Talk:Eureka (TV series)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Eureka (TV series). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

the description is probably fine for now. I've been trying to quote it, but the code for it is messing up the page. dposse 16:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we add a section for speculation and trivia. For example, the license plate on Taggart's vehicle is "NACI-93" and Taggart's accent on the show is British or Canadian. This might represent that he worked for the Canadian National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) in 1993.--P Todd 00:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's status as a stub says "go nuts!" – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. heqs 10:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well then, "go to a point which is sensible and not overly vague or speculative!" My eagerness got the better of me. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Should the recent (season 2) promotional campaign of the funny little "Live Smart Eureka" ads be mentioned in the main article? Perhaps in a trivia section if no place else seems appropriate?--LKAdriaan 07:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections are discouraged by Wikipedia policy. So, no. If you can't find a way to work it into the body of the article, wait until someone else can. 12.22.250.4 16:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You can watch the entire first episode legally on the Sci-Fi channel website.--2ltben 00:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Advertised on tv but I didn't catch the dates. Sky One (broadcast in the UK and Ireland) Eureka premieres , 9pm, Wednesdays from Wed 2 Jul."[1] Think that must be a typo, and it must actually start in August since the show started on Sci Fi in July 18, 2006.

Definately a typo, saw the ad. and the time is listed as "next wednesday" which is Wednesday 2nd August.

A large part of this article is taken verbatim fromt the show's official site's About page. 71.253.141.238 19:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not taken verbatum. It uses a similar format and similar wording, but it is not an exact quotation. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I edited the episodes list with new date and episode names, however they are not official. If they turn out to be wrong, I'll come back and fix them.--RNAi 03:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the Episodes section as it now stands. The information is unsourced, but implies that airing the episodes out of order did not in anyway distort ongoing story arcs. Unfortunately, anyone paying attention during the first series had to have noticed that the development of the Jack Carter/Alison Blake relationship made no sense. They start as strangers, then he shows signs of a crush. They grow closer over two episodes and then suddenly they are strictly business. Then they're close again, and then they aren't, with no visible explanation. In addition, near the end of the series Henry is inexplicably bitter and alone just one episode after having finally begun a relationship with Kim. In retrospect, it's obvious that the episode takes place after her death, even though Kim hasn't been killed in the accident yet. I'm not saying this to open discussion about the show, but I am saying this to indicate that airing the episodes out of order very much did distort the season long arcs, and that the Episodes section as written is wrong and has no sources to back it up. The only source for information seems to be Scfi.com, and they certainly aren't going to admit that their strategy (such as it was) played havoc with character development. Can anyone find independent interviews or reports not originated by Scifi Channel that can confirm either the version as written or the version I have just presented? I can't find any, yet the distortion was, I think, painfully obvious. 12.22.250.4 17:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Eureka was originally going to be an animated series. [2]. Pretty interesting, no? DrWho42 17:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving this sentence here to the talk page until someone provides a citation:

This name change occured so as not to confuse the series with the anime series of the same name, or Eureka Seven the spin-off.

--TorriTorri^{Talk to me!} 00:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Does it really need a hovering caption when there is a caption underneath saying exactly what the picture is of??--NeilEvans 22:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. The caption is put into the HTML code as the <img> tag's "alt" variable. More info. EVula 22:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've only watched a couple of episodes, but I think that there are some characters that aren't neccissarily (sic) main characters, but are still notable. For example, SARAH might deserve a page.

Also, Lowjack DEFINATELY deserves a page...I am absolutely sure that s/he will play a part in an episode.

Ideas for new pages for other chars -Lowjack -Henry's assistant -The mother and father from episode 1 and 2 (unless they are totally irrelevent) -ect.

ALSO, I was wondering if it would be a good idea if we made a page that detailed all the projects and little inventions that occur each episode. Thats kinda why I started watching this show, and I think it would be cool to have a little page detailing the town of Eureka and what kind of marvels are seen within its borders.

