Talk:Jericho, Kansas (fictional town)

Pilot Road Sign

In the Pilot Episode of Jericho, Jake Greene drives his car past a milage sign which indicates this:

Jericho 47 miles
Wichita 196 miles
Kansas City 362 miles

Now taking a map of Kansas, A 196 mile circle around wichita and a 362 mile circle around Kansas City would intersect only in two spots. One outside of the state in Missouri and one inside the state of Kansas near Garden City. This could be thought of as an error as this puts Jake Greene coming in from the south, and not from the west via Denver. Another thought is that Jericho is basically near where Colby, KS is per other hints in other episodes. From Garden City, it is more than double the 47 miles that would be listed on the sign. I don't know if anyone is interested in this but I thought I would list it here just in case it can be used in the article later. All in all, the milage math does not work out. --69.92.129.118 21:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I have noted this in the Geography section. Thank you for this information --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 22:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoky Hill River Reference Corrections/Edit Proposal

I'd like to propose an edit to the part about the Smoky Hill River in the "Geography" section, and seek to build consensus for a change. Existing copy states:

"Because the Smokey Hill River does exist, the Smokey Hill Bridge mentioned in the third episode could exist, but it would be at least a 90-minute drive south of Jericho, and that would not fit into the time-frame of the show. The third episode also depicts airplanes landing on the highway near the Smokey Hill Bridge. In actuality, all the highways that cross the Smokey Hill River are two lanes and too narrow to land large aircraft. Pilots of large aircraft would have to glide north and attempt to land on Interstate 70 or in a field."

1st, it's the Smoky Hill River -- Smoky without an "e" not Smokey.

2nd, I don't see where the "90-minute drive" comes from. The Smoky Hill River Bridge is likely to be the one on US 83 in Logan County (38.7961°N, 100.8568°W). Per Google Maps this location is 23.0 miles (about 24 mins) south of Oakley, Kansas, and 46.2 miles (about 52 minutes) south of Colby, Kansas. Neither is 90-minute drive!

3rd, "In actuality" (I hate that phrase) but it is likely that the Smoky Hill River Bridge on US 83 is probably a two lane highway. It is also probable that Interstate 70 is also two lanes in each direction seperated by a median. So I-70 would likely be no more acceptable for an emergency landing location, than would be any other two lane US highway. Note: I've never been to this area of Kansas, so perhaps someone more familiar can chime in here?

4) IMO, any pilot, 'worth his salt' so to speak, would look at his aeronautical charts to find an airport somewhere en route (such as at Hays or Garden City... even Goodland has a runway 5499x100) that is capable of landing their aircraft safely. This is just Standard Operating Procedure and training for any pilot! And in a next to last ditch effort, they would choose a smaller (non-commercial) airport like those at Oakley or Colby, or quite literally hundreds of other choices. There are 414 airports in Kansas! A pilot would only chose a highway in the event of a last ditch, no options, situation, and even then might be as likely to do a wheels up landing in an field.

So I would like to see this section revised to state:

The Smokey Hill River does exist. The Smokey Hill Bridge mentioned in the third episode is likely to be on US Highway 83, about 23 miles south of Oakley, KS. The third episode depicts airplanes having landed on the highway near the Smokey Hill Bridge. Although use of a highway might concievably work for a 'last ditch' emergency landing site, most pilots would likely find a suitable commercial/public runway at Hays, Garden City, Goodland, Colby, or Oakley, to land their aircraft more safely.

I'm not sure how wikipedia works, but I would like to build consensus on this. If anyone disagrees, or would like to defend their spelling, 90 minute drive, or I-70 statements, please speak up.

Thanks, Jason51 19:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I-70 has broad cleared right ways and weight bearing capacity designed (12-18 inches of concrete) for very heavy aircraft for emergency military operations - such as, well, a nuke attack on bases. The problem for heavy jets is not road surface width - but weight bearing capacity. You don't want to touchdown where your wheels will punch through the surface and then get stuck in the first instant of landing. That could cause the plane to cartwheel or be extensively gutted from below. Better to use flat open grass with wheels retracted up (praire ditching) if no suitable surface is available. Width enters more into the equation for wing clearance. Most two lane highways also have wing clearance issues with trees and telephone poles as well as low load bearing.

