Talk:Heroes (American TV series)

Midnight's Children

Is it just me or does no one see the similarities with Salman Rushdie's "Midnight's Children"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.210.94 (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Caitlin

This is a discussion question...please do not remove!
I was just wondering if we need to include the fact that Peter never rescued her. Is the plot line going to continue into Villians, or did I miss something? (Wikirocks2 (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

No, i don't think we do. Events happened so fast that we never saw what happened to her. We shouldn't speculate. Personally, i believe that she returned to the present after Peter destroyed the virus. That would be in line with how most science fiction shows work their time travel paradoxes. But, that's just my opinion. dposse (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please take this discussion to a fansite. this is not a forum for idle discussion on the show or to post speculation. Please only post things that relate to improving this article. thanks.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no fair, stealing my line! Seriously, while this does border on fan discussion, it is about a character in the series. As far as we know, Caitlin is stuck in a future that - due to Peter's actions - no longer exists. Dating heroes has its consequences. Perhaps she would have been better off pulling pints for bent Irish longshoremen. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for [possibly] answering my question, and i wanted you guys to know that you can delete this question if you like. I never was going to include the fact that Caitlan is stuck in the future, I just wrote it that way so it wouldn't get deleted again. :P Sorry. (Wikirocks2 (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

I doubt this will go unanswered. You'll likely get an answer from a Q&A, graphic novel or may wait till next season. Until then we can't really state where is now. Rekija (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It will probably be like Back to the Future 2, were Jennifer and Einstein are in an alternative 1985, and Doc and Marty go make to 1955 and stop Biff from getting the Almanac, Doc says that space-time continuum is corrected and the alternative 1985 will go make to the real 1985 and change around Jennifer and Einstein, that probable what will happens to Caitlin see fine as the future changes with the only memory of that possible Future-RREDD13 (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

External wikis

Hey there. Long time reader, first time contributor so be gentle. =) Taking a step back and putting aside previous discussions for a moment, why is it that we keep removing an external link to Heroes Wiki on this article? It doesn't seem to actually be a violation of any policies since we have links to external wikis on the following articles for example:

• Scrubs
• The Simpsons
• Battlestar_Galactica
• Chuck
• Family Guy
• American Dad
• 24
• Smallville

That's just a brief list of shows I know off the top of my head. If simply including links to external wikis was a violation of policy then I'm sure they wouldn't still be on some of these popular articles. I perused some prior discussions and it does seem like Heroes Wiki meets the guidelines at least as sufficiently as the wikis the articles above link to. I'm just confused why we here keep removing it since I see a lot of revert comments that claim it's because it violates a policy like WP:EL, but I think those reverts may just be happening out of habit. I know others have discussed this before and I don't want to ruffle any feathers especially since I know that I, too, am guilty in the real world of sticking to my initial beliefs and trying to find every little reason to back up my original position. I've tried to become more aware of this tendency and try to approach new discussions with an open mind. =) -Centish (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is an excert from the policy on external links that you may find helpful

1. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Wikis that meet this criteria might also be added to Meta:Interwiki map. Please check the link to see if heroes wiki has been added. I say no to heroes wiki because it so speculative. but we need to follow policy on this one, and not opinion--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
   • Hey there. =) On the Heroes Wiki they have policies against including speculation on the main articles, so any speculation on their articles is probably a mistake and hopefully fixed quickly. Also concerning the open wiki section of WP:EL I believe your quote is from there are several wikis on the list above that have even fewer editors than on Heroes Wiki. This is why it gets a little confusing. =) It's hard to figure out where the major difference is between the Heroes one and the other ones that makes the Heroes one not suitable at the same time as making the others suitable. --Centish (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that the Heroes Wiki IS quite speculative. Every time (or, if multiple times in a day or from the same editor, the first time)I've reverted the addition of the link, I've jumped over there. There's still tons and tons of WP:SYNTH going on, lots of WP:CRYSTAL, and so on. It's a fanwiki, not a well referenced encyclopedic wiki, and shouldn't be linked to from here. When they get some actual policies and enforce those policies, then a link can be added. But for months, all I've seen is synth synth synth. (Addendum: The Cuck Wiki is similarly plagued by OR and opinion. Adam Baldwin's page over there has editor interpretations ofhte characters he plays as fact instead of as opinion.) ThuranX (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, ThuranX. =) The point you made in your addendum is what has actually been confusing me. If the Chuck Wiki has a ton of OR and opinion AND if that is immediate grounds for not including a link then why is it allowed to remain on the page? In the page source they even mark it as having passed WP:EL. Also a good point to keep in mind is that for links to satisfy WP:EL they don't need to satisfy WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The latter two are concerned with Wikipedia content itself and are not viral. --Centish (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thuran, I have no real opinion on the wiki, but being a "fan wiki" is not much different than being content on Wikipedia, considering how many of us are fans. -- Ned Scott 04:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, original research is hardly a concern for an external link. The reason we discourage it is because Wikipedia is not a place to publish original thought, not because the concept of OR is bad. -- Ned Scott 07:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• An interesting situation. What's also interesting is to find that NBC also hosts an official wiki running Mediawiki software, which I thought was pretty cool (but does not appear to be under a free copyright license). I haven't looked at heroeswiki.com in depth, but it does seem to have a fair amount of activity for an independent wiki. Too bad their content is under CC 3.0 noncommercial, which makes them incompatible with our own content.