On this note, I think the character pages were created too early, seeing as how we know so little. We should just have one List of Eureka characters page for everyone until it bloats to a point where we can split it. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 17:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though the main characters (Jack/Zoe/Jo/Allison/Henry/Stark) probably deserve pages of their own. The others, though, definitely don't - especially almost total nonentities like Sheriff Cobb, Warren, and Colonel Briggs. They could be shifted to a list very easily. Rarr 10:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I second that point. Several of the "main characters" listed are anything but. Additionally other characters such as Fargo, that reoccur frequently, are not to be found.Black Wolff 05:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed Warren, Sheriff Cobb, and Colonel Briggs. Personally I don't think Spencer should be there either, but at least he's a little more relevant. Vincent is somewhere in between main and secondary. Fargo definitely deserves to stay though. Rarr 20:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

At least while the show is relatively young, using the SciFi channel's definition of main characters might be a good guideline. That means no to Vincent, yes to Fargo, etc. A separate list of seconday (i.e. Vincent), recurring (i.e. Zoe's friend at school, Spencer) and one-time but important characters (i.e. Sheriff Cobb) seems to be the other consensus. I would volunteer if I was anything but completely baffled at how to do an entire new page. If someone sets one up, I would be happy to edit it.--LKAdriaan 07:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but it looks like the new character Zane will be sticking around for the long term. With a third season in the works, shouldn't there be a page for him? Clovis15 03:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In "Family Reunion" (Season 2), Oregon is explicitly stated to be the locale. However, in one early episode, the car Carter is being driven in has an old California-style license plate. It reads Eureka, not California, on the top, but the orange-on-black and letter-number pattern is Californian (see "Behind the Scenes: The Science of Humor"). The first time Carter sees Eureka, it looks almost exactly like the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, set into a hillside with huge satellite dishes, albeit a bit stylized and fancified. And JPL is quite a bit like an isolated small town inhabited by the most brilliant scientists and engineers on earth.... Maybe the creators hadn't decided yet? Lmonteros 03:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

SPOILER ALERT

A couple of things regarding Eureka's location were mentioned in the last episode, but they aren't consistent with each other. They talk about a city of Summerville and a Freeway 17 within 50 miles from Eureka.

• The "interstate" freeway 17 does not go anywhere near Pacific Northwest. It goes from Flagstaff, AZ to Phoenix, AZ. There is no state highway 17 in Oregon, as far as I can tell.
• The only Summerville in the area is a tiny town ( population 117 ) in Northeast Oregon. I seriously doubt that there are any bus routes going through Summerville.
• They mention a bus going to Portland, with the first stop in Salem. This would probably mean that Eureka is in Western Oregon, and Salem is the closest major city in its vicinity. It could be somewhere along Oregon State Route 22.
• The problem with Eureka being in Oregon but "adjacent to Idaho" is that ( as far as I know ) most of the Oregon east of Cascade Mountains is really a treeless desert, and does not look anything like what's portrayed in the show. [3] Interestingly enough, there is a real town of Eureka, and a real highway 17, located in the forests of Pacific Northwest less than 50 miles from the border of Idaho - not in Oregon, but in Montana. Oregon state flag and Montana state flag are both yellow on blue background. Any chance that you got the flag wrong?

Anyway, we can probably conclude that Eureka's producers either don't have any specific location in mind for the city, or they intentionally give us conflicting hints.

--Itinerant1 06:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The flag in the sheriff's office is definitely an Oregon flag. You can see part of the word "STATE" (STATE OF OREGON); part of the year 1859; and some of the stars around the edge of the seal. Also, the seal is only gold on a blue background, whereas the Montana flag's seal is multicolored. Richwales 07:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, about 28 minutes into the episode "Right as Raynes," you can see the flag behind Deputy Lupo's shoulder, and a sizable portion of the seal is clearly visible — enough to show that it can only be the Oregon flag. I'm not necessarily saying that the producers of the show expect the viewers to notice this detail, but trivia buffs can't help but see it. Richwales 07:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

—:Some of the shots of town are taken in Ashland, Oregon in southern Oregon very near the CA border off I5.

There's a post on the official site dated today stating that the show has been renewed for a second season. I just don't know all the fancy shmancy Wiki code to put this in the entry. Andrewhime 16:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Should this part be deleted now that it's actually on TV?

A paragraph in the article states:

Since redwoods only grow in California and coastal southwest Oregon, this limits the locale to the area in which the only real-world Eureka is: California.