Your #4 only applies to light private planes single/twin engine and probably 6 passengers or less. Remember a lot of those Kansas Airstrips are grass or dirt and very short (even crop duster short). And paved runway surfaces start at blacktop and concrete thin enough to embarrass the average residential driveway. Maybe a choice for commercial planes if all they want is a flat place to start their belly landing and they notice which direction doesn't end in telephone poles or buildings.

Goodland airfield has one runway rated up to 12,500 pounds the others cannot take that much. Normally that allows light commuter planes only. Of course that rating is against damaging the surface. I am not sure how much it would take on a one time super emergency basis where damage that didn't cause a wreck was no problem. Probably a small Learjet. Even the smallest Learjet has maximum takeoff weights of 21000 pounds.

Passenger jets could punch through the surface though. A 737 weighs between 62,000 pounds upward toward 146,000 depending on model, remaining fuel and passenger load. Clearly a mismatch which gets worse for larger passenger jets. Additionally the GOodland runway is too short for 737s which like 6600 to 8500 feet at Max TakeOff Weight...and I wouldn't count on less for landing under random emergency conditions (potential airframe damage, electronics loss, full passenger loads, incoming rain, etc.).

But Dodge City has a runway that at 53,000 for double wheels should be able to take low fuel 737s in super emergency. But big jets would still be better off on I-70. At least that was what the USAF teaches its people.

69.23.124.142 (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Jericho based upon both Oakley and Colby Kansas?

I've never contributed to Wikipedia so I'm not sure how to go about getting pages edited...

I think it is impossible to designate Oakley as the sole possible site of fictional Jericho. The current page states; "... Oakley is the closest community that matches the fictional Jericho's apparent location, and some route numbers from the "official" CBS map of Jericho match, but Oakley is in Logan County."

I feel this should be changed to state; "No communities in Gove County match, based upon information provided in the show. There are two communities in north-west Kansas that seem to match closest, Colby and Oakley, but neither is an exact match. The writers seem to be using information from both of these communities to create their fictional town of Jericho."

The highway numbers match for Oakley, but in the real world, these are US Highways, not State Highways as depicted on the CBS map.

Colby is north and east of Goodland (and yes it was Goodland mentioned in episode entitled "The Four Horsemen", not Great Bend, as mentioned below).

Additionally... Colby's population more closely matches that of the fictional Jericho (stated as 5,000). Colby has a "medical center" by name (actually two)--Oakley has a "hospital" but no "medical center" by name. Colby is 78 miles from McCook, while Oakley is 88 miles away. The show says Jericho to McCook is 80 miles, so Colby is closer.

I'd like to editors of this page to take these facts into consideration.

209.183.32.42 23:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Countdown Episode 22, Hawkins uses Google Earth to zoom in on Jericho, KS. The town he zooms in on is Colby, KS. I agree that Oakley should not be mentioned as the sole basis for Jericho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.254.59 (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with which city Jericho is most closely aligned in location. But it would be nice if the location didn't float freely over hundreds of miles. If you remember during the missile launch, Jericho would need to be at the north Colorado border to feel, hear, and see Minuteman II missiles launching from Wyoming! Minuteman II missiles are not that big.

It would also be very nice if the writers stuck to generic western Kansas terrain, economics, geology, and population distributions. Western Kansas towns pretty much revolve around agriculture and service farm families. So it is ridiculous how few farms are available to Jericho. It should be hundreds at the start. And Stanley's farm is so small I was ROFLMAO. Virginia tenant farmers inherited 40 acres -- instead of a 1000 acre western Kansas spread.

