopedia, whether it be as separate articles or on one combined article.

ClaretAsh 00:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"However, while individual episode articles may have been tagged, no discussion followed up there either way" if you scroll up, there was such discussion on this very page. Not a lot mind you, but the merge/redirect crowd actually justified their arguments with Wiki policy while the no merge crowd pretty much used I Like It as an argument. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Moving on, though...ClaretAsh 01:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I know the difference between merge /redirect and delete. However, in practice, merge/redirect means the article disappears, links to it are removed (the links disappearing is what alerted me to what was going on). It can be reversed if someone knows there used to be an article there, but in reality, can expect it never to see the light of day again if no one noticed it immediately.

As for "moving on": I am aware that many of the articles are thin as for references. I never used "I Like It" as an argument. I asked for stay of execution so the articles can be rescued rather than wiped out. That one article which certainly was well-referenced, the Pilot, was the first to be removed showed a desire to make a clean sweep. I am reaching out to see if I can get the Jericho fan community to take an interest; not to find meatpuppets to blindly support retention, but to get the articles improved so they can stand on their own merits. Christmas/New Year has an effect, not everyone wants to spend their holidays editing Wikipedia. I don't see any "crowd" on either side. While one person could delete all 29 episode articles in a few minutes, it takes man hours to improve them. Barsoomian (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I understand you're not searching for meatpuppets. The thought never occurred to me. Anyway, the merge proposal has been updated or added on each constituent article so the merge backlog has cleared a bit (albeit falsely) which was my original aim. Best of luck finding new editors (I presume you mean to search outside of WP). Just remember to remind them of reliable sources etc. Feel free to contact me at my talk page if you need any help. ClaretAsh 03:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• For the Pilot, we have [1] and [2] at minimum. I imagine there is more. Let's wait and see what other editors are able to come up with. NW (Talk) 06:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering this idea was first suggested in December 2008, editors have had THREE YEARS to come up with something. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Lazy scum. What do they think they're being paid for? Barsoomian (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, methinks I may have violated civility here :( D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding references

The separate episode articles could do with more external references. I've added excerpts from several reviews to the respective "Reception" sections

Sources:

• LA Times reviews: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/jericho/
• IGN reviews: http://tv.ign.com/objects/828/828170.html

Please add any other sources of substantial reviews here. Books, newspapers, journals preferably.Barsoomian (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Jericho episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404132718/http://gawker.com/266665/nina-tassler-issues-formal-letter-of-surrender-to-the-jericho-nation to http://gawker.com/266665/nina-tassler-issues-formal-letter-of-surrender-to-the-jericho-nation
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/794392

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)