But according to Eureka, there's at least eight other Eureka's in the US, and three in other countries, so this statement is somewhat misleading. --Lurlock 15:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we even need to state where a real Eureka is. Its a TV show. Besides, that whole bit is original research, so I'm axing it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

1. It's a logo, just like Dell's tilted e or Toys "R" Us' backwards R. Just because we have the capability to render the logo in typeface doesn't mean we should.
2. EUR^eKA is never used outside of the stylized logo with a specific font, colors, and styling.
3. The SciFi channel does not use it as the name of the show and does not promote its use.
4. It is not discussed in this article or relevant to any part of it.
5. It is clearly and accurately depicted in the info box using the correct font, colors, and styling.
6. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), cited as reason to restore it, clearly discourages the use of stylized renditions in text. The one allowance provided says only that is acceptable to display it, implying that the decision is left to the editors. The two examples given, Macy's and Yellow Tail, don't use stylized renditions at all in their articles.
7. The CamelCase clause (which could potentially cover this case) again makes it clear that it is a judgement call, to be used when "it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable". EUR^eKA does neither.

Having explained myself, I'm going to remove it again, but I'm not looking to edit war. If anyone disagrees with me, I encourage you to explain why you feel "EUR^eKA" should be included here, rather than why is it is allowed to be included. –  Anþony  talk  08:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This site does not meet WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, firstly (from WP:EL):

1. "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources." - The site does not appear to cite credible secondary/primary sources.
2. "Links mainly intended to promote a website." - As evidenced by User:VisitEurekas repetitive spamming and the excess amount of adverts contained on the website (one on top, one on bottom and a Amazon referral).
3. "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." - See above.
   • Next I must point out the website has no claim to notability or any factual stability (it's only been online since August, 2006).
   • Additionally I should point out the website appears to be a copyright violation (or possible derivative) of the website GateWorld, it is unacceptable to link to copyright violators as per policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works).

Furthermore from Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources of questionable reliability:

1. "In general, sources of questionable reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight" - Due to the non-notability of the website I question it has any established reliability or reputation for fact-checking.

Unquestionably this website should not be linked to from this article, point in fact that it's non-notable. Nobody denies, however, that it is indeed a useful resource, nevertheless it is not valid linkage until it sorts its various "problems" out, nor is it valid reference material. Hence in light of my comments here and stated fact that I question this websites reliability, etc, it should not be linked from this article without such a consensus that it is indeed reliable. Matthew 17:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Point by point:

I've never mislead the reader. The source is reliable - he's a producer of the show.

Maybe I did spam a bit because they had no valid reason of deleting the link. I have now however stopped re-adding that link. I have left my content, such as the Abby Carter casting news, which means I should be allowed reference links. It's only fair right?

As for the advertising - 90% of websites have advertising - SciFi.com itself has advertising so...? Plus - 3 adverts is hardly a lot. I have made sure the site doesn't have too many. You're linking to other sites that are LOADED with ads. So please - don't argue that case with me when you're not going to argue with them as well... Ditto with GateWorld.net and the Stargate pages.

The site has interviews with several cast members, Colin Ferguson (Jack Carter) is also a member of the forums. Colin actually called my assistant editor to conduct the interview so it certainly was him. That counts as a claim to notability and factual stability. As for launching in August 2006, that doesn't really effect anything as the site has recently taken off and has been visited by the stars and producers of the show - when Season 2 starts in July, predictions are that the site will be extremely popular - which to be honest it is right now.

Also - may I just add that I designed that site myself. From the ground up. I never copied GateWorld.net. I liked their idea - but what I did was my own. I admit, some aspects such as the advertisement above the header was an idea I used from GW because I wanted to get some ads in there in a tidy place that worked - and GW's idea worked. End of story though.

Also may I just stress that there is specifically no copyright on a website design. ;-)

I'm not arguing for a link at the bottom of the page as I guess everybody wants to treat me differently to GateWorld.net. Fair does - we'll prove ourselves when Season 2 kicks off. All I want is my citations for the information I received exclusively and posted on this article - like I said that is fair. If you cannot trust the citation reference, you cannot trust the information - but you are leaving the information there? See what I'm saying?

Hope this helps.VisitEureka.net 19:03, 23 April 2007 (BST)

As I have warned you on your talkpage, and several others as well, please read WP:COI. Please do not edit the article yourself, explain what should be changed on the talkpage, and wait until other editors make the change for you, if they agree with the edit. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to write a detailed reply so I'll just answer one point: "Also may I just stress that there is specifically no copyright on a website design. ;-)" -- Indeed there is, website designs are creative works and hence copyright. By the tone of your message you appear to be admitting your website is a derivative. Matthew 08:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I was just stating a point.