• There's also a Heroes wiki on Wikia, but with far less activity, and far less content than the other two. -- Ned Scott 04:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

After thinking about it some more, I would not have a problem with linking to heroeswiki.com. -- Ned Scott 07:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems I actually took a look at this site not long ago on Meta:Talk:Interwiki map. I didn't realize I was looking at the same wiki. A very well done wiki, and has my full support to have a link. -- Ned Scott 08:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ned, sorry, but your edit has been reverted. One, there has been significant opposition both past and present to including the link. Two, discussion here is still under way, so any change must wait until it finishes. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Opposed - there are numerous examples of OR and speculation on the site. Some examples, found at random:

"Like The Breakfast Club's Andrew, Crash is psychologically hurt by these degrading remarks from a tough father." (opinion and analysis)

"Due to the Writers Guild of America strike the full run of the second season was cut short, making this the finale." (from the article on "Powerless"; no citations, incorrect information per referenced text here.)

The article on Peter Petrelli includes speculation as to his abilities, details which have been considerd and rejected here due to a lack of verifiability. There's even an entire section on fan theories and speculation, and the style guide demonstrates how the site has a very different attitude than Wikipedia. It is a fan site - nothing wrong with that per se, but it is not a suitable EL candidate. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually read WP:EL? One, having original research is not a bad thing, it's just not something that Wikipedia does. Who cares if it has a very different attitude than Wikipedia? Why is that even an issue? Reading the archives on this talk page is very bewildering. No, really, go back and read WP:EL. This has to be one of the best independent wikis I've seen in a long time, and the people here are actually fighting against linking to it? -- Ned Scott 11:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

indeed, there are some pretty wonky applications of WP:EL being demonstrated here. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Further - if people here think that having OR is a reason not to link to an external wiki, then I suggest they get busy removing the 100s of links to Wikia that exist on this site - make sure the enforcers don't catch you removing the links to Jimbo's cash cow. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue I would have adding links like this is that this appears to be an official link and would lend support to the OR and speculation we are already having a huge problem with. Between the problems we are having keeping Peter's and Angela's articles clean I'd think we don't want to add encouragement. Padillah (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