Then too every town in Kansas with a pop of 1000+ is a county seat and has a national guard armory of some type (it just works out that way East Coast people, 76 armories in 57 communities versus 105 counties many of which have less than 3000 people in the entire county). A city of 5000 with only one notable bar? ROFLMAO Someone doesn't know Kansas farmers or how little there is to do in western Kansas if you cut out bar associated amusements. Oh and most county seats have both city police and sheriff's office. Plus if you are near I-70 you got a Highway patrol outpost too!!! Yup some sort of paved municipal airport strip where at least cropdusters get serviced. Maybe you haven't got a mess of the best doctors - but you can count on some top notch veterinarians and bulk animal meds which are often unbranded/no guarantee generics of human antibiotics etc. In fact farmers are known to sometimes use vet doctoring over expensive human doctors and meds. Because farm machinery is heavy precision machinery you are likely to see a full blown if small scale machine shop to do emergency and antique machine repair. At 5000 you are almost guaranteed that plus a vocational technical school that teaches it.

The Jericho-New Berm resource situation looks more like two Ohio valley towns of about 600 to 800, with Jericho likely to be smaller. Jericho just hasn't been shown to have any businesses except a tiny salt mine, 1-3 farms and a two block main street of empty retail stores. Odd isn't it? How everyone sits in the single bar and drinks all even in the middle of disaster and apparently before as well. No car dealers even used. No lumberyard or dedicated hardware store. 5000 people in town plus farmers! where is the Walmart!!!69.23.124.142 (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Great Bend" Kansas, not goodland...

Actually, I believe the 3rd episode spoke about "Great Bend" Kansas, not goodland. And according to Google maps, there is an Armory there: http://www.google.com/maps?hl=en&lr=&q=national+guard&near=Great+Bend,+KS+67530&radius=0.0&latlng=38364444,-98764444,13011429110170736068&sa=X&oi=local&ct=authority

I'm hoping the original poster will confirm this information...I'd prefer not to edit their work

I just reviewed my DVR recording of that episode and Johnston says "Goodland". Good find though --69.92.129.118 21:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot problems

80% of this article consists of plot problems. Who the hell is this pedantic? Battle Ape 13:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also says with some certainty that Robert Hawkins is an FBI agent. He only SAYS he is an FBI agent, and that was what he told Gray Anderson when confronted. We do not know Hawkins true identity, nor his motives. That's one of the things that is keeping me watching. DaveDorm 04:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plot problems...well that shows lots of people love the show's potential and characters. But they get irritated when the writers don't take minimal efforts to maintain believable realities. Like maybe the writers should have visited near matching towns and noted the resources and businesses and the terrain.... Or at least sent somebody to shoot some background film. Then the writers ought have made some contacts in western Kansas who they could bounce questions off to make sure their episodes dramatic problem and answer weren't silly before they developed a whole episode around it. Maybe some firefighter contacts and public works people who could have told them about tower-based gravity fed water being a national fire fighting standard to cover power outages. Although it was funny when the second roll crew and editors made a point of showing them up after mid-show break by panning all around the water tower for the second half opening.69.23.124.142 (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Jericho

Can somebody post a map of the town (from the CBS site) on this page???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 19:00, November 16, 2006 (talk • contribs) 68.51.116.5.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Jericho (fictional town). -- tariqabjotu 02:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#Fictional_cities, this article should probably not be at its present location. I leave it up to the more experienced editors what you would like the disambiguation term to be, since Jericho is obviously already taken. Another option is to merge this back into the parent article. -- nae'blis 16:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potential names

Any can be added, this is just an idea list. Approval voting is the usual method I believe; mark any and all you support, and if one comes out clearly ahead, that will be the target of the move. -- nae'blis 16:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho (fictional town)

Approve, as this would parallel the category the best. -- nae'blis 16:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Approve Clear and succinct. Septentrionalis 17:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Approve. Seems the best choice. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Approve. Seems obvious. --Serge 05:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disapprove. It may be obvious, but it should be disambiguated by more than just "fictional town". It could be asserted that the namesake of the city itself is a "fictional town", and thus we would have a clash of terms. Of course, regardless of fictionality of the namesake, that one would be labeled "Jericho (Bible)", as a proper reference should be given about where the city comes from. --Puellanivis 16:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho (television)