VisitEureka 21:12, 30 April 2007 (GMT)

Thank You Dirk Beetstra for providing this user with a basic set of guidelines on his discussion page. The self promotion of his site here and on the Painkiller Jane page was getting out of hand. Makowsky 17:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to raise the issue of the episode titles... VisitEureka.net got them from an inside source, yet you are claiming that they were available before VE.net announced them... that is impossible. I believe you are treating this site with absolutely no respect and no matter what they do to prove that they are a reliable source, you will lie so you don't have to post the links. If you'd paid attention, the link I provided when changing the information on the Eureka page actually proves that Eureka is NOT scheduled to begin in August.

Can I ask this - when Olivia d'Abo is confirmed as Abby Carter, are you going to make up more lies that this information was available before VE.net were told exclusively by the same crew member just days after she was cast? Or will you then believe that the site is a reliable source?

Sorry I had to post here - I just don't think you should lie to dismiss posting links that ARE reliable. The guy who owns the site seems to have gotten really angry with you because you've treated him like s***...

Thanks - James Matherson

4 November 21:24 (EST) Well, I can see now that there has been a big fight over this sight, which I naively stumbled upon when a bot prevented me from adding it. I have zero, zip, nada association with the site except that I have joined its forum (readable by anyone without a password). I humbly suggest you reconsider. I get more info, which is from a reliable source, as someone else pointed out (the producer runs it, actors are interviewed on it, and staff writers contribute to it), than from the official site, and it really does meet the criteria for a valid link. Maybe I'm just too old for all this infighting (I can see where repeated spam would set anyone on edge), but as a complete outsider, let me just add that I find it a useful site that engages in ethical practices (rumors are clearly marked as such and only appear in discussions devoted to such), and I would have been happy to find it via Wikipedia instead of stumbling across it. Give it another go with some distance and a calmer view. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.140.35 (talk)

Shouldn't the actors and actresses of minor & recurring charchters also be mentioned somewhere? (e.g. the voice of Sarah?) Jon 21:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone notice a connection between some characters in Eureka with some in Seinfeld? Taggert is Kramer, the strange, tall weirdo; Fargo is George, the short, loser who's unlucky in love; Jo is Elaine, the tough, non-feminine chick, and Carter is Jerry, the simple guy who's just trying to live his life. This may be just me but I thought it was very weird, but it may be a coincidence. User:BioYu-Gi! 1:20p.m. 6/27/07

See Stock characters samwaltz 13:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Consider the timeline until shortly before Kim's death in 2006 to be stable. Henry experienced it, lived until some undeterminate time in the future (we'll call this alpha-line) (and, please note, he could have come back from 2010, 2020, or any other year - it was never stated), came back, and allowed Kim to survive, (creating beta-line); due to the divergences, the timequakes happened and Carter came back from 2010 to 2006, (creating gamma-line). The Carter of this episode remembered beta-line, an alternate future; Henry only remembered alpha-line, where the explosion took place and where, by definition, the series of deaths by spontaneous combustion took place, yet he pretends he doesn't remember them. Now, is Carter just dense, has he not realized that he and Henry have not seen the same future?
Keep in mind that the Universe does not like paradoxes, it does not like divergences from what "should have happened" (alpha-line). Therefore Henry knows that keeping his memory of alpha-line ensures another series of timequakes in gamma-line, even if he personally didn't experience the quakes in beta-line. samwaltz 13:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"This is suggested by the episodes' production numbers which are displayed on the Sci-Fi channel's Eureka website next to episode titles quite often." Where? If they were removed, sadly most of scifi.com's show pages are flash and so you can't see archived versions of them in archive.org. Are they listed on a currently accessible reliable source, like on the DVDs or an official companion book? TransUtopian 14:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wherever we're pulling summaries of upcoming episodes from seems horribly unreliable. I've only been checking the pages long enough to see three of them, but every one managed to pack at least one substantial error into a two-sentence blurb. ShaleZero 06:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The school is not filmed at Fraser Heights. It is filmed at Sullivan Heights Secondary, also in Surrey. I know this because I go to this school, and have seen the filming being done, including when they blocked off our cafeteria area, and When they filmed the outside with the sherrif vehicle. Overloadgimpy 03:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if a general summary of the plotlines from S1 and S2 could be added, or should be added, to this page. Enigma3542002 05:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Irish entertainment listings, Sky One (Ireland) is on the same episode as Sky One (UK). This suggests both countries started showing Series 2 on the same date not 2 months apart. This makes sense as the only difference between the channels should be the adverts. 84.67.183.95 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