But it's just not our problem - the fact that other sides engage in OR has never (except in BLP situations) be a good reason not to link - if that was the case then we would remove the links to Memory Alpha and Memory Beta - by far the two largest and most stable Star Trek wikis - which we don't - in fact, we link extensively to them so people can get more information and discussion of the sort that we don't engage in. This idea of Original research = bad is wrong, it's that we don't engage in it not that we don't link to any site that does. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Padillah. =) Check out some of those articles I listed way at the top. In those articles we link to external unofficial wikis as well, so we'd just use the same format they use. Most external links on articles are to unofficial sites anyway so I don't think there's any confusion. As for encouraging OR and speculation, I think it could have the opposite effect. We have strict guidelines on content here and it might even help out by giving people who are determined to contribute some piece of content that might not be appropriate here an outlet. Instead of edit wars over things like notability, it could be possible to just say, "This is more appropriate for the Heroes Wiki" and the contributor may be satisfied placing the info there. --Centish (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It was specifically labeled as the unofficial wiki in the link. -- Ned Scott 00:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely if a site has content that Wikipedia can't accept (like OR) then that is more of a reason to link it, not less. If the content of heroeswiki.com was purely encyclopedic, then we ought to incorporate that content into Wikipedia rather than linking to it. However, since it would quickly be deleted from here as fancruft, OR, speculation, or whatever, then we need to link to that instead. (Note - heroeswiki.com is not a wikia site, so this isn't a COI) Angela. 23:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's also nice that heroeswiki.com makes the effort to mark what is speculation and what isn't speculation. It gives an outlet for fans, and means the editors there don't have to fight the tidal waves, but still keeps the speculation contained in marked area (for the most part). -- Ned Scott 00:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So, rather than put the OR here, we should link to it and endorse it by association? That doesn't sound like it enhances the article much. I've been thinking about this and I have a theory about why this (and other fiction articles) is difficult: there is no factual reality to base it on. If you take a look at the FA Evolution you'll see the links aren't to sites that have several different arguments about the good and bad of evolution. They are to sites that have evidence or expound more on the idea, not the proof of the idea. However we don't have the luxury of having reality to back us up so we have to rely on "official" sources. Of all the sites you mention above the only one that is a FA is The Simpsons and I'd have to argue that there are much fewer (I believe the total is 0) theories surrounding the Simpsons and the Simpsons Wiki looks like it doesn't contradict the WP article so much as extend it. There is a valid point in allowing an outlet for those that would rather entertain the speculation of what is Angela's power, but the above is my viewpoint. Take it for what it's worth. If we need a consensus vote I say call for one. Padillah (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Some very interesting opinions. Thank you, Padillah. =) I do agree that documenting worlds of fiction can be quite tricky, though it seems to me that external wikis can do an even more comprehensive job since they're not trying to be general encyclopedias. As Ned Scott said, there's nothing wrong with OR. We just don't incorporate it into the bodies of our articles. In any case I think there will always be people with a personal preference whether they're interested in linking to an external wiki, but if I'm correct the only factor that comes into play here is WP:EL. I believe that's the only policy that needs to be met since we're only referring to an external link rather than inclusion of specific information from the site. If there's agreement that it meets WP:EL then it shouldn't be removed from the article when someone adds it. --Centish (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we have some great arguement here. But, i oppose. The reason I oppose is because heroeswiki is because it is so speculative. I understand that they are attempting to clean things up, but man, sometimes I read articles on heroes wiki and think to myself "where the hell did they get that from?" I dont like all the OR that they put it some of their articles. It is like a huge fan site that has called its self a wiki. I think all the OR and speculation needs major overview. Heroes wiki looks like what the heroes wikipedia page would look like if editors allowed all the OR and spec that comes through the page on a daily basis. I oppose.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, Chrisisinchrist. =) I think perhaps the point some of us are making might not be explicit enough. A few editors have pointed out that presence of OR isn't grounds for excluding an external link. OR is not a bad thing and is only prohibited when it comes to the specific content we're adding to our articles here. As Angela, who's been here way longer than I, pointed out providing links to external wikis even when they include OR can be more of a reason to externally link to them in the first place. When discussing whether to include a link to the external wiki the only policy that comes into play is WP:EL. Do you have any opposition that is based on WP:EL? If it passes WP:EL then according to Wikipedia policy it is permissible. --Centish (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Chrisisinchrist, since I do not follow the show it's hard for me to tell, but since heroeswiki.com does try to mark speculation, I assume you mean that over-all speculation is still abundant on the wiki, not just what is marked as such? -- Ned Scott 05:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I do watch the show and I don't come across much speculation except what they have cordoned off on their theories articles. In the relatively little time I spend there I do see them explicitly removing speculative info that gets added to articles from time to time just like we have to. To me it's a very nice site even if its purpose is very different from ours and I personally wouldn't consider it a "fan site that has called its self a wiki", but we're all entitled to our opinions. --Centish (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The link passes WP:EL, I not sure what we are actually discussing anymore because it's surely not that. As a sidenote, some people some people seem to have Wikipedia and Wikis confused in their minds. Wikipedia is a wiki, not all wikis are wikpedia - there are not inherent properties in regards to content that must be present before something can be considered a wiki. The other arguments presented here (and explicitly so) are WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We are discussing it because that's what we do here in Wikipedia, we discuss and reach consensus (you remember consensus, don't you). We could simply revert and edit war but that doesn't help anybody and can get people into a twist. The arguments for and against the link are being aired and listened to, I for one appreciate Ned Scott's and Centish's patience and willingness to discuss and present argument. It helps me take them seriously and when the link is added I won't feel slighted in the least and will harbor no ill will to spill over into the next series of edits. I don't think anyone has tried to present the WP:EL argument since it was shot down in the beginning, no one has presented anything other than their personal outlook on how it affects the article. no one is arguing the content of the other site is inherently "bad" or that Heroeswiki should adopt WP guidelines. If you don't feel the usefulness of participating in a consensus discussion, then, by all means, don't. Padillah (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oooooooooh, you certainly told him! Good job.....and oh yeah, I vote in favour of the wiki, per all the arguments above. (  Wikirocks  13:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