I have a concern this would be mistaken for the name of the actual series. Currently it is a redirect to Jericho (disambiguation). -- nae'blis 16:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disapprove as target, but could be a sub-disambiguation of Jericho (disambiguation). Should not be an article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disapprove yes, it could be confused with the TV series. That's most of the problems with the guidelines, is that the series is specifically named after the town. --Puellanivis 16:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho, Kansas (fictional town)

Approve, for consistency with other US cities (which are "city, state"). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psiphiorg (talk • contribs) 00:03, November 18, 2006 (UTC)
Approve (as second choice). (Approval voting allows more than one "approve" vote.) Could easily be a redirect, if not selected as the target. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Approve This is a good idea, makes it clear that it is a fictional town, and the placement of Jericho in this series is much more important than I think in many other series. --Puellanivis 16:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho, Kansas — i.e. no change

Approve, to avoid a disambiguation label when there isn't another "Jericho, Kansas" article to be disambiguated from —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psiphiorg (talk • contribs) 00:03, November 18, 2006 (UTC)
Disapprove, the guidelines are right, it could be mistaken for a real city.

Jericho (Jericho) — the exact name recommended by the guidelines

Disapprove, this is just all together way too repetative. I just added it for coverage of ideas. --Puellanivis 16:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho, Kansas (Jericho) — similar name to that recommended by the guidelines

Approve, this is similar to the suggestions given in the guidelines, and at the same time more clear, and avoids disambiguation. Jericho's placement in the series is much more important than in other series, as this doesn't "just happen in Jericho", no, it happens in "Jericho, Kansas". --Puellanivis 16:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion goes here...

Comments

Jericho, Kansas is deprecated by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements), to make sure that no one confuses it with an article on a real place; it might be mentioned in a context, or a category, which would not make clear it was fictional. Septentrionalis 17:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Rough pictures"

Very rough. They should be removed. Exbuzz 04:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit

This article is in need of a major copyedit. There are numerous amounts of errors. I began to go through to correct grammar and misspellings, but I was unable to save the changes due to updates made since I started my copyedit. In order to keep the changes made, I am marking this page for copyediting. Please remember to check over your work before saving, and if you are unsure of a word, look it up in a dictionary, or, if you are able to, type your changes into Microsoft Word first, and then copy it into Wikipedia.

--HBot3 22:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from proofreader:

In the lead, does the final sentence "it is in Logan county" refer to Jericho or to Oakley? --Otheus 15:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Sites of interest" section, we have "Emily sits inside of it and daydreams about her wedding day in the ninth episode." Is she daydreaming in the ninth episode? Or does she get married in the ninth episode? --Otheus 16:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otheus, thanks for starting the cleanup of this article. There is still a lot of material here that fails the original research tests, and as such will need to be removed. However, the article is stronger from your work. --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a lot of material here that fails the original research tests, and as such will need to be removed. Yes, like the entire article. However, I'm pretty certain that much of this can be gleaned from fan sites, TV summaries, etc. --Otheus 16:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The series has been cancelled, and IMHO this article is still in need of major cleanup. I was tempted to just yank out everything that appears to be OR, but will try over the next few days (or weeks?) to retain what are the "facts" presented in the series and weed out the rest. 209.247.22.62 09:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

I have removed the scans from the TV episodes. They are neither useful nor informative.
The sketch of the ambulance is a joke. Just link to the article on ambulances or take a picture of a real Ambulance and photoshop it to say "Jericho".

--Otheus 16:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the dark image again. It isn't terribly legible, and there are other scenes in the series that can provide better images. As for manipulating an image to add "Jericho", I'd suggest that we should avoid "creating" images altogether. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the EMS image, there might be a good image from the daytime fire at the town library from earlier in the season. (I'd offer to create it, but I don't have any Jericho episodes to work from.) There is/was a fire department image from that episode earlier, but it had to be removed due to licensing issues, having been taken from a fan site complete with overlaid URL. --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:087.jpg

Image:087.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Jericho 1x01 "Pilot".jpg

Image:Jericho 1x01 "Pilot".jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]