About 1/3 of the article was removed by an anonymous editor on December 9, 2007. I couldn't find any discussion or rationale for the removal of this material, and I propose that it be reinstated unless someone can come up with a good explanation. Comments? Richwales (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Which revision was it? AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The last good revision, prior to the series of deletions I'm objecting to, was this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eureka_%28TV_series%29&oldid=176848881

Richwales (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the removal of the settings section? Per an edit on the 11th, it was copied straight from IMDB making it WP:COPYVIO. It also goes totally against the TV MOS and isn't really necessary. To start improving the article, I'd recommend looking at the MOS and the tags above to see what sections are appropriate and important and to see how to fix up the intro (way too short, lacks context, etc). AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the IMDb article on Eureka just now, and I was unable to find any material corresponding to the "Settings" section. Perhaps it was once there, but was later removed? If I'm mistaken, can you indicate exactly which subsection of the show's IMDb article contains the material in question?

In any event, I believe the material discussing the "Location of Eureka" is appropriate, not a straight copy from IMDb or anywhere else I'm aware of, and ought to be reinstated. Richwales (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There is already location section. Two sections are not needed. Feel free to expand the location's section into prose, preferably with proper citations, though. It certainly needs clean up and expansion. I can't point to the section, because I'm not the editor who made the note. You may want to drop them a note to ask them about it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The current article contains information on filming locations, but not anything about where the fictional town of Eureka might be located. That's what I'm saying deserves to be put back — and it's not the same as the filming locations, so I don't agree that both concepts must (or even should) be incorporated into a single "location" section.

As for where (if anywhere) the disputed text occurs (or might have occurred) in the IMDb article, the material flagged as having come from IMDb (and removed a few days ago) was only the following one-sentence plot summary: The best minds in the US are tucked away in a remote town where they build futuristic inventions for the government's benefit. That one sentence was indeed copied from IMDb, but I see no evidence that the contents of the disputed "Setting" section came from IMdb.

Does anyone else out there have an opinion as to whether the material originally in the "Setting" section of this article should, or should not, be reinstated? Surely "AnmaFinotera" and I are not the only two editors who care about this question — and although I suppose I have as much of a right to put the material back in as the anonymous 81.110.240.101 had to take it out, I'd prefer to see a consensus form here if possible, rather than just take action unilaterally. Richwales (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

True, in a way, on the locations, and I can see both sides there. The other place it would likely be appropriate is as a subsection under plot, though just giving the original a quick read, I think it might need some paring down and sourcing as well. :) Feel free to post over at the TV Project talk page to bring the article to the TV Project's attention, see if any other editors can offer some feedback. Our current style guide doesn't really address the issue, does it. Doh. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Great job working in the info! The image being used, though, was too big so I resized it for you. You need to go add a fair use rationale though, or it will get deleted in 7 days. If you need help with doing a fair use rationale for a screenshot, check out Image:Cain transformed.JPG for a template version you can copy and modify for it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There was a fair use rationale. At least, I thought the text originally on the image's page qualified as a fair use rationale. I've reworded it somewhat; hopefully it'll be good enough now? Richwales (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that isn't considered a fair use rationale as it does not provide enough info and doesn't specify use in each artcle :) I've fixed it for you though. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Jack Carter's MySpace page lists that Eureka is located in Alabama, not Oregon. Is this a mistake (I realize that Alabama is not in the Pacific Northwest)? Chronolegion (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Monday Begins on Saturday--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but it needs a source, otherwise it's just ORGed UK (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What woudl you suggest? Writing to the writers of the show, and asking them if they plagiarised the Strugatskys?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Though I would suggest you don't use the word plagerise ;) Ged UK (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I find another possible real-life inspiration in the history of Richland, WA. This was a flyspeck town in Eastern Washington in the early 1940's that was taken over by the War Dept to build the first Atomic Bomb. The people who lived in the smaller towns of Hanford and White Bluffs were moved out, and the towns demolished. Richland went from a few hundred agricultural workers to 50,000+ people working in utter secrecy on the Manhatten Project. Even the homes in the town were owned by the Govt - if a light bulb burned out, the Army would send someone to replace it. Today, this legacy is still there in a town that has an unusually large number of Nuclear Scientists, a number of street names like Proton and Electron, and a High School whose mascot is 'The Bombers', complete with a green-and-yellow Mushroom cloud. Nothingofwater (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"if a light bulb burned out, the Army would send someone to replace it" that is not unique to this special town. up until recently all us army bases had that. now due to privitization, which is to improve the quality of military housing, you have to buy your own light bulbs.... but in true 50's fashion if "the man of the house" is not avalible you can still ask that someone install it for you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.59.37 (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The "Episodes" section is nearly identical to IMDB's writeup in the "Trivia" section. While I'd love to believe they copied Wikipedia, I suspect it's the other way around. Section needs to be rewritten or turned into a quote. Needs a citation, too. 64.223.228.145 (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Degree "corporate sponsors"? On two episodes so far, I'm sure they'll work it into all the others this season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