Well, I didn't mean to tell him off. I guess that last sentence was a little harsh, I apologize for that. I got out of hand. For what it's worth, I vote include the link as well. Fredrick day is right, personal "like", in the end, has nothing to do with it. It's a viable link and does conform to all the requirements of WP:EL. Thanks for putting up with us through this. Padillah (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

In my own personal opinion, I oppose heroeswiki. However, based on wikipedia policy, I have to support it, because it does not violate the policy. policy says it has to have a substantial amount of editors and it does. so, i will support it.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I was completely unable to participate in this overthe past few days, and while policy states that linking to off-site wikis is allowed, and so on, that doesn't inherently mandate it either. We've previously had the wikis linked, and that became fodder for more vandalism and cross-pollination of crappy fan theory and speculation, which was 'sourced' to the offsite wiki, using the logic' well, that other wiki has it, this one must have it as well. Then we spend a great deal of our limited resources constantly reverting vaguely good faith vaguely vandalous entries over and over. Many such editors do not care about our policies and use OTHERCRAPEXISTS to get around our real content policies. there's only so much feeding the TROLLS and BEANS i'm willing to see this page plagued with. ThuranX (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you were able to return, ThuranX. You're absolutely correct, the policy does not by any means force us to include any particular link, however it also does mean that if someone wants to add it that it is not necessarily appropriate to remove it. I can understand your concern about vandalism and speculation, though I haven't noticed any correlation either here or on the other articles I've read in the past between adding links to external sites and an increase in the amount of undesired (though sometimes good-faith) content. Regardless of whether we add links or not there are tons of sites out there with material that is not suitable for Wikipedia and only attempting to educate users as to what material is actually acceptable and what is not can help us reduce the amount of undesired content that gets added. This is a general problem found all across Wikipedia when people don't fully understand that the goal is to be an encyclopedia and not an indiscriminate repository of information. In fact, including the link could provide us the opportunity to specifically label that its content is not suitable for direct inclusion into articles here and could possibly help reduce the amount of good-faith attempts to include the information here. --Centish (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone. =) It's been about a week with no additional comments, so I just wanted to check and see if it's because everyone's been busy with the holidays (I know I have!) or whether there is indeed now consensus that policy does allow the link to be added. If there's any additional information that hasn't yet been addressed above, feel free to contribute! --Centish (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Should we list the characters in alphabetical order according to actor's last name?

- I know this is a little trivial, but they list the cast out of alphbetical order in the beginning of every episode, so I think this page should follow suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.73.145 (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a reference site, and the most logical way of listing names is alphabetically. On-screen cast listings may well vary over time (depending on the power of agents mainly!) and we'd be forever having to check and update. Ged UK (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If the show did not list the actors alphabetically and actually had a main character, then they would be listed that way. I think that it is by the characters' and not the actors' last name because the section descibes the characters. –thedemonhog talk • contributions 19:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sylar and Ando are main characters in series 1