They didn't have it in the third episode of this season. Clovis15 (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

whats this all about? [4]--Jakezing (talk) 03:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Really clever product placement to ensure your series is profitable and able to run a full season, thankfully. rootology (T) 03:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Far from clever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Should we add somewhere about the over used product placement of Degree? Even the writers of the show are making fun of it. Anyone? (Iroc24 (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

Do you have a source for the writers making fun of it, or do you mean they're doing it in the show? Ged UK (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In the show (Iroc24 (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

It's definitely frames as a joke "in show", but thats Original research unless we have a source for it. rootology (T) 03:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is hardly a joke when Carter uses it in the time loop episode showed it over and over and over. Then this week's (8/26/08) they have one of the actors doing the spot on set. It is just Unilever paying NBC/USA/SCI-FI to promote the hell out of it.

According to the podcasts, the Degree Sponsorship was done by Sci-Fi for the 8-episode part of the season, probably due to the season's expansion from the original 13 episode order. They haven't made any "joke" references to it though. Bigfoot2003 (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the joke being referred to was an explicit mention in the second episode of corporate sponsorship being introduced to Eureka. Westrim (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What about the cisco screensavers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.244.133 (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

We're 3 episodes into the 3rd season and so far, not a single appearance or mention of Taggart. Is it possible Matt Frewer's character has been written out of the show? Andrewhime (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've also wondered this. It seems possible. Clovis15 (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We may see his character tonight in I Do Over as it seems to involve the main characters. Here's to hoping he's still in the show. --gsk - talk - 02:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

He won't be back until the 2nd half of the season, scheduling conflicts are keeping him away right now. However, they have said that they are writing an episode specific to him coming back (i assume that means he'll be the main character of the episode), and he will be in i think the release said at least 3 episodes in the 2nd half of the season —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.216.212 (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What 'release'? Might be a good source for citing stuff to improve the article. --Ged UK (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that there should be some mention made in the article of the extensive product placement of Degree Men in recent episodes. Specifically, in the "Two Suns" episode, the show's endorsement of the product was shamelessly blatant, and yet this article does not discuss it. I could write the section if no one else wants to, but I wanted to air the change here first to see if anyone has any compelling reason not to include such a section before making the change.Waidawut (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess we should remove Stark from the characters and start a past characters section since they killed him off in 3.04. I would do it but idk about formatting here.Asatruar (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In most media I've see, any character's death is just noted at the end of their profile. Their death doesn't affect their standing, as that's generated based on them as first introduced. That, and a section consisting of one character wouldn't really work.Westrim (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. He's still a character, even if he's dead. And this being Eureka, I wouldn't be surprised if he came back somehow. Ged UK (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Especially since he was in the episode after his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.16.58 (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record. Noone ever really dies in sci-fi. (Maby in stuff like stargate, but not like Eureka). Due to things like paralel existances and timetravel they tend to come back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.244.133 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it wouldn't hurt a spoiler warning, I just started watching the show and now I know what happens with him, DOH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.216.107.142 (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