Sylar is a main charcter he appeares in nearly every episode in series 1 and without him Claire isn't a main character. Ando is a main character because without him Hero would never kill Sylar. This in itself is another reason why Sylar is a main character because if Sylar wasn't in series 1 then Hero would have no point either. (Electrobe (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC))

This has already been discussed several times in the archives. Please look it up. NBC decided this, not us. Though your point is valid, it is original research. Thank you. Magkaz (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

First off user:Electrobe you have violoated the three reverts rule several times. You need to get your facts straight. If you have a verifiable ref. to state that ando and sylar were on the main roster one season 1, fine, post it. this has been discussed several several time. during season one, they guest starred. they were not credited as main characters. they were upgraded to the main character roster on the second season. please stop reverting the edits or you will be reported. you have no verifiable source. while their are several source in the character section that support that sylar and ando were not main characters in the first season. we have verified sources and you have none. so stop...thanks.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You ask for proof for my cause but seem to produce none for your own. And although you ask me to stop undoing your edits can i point out you are doing that to me and so stop being a hypocrite. (Electrobe (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC))

From someone who has watched this conversation but not, until now, participated: The Wikipedia policies that you have violated are Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and Wikipedia:Verifiability. — Val42 (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Magkaz has also violated this rule and has undone my editing while this dissucion is undway while i explicitally asked him/her not to. {Electrobe (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)}

Four different wiki contributors responded to you on this Heroes talk page or on your talk page and two additional contributors have reverted your edits throughout the day. What kind of response are you looking for that six different contributors to wiki haven't provided? Please, there are links to articles that support what we are telling you, check them out before you continue. Otherwise, provide a source for your edits and they probably won't get reverted. Just asking someone to not revert your incorrect edits isn't gonna do it. It's already been decided to go with what NBC says. I haven't violated any wiki policy with my actions. Magkaz (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Eletrobe, you are attempting to cite something as fact, without a citation, where as, we all have reverted your edits, because we have citations to back up our claim. you are attempting to light up an issue that has been dead for serveral months now. sure, we would love to determine who is a main character and who is not, but that is not how we roll here. this is a verifiable encyclopedia, where things need to be factual and verified. we have not violated any policy because we have sources and you do not. please stop with the edits. --Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Electrobe is being a deliberately tendentious editor. I left a message for him about the Sylar thing yesterday, and he deleted it from his talk page, and continued to make the same edit over and over. Seek a block from an admin. He's violating the rules, and knows that he's breaking rules, ignoring policy, and is fully aware of his disruption. ThuranX (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You guys (and others online, including NBC) are confusing "main cast" with "main characters". The first is a production term, the second a writing term. Sylar was not part of the main cast, but I wouldn't call the statement "Sylar was a main character" incorrect. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with "TheDJ". What he (or she) is saying is true. "Main cast" and "main characters" are very similar, and people usually mistake them as the same thing, including me. Sylar and Ando ARE "main characters" in season 1, but they aren't part of the "main cast" according to NBC. Maybe we should change the subheading from "main characters" to "main cast"...but then wouldn't we have to change the order of the table...thus going back to the argument above....changing the order per actor's last names....but we wouldn't have to. I don't really know anymore.  Wikirocks  11:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

While I can see the technical point regarding terminology, we still cannot be the ones deciding whether or not Sylar and Ando are main characters in season one. It has to be someone else's assessment, giving the most weight to the producers and the network. Otherwise, we're right back where we started from, and anyone who feels character X is "main" will feel free to write it as such. (For example, Wikirocks feels Ando is a main character. I disagree, as I see him being used primarily as a tool to develop Hiro's character. Those are our personal opinions, however, and neither qualifies for inclusion without sources.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet that you see Simone as a tool to develop Peter and Isaac. I don't think any terminology should be changed. It does say "starring seasons" and not "Main seasons." –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, when we start deciding who are main characters/cast/whatever, that becomes OR, no matter how obvious it may be to some people. We should only tag them as the Main Characters/Cast if NBC has tagged them as such. QuasiAbstract (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

OK now I am kinda angry. Why do people always misunderstand me? Did you actually read what I said? TheDJ was explaining the difference between "main cast" and "main characters" and I was merely saying that I believe that the two are "main characters." That doesn't mean anything. What really matters is if they are a part of the "main cast" and they are NOT! That's why I was saying how I was confused a bit and how I wasn't sure what we should do. Why do take what I say and change it and attack me??? (OK and I admit I went a bit crazy in this post) (  WikiRocks  02:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC))