In the article, the location is stated to be "somewhere in the pacific northwest, presumed to be Oregon." Upon analysis of the Pilot episode, and upon reading the letter handed to Carter by the DoD personnel, the letter confirms that Eureka is located in Washington. The time index on the episode is 01:17:55 through 01:17:57. Lazamair (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the main problem with this 'confirmation' is that it's from the pilot. Things change between pilots and series starts, and I suspect that this is one of them. --Ged UK (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What with the primary source being intentionally vague and contradictory, we need reliable, secondary published sources to make specificity. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a map of Oregon on the wall of the sheriff's office. —WWoods (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Which specifically contradicts another primary source also provided. As such, the fiction itself is specifically and possibly intentionally ambiguous. Either we can state such in the article and cite contradicting primary sources {{cite episode}}, or find a published reliable secondary source that we can also cite. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also an Oregon state flag in the sheriff's office — and it's still there in new (current season) episodes. At one time, there was a screen shot from "Noche de Suenos" showing the Oregon flag in the sheriff's office, but someone later removed it. This is, admittedly, not a secondary source (i.e., something said about the show from a source other than the show itself). Richwales (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay: in the "Eureka Panel - Comic Con 2008" video [5], at 6:50 from the end, executive producer and co-creator Jaime Paglia says, "For a little while we were hiding where Eureka would be. It was just sort of random Pacific Northwest. For me it was always going to be Oregon because that's where I grew up. And so we finally decided [that's where it was going to be]{not sure of the exact words because of audience noise} Look at that — Oregonians in the house!"

—WWoods (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I can answer this once and for all: Eureka is located in Oregon. In Episode 307, "Here Come the Suns", at 16:07 Allison puts an invoice on the screen of a delivery of Deuterium and Tritium. Global Dynamics' address is listed as: Global Dynamics Laboratories, 1919 Einstein Way, Eureka, Oregon. So that should put the debate to rest. Valadius (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have always wondered about this- the (often unsuccessful) control of fundamental laws of science (cloud shapes, time, etcetera) gave me the idea that it was in an artificial pocket dimesnsion. Brandonrc2 (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"The episodes of season one were not aired in the order intended by the show's creators. This is suggested by the episodes' production numbers which are displayed on the SCI FI's Eureka website next to episode titles quite often. ... the show's creators ... confirm that the production order is in fact the order in which they intended the show to air, ..."

How about adding those production numbers to the list of Eureka episodes? It's a multi-row table, so it can't be made resortable, but 13 episodes aren't that many anyway. I took a quick look around SciFi, but didn't see them.
—WWoods (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In 3x05 (Show me the Mummy), roughly 38 minutes into the episode, Vince enters -273ºF, referring to it as "Zero degrees Kelvin". This is inaccurate on two accounts. First off, Kelvin is measured in Kelvins, not degrees. Secondly, -273ºF is roughly 100 Kelvins. In fact, 0 K is roughly -460ºF.

This and other gaffes lead me to think there should be a section here about scientific flaws like that in the show. However, I only have that mistake at the moment (scientific inaccuracies for the sake of story not included), so I'm not making the section right now, but hopefully people can find other mistakes to add to this list in order to do so. --Lengau (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Enh. "Degrees Kelvin" is obselete terminology, but not a big deal, and probably clearer for the audience. The other is just a slip — saying Fahrenheit when it should have been Centigrade.

—WWoods (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Not obsolete at all. In science u benefit alot from using kelvin in your calculations when computing temperatures and thermal energy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.244.198 (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Hes referring to the fact that you say 2 Kelvin not 2 degrees Kelvin.155.33.168.206 (talk)

Well, Centigrade is definitely obsolete. Temps have been measured in degrees Celsius for many years. A degree Celsius is the same size as a Kelvin, and Celsius starts at 273 K = 0 C. Fahrenheit (not used in the industrial world except the US) is a different scale, starting at about 260 K = 0 deg F, a Fahrenheit degree is five/ninths of a Kelvin. Anyway, nobody expects science fantasy stories to be accurate - it's way too limiting for the writers!

Centigrade is celcius.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centigrade I've never hear celcius on american Television, only centigrade. Plz dont destroy the centigrade article on wikipedia now ppl :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.244.189 (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions that Eureka is a "closely guarded secret." This can't be true due to the fact that Jack Carter and his daughter stumbled upon it so easily. Mdriver1981 (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

they didnt stumble, he was hire to move there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.189.17 (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I belive he was talking about when they first arrived there during the storm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.133.15 (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention Jack's sister and her boyfriend showing up without seeming to have any reason. It seems the idea of keeping it completely secret went out with most of the original direction of the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.28.48 (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

In the episode "Here Come the Suns" one young girl (I'm not too up-to-date on the story so I can't quite remember her name.) makes an interesting point on the show in response to an arguably hysterical meteorologist (Again, I can't remember the names).