The virus is not a symbol

The virus isn't a symbol in the sense of everything else under that section. It's not a motif and it doesn't symbolize anything, it's just a plot point. 87.97.80.167 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The section is called mythology, not symbol or elements. mythology is define as follows: The word mythology[1] refers to a body of myths–stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity. Mythology also refers to the branch of knowledge dealing with the collection, study and interpretation of myths, also known as mythography. Mythology are the fictional things and elements that make up the show and the virus, which is 100 percent fiction, is apart of the shows overall mythology.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Chris, there was no need for a snarky remark - and no need to revert again. Two people disagree with you - so why don't you discuss *before* restoring what appears to be a misplaced block of text? If enough people agree, it can be restored - but don't edit war please. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? it seems like individuals need to be babied here at wikipedia, and that is not okay with me. But, to address the issue, this issue has not even been discussed. The issue should be discussed before it is just removed from the article...not the other way around. you feel like it should be removed and then discussed, when it should be discussed then removed. this topic hasnt even had time to resenate. i mean, just because two users feel it is okay, doesnt mean that is the end of the discussion. this discussion only started this morning, so how is it already resolved? just because two people feel it should be removed, it doesnt mean to just remove it. you should at least give this topic a couple of days before you make a conclusion. i reverted the edit originally because someone removed the virus section from mythology without discussing it first and i felt like that was wrong. the user should have came here and discussed it, and then once the discussion ended, then we should have either removed it or kept it. but to just remove it without coming to the talk page isnt right. this discussion began less than 12 hours ago, and you seem to already feel like their is a concensus. i dont think so. the virus may be a plot point, but because it is fictional and becuase it is peppered throughout the series, is also envelopes the mythology of the show. for it to be removed and then discusssed is backwards. it should be discussed before it is touched and the section should be reverted back to its original state until such a discussion is resolved. if you saw me and another user disagreeing on the idea of putting the virus, why would you just revert the idea because you agree with that user and not me? that is why i said you are not special. you werent even apart of the discussion, yet you felt like it was your job to make the final say? No, i dont think so. you are not special and you dont run this page. i think it was wrong for you to come and just revert to the side you supported while their was still an active discussion on the talk page. that seems okay to you? who are you? i support the virus in the mythology section. if you dont support it, than say so, but dont just decide that you are going to answer the discussion for the other user and i who were discussing it. you could have at least given the other user 24 hours to respond. now, with that said, i am reverting the edit to its original state until it is finished being discussed, since the discussion just started this morning.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I did give it a couple of days, seeing as I posted it five days ago only to be ignored until now. :/ Also, since the title has now been changed to just Mythology, why not add every single element of the plot while you're at it? 87.97.80.90 (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The virus isn't a symbol... it's just a plotline. Ophois (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If we accept the objecting editor's, we would have to classify every element of the story as "mythology" since it is all "100 percent fiction". --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is nice. Users are acutually discussing an issue before making changes. I love wikipedia. This is what wikipedia is all about. Let the discussion continue! I wont fight it...if you all want to virus removed, remove it...i just wanted to make sure it was discussed. also, user with the IP address 87.97.80.90. are you new to wikipedia? you seem experienced, yet, your contrib history only deals with this issue. wierd. i sense sockpuppeting. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Just curious--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a dynamic IP and can't be arsed to register. Removing. 87.97.126.215 (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