Meteorologist- "How was I supposed to know someone would be causing a fusion reaction in their clubhouse?!"

Young Girl- "DUH! You live in Eureka!"

Or something very similar. With names, I think this quote should be given somewhere in the aticle, as it is in itself a perfect description of thethe show's theme, and I have seen other quotes in pages about TV Series. Brandonrc2 (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Only if it's an official tagline type of quote. Not just a quote from a random episode. Crash Underride 18:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

-- The actual quote is:

Dr. Herrera: ""How was I supposed to know someone would be causing a stellar fusion reaction in their clubhouse?!"

Kylie - "Hello! You live in *Eureka*!"

User:Cameowood --cameo (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI. Ikip (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned this in the Nathan Stark article also. For some reason some retard makes reference to "The Artifact" like it is something everyone on the planet should know about. Why not explain what it is before talking about Henry trying to separate the kid from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.82.125 (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

He received early acceptance to MIT after a letter of recommendation from Henry, so he is able to be with Zoe in Massachusetts.

While I appreciate the intent of the submitter as a fan of the show, this detail about the character is minor and unnecessary. It also occurred in the most recent episode, which I happened to be watching on Tivo while reading the page - a plot detail now revealed to me. I would suggest that plot details not be divulged in areas of the article that are not prefaced by 'spoiler alert' or otherwise identified.

I'm just sayin' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeburtner (talk • contribs) 21:07, 19 September 2009

As stated in WP:SPOILER "Since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are considered unnecessary. Therefore, Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings" and "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." While it seems like a minor and unnecessary, that will probably means that he won't be in season 4, which is quite big. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 19:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

South Africa Action-X Season 3, January 2008. Is this wright, because it didn't air in the USA until the end of july 08. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanedehe (talk • contribs) 18:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanedehe (talk • contribs) 18:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The entire section is suspect because there are no references. I've added {{Unreferenced section}} at the beginning of the section and {{Citation needed}} to the entry you've challenged.[6] That's about all that can be done for now. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Made sense when Eureka and Global had separate articles, they no longer do. Would do it myself, but not sure about editing page tabs. 128.61.60.105 (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

on page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_(TV_series) near the bottom `Filming locations' Burnaby, British Columbia – Vancouver Film Studios[15] for the majority of the Global Dynamics building interiors, cafe interiors as well as the home of Sheriff Carter.

This should read `Vancouver, British Columbia. The Vancouver Film Studios are in Vancouver, not Burnaby, though Burnaby is only 200 feet away. The Vancouver Film Studios are home to the offices, and studios, for the series Eureka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.114.108 (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

While I know the Global Dynamics article was merged to this one, where is the merge? A half-page or more of article merged in the 1 1/2 sentences seems more like a delete than a merge. MJ56003 (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Has James Callis become a regular cast member on the show this (4th) season? ONEder Boy (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe the character description especially of Sheriff Carter is much too detailed, giving away spoilers on the current episodes. Why is it important for his character description to know what Allison said when and why, and what he did in episode 4.07? Wouldn´t a mere short descripton of his relationship with her have sufficed?

This sounds more like someone who watched the episode wanted to change something without knowing the difference between (detailed) episode guide and character description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.213.54 (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There's already a tag at the beginning of the "Characters" section indicating that it needs a re-write so you're welcome to do so but, you should be aware that Wikipedia doesn't concern itself with spoilers. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This article/page needs to be edited. Use of English on this page is below standard. Xue —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xue77 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Jacot, Canadian Actor, (also listed in wikipedia) plays the recurring role of Larry (formerly Fargo's nemesis, currently his assistant) and has for most seasons of the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.219.30 (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

A new part or article abort Eureka the town, would be a great thing and fun to do ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.142.17 (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Are there any existing stats for the previous season? I'm pretty sure it's over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.39.245.62 (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Season numbering: Shouldn't the last season, which is currently listed as Season 3, be listed as Season 4? There is already a Season 3 listed above it, as well as a Season 3.5. It would seem that the next season should be Season 4, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.13.19 (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to the DVD releases section, it's fairly clear that "season 3.0" and "season 3.5" refer to two separate half-season DVD sets released in the US and UK, while "season 3" refers to a whole season DVD set released in Australia. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)