whoa! you have a lot of IP addresses. Is this allowed? I think that violates wikipedia policy. I just noticed that you have posted from three different IP addresses. that is definetly sock puppetry and is a violation of wikipedia's multiple IP address policy. you need to review the policy and strongly consider registering from a home computer or personal computer--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be sock puppetry if I claimed to be someone else to support my own opinion, which I didn't. A most cursory glance at the WHOIS data of all the IPs I have used reveals that they belong to the same ISP. Stop the drama, please. 87.97.126.215 (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not sockpuppetry, but it does make it easy for you to avoid, or pretend to avoid, any talk page replies left for you, including civility warnings, which you're due for after your last couple responses. Getting an account would make your contributions easier to take seriously. One, not everyone can WHOIS handily, nor do those who can WANT to daily to make sure it is 'probably' you we're talking with. Two, when messages can be left for someone, it's easier to work with them on pages they like working on. There are other benefits to having an account, like the watch-list and so on, but actively dodging around IP to IP to avoid such things, as you're clearly aware you're doing, isn't that impressive nor does it contribute to a good atmosphere when trying to work with you. ThuranX (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ThuranX on this. I've been trying to stay out of this, but Mister Dynamic IP there needs to get off his ass and register an account. He may not purposely be socking, but is socking nonetheless. We have no real way to know who the anon user is, and the user could post as one and support the edit with another, and it would be a pain in the ass to verify. If you don't want to be treated like a sock, don;t act like one. Period. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) Politely bringing the discussion back... (though I do think registering on wiki is a good idea)... I think at the beginning of the season (even back in s1), the virus was surrounded in more mystery, such as the other recurring 'mythology'. Once the story arc of volume 2 began to center around the virus more, we learned more about it and it became a central plot point of Heroes. I think at this point, it's evolved past any of the other recurring elements and should maybe be incorporated into the volume's synopsis. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magkaz (talk • contribs) 01:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Magkaz. This user presented an arguement that makes perfect sense. i will support this and not fight the change. I also encourage the user with the multiple IPs to register...thanks.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

but if he doesn't want to, then he shouldn't - this is wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The fact that he has a dynamic ip is neither here or there and has nothing at all to do with socking. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No one said they couldn't edit. No one is arguing that he must register, they are suggesting that they should. If they (or you) are wondering why, check out WP:WHY. And I bet that if you look you'll find that having a dynamic IP does, in fact, have to do with sockpuppeting. It facilitates it, it mimics the results, it misleads others into believing that the user is actively trying to sockpuppet... so, yes, having a dynamic IP can very easily be misconstrued as sockpuppetry. We are trying to be informative and friendly, we are trying to let this user know that other people may see their situation as sockpuppetry. Padillah (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a flat out accusation of socking puppeting - He may not purposely be socking, but is socking nonetheless., so I'm afraid your statement doesn't match with what has actually been said on this page - indeed, I'm so sicking of the bullying that goes on with our good faith IP addresses, I'm going to give up my id and go back to being an IP - and yes I have a dynamic IP. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not bullying, for one. It's simply an explanation of why registering can help. The fact is, he can, and probably will, miss any messages left for him on the IP talk page. If he makes a request for a change, and the change is made, short of him coming back to the page, there's no way to let him know it's been done. and sicne many IPs drop in a request then go poof, never to return, their requests are often dismissed out of hand, because it's the experience of many editors that such drive by commentings never get followed up by the requester. Finally, I specifically stated that he's NOT socking, but making it hard on himself and the rest of us. As for Arcayne's backhanded accusation, I don't know what to tell ya, but if you think making your own wiki-experience harder by giving up your watchlist and such is the way to handle it, then good luck. And logging in to check, then logging out to edit each time seems absurd. ThuranX (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect, my accusation wasn't all that fair; it was based on another sock-puppet last year who offered the same defense. I should have AGF's a bit more, instead of jumping to the conclusion that the situation was the same. I tender my apology for it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[Reset Indent] This is getting off topic now, however I'd like to add that I agree with Fredrick day, the user has stated he has a dynamic id, and as far as I am aware has at no point attempted to use this to sockpuppet. The potential to commit a crime isn't illegal, it's only committing a crime that is. One comment about it being easier to join would have suffised, but everyone stopping the discussion to say "Get an account" is effectively making it so that the user is unable to facilitate in the discussion because instead of responding to them, their membership status is questioned. It's almost like telling someone they can't have a political opinion until they join a Political Party... Jacobshaven3 (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on this article

There seems to be a lot of recent edit warring on this article, with several editors having broken the three-revert rule in recent hours. This kind of editing is highly disruptive and will get the participants blocked if it continues. Please continue to discuss the issues on the talk page but don't make these unnecessary edits that you know will probably only be reverted in a matter of minutes. Gain agreement and then edit. --Tony Sidaway 12:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree...lets all get along and work as a community.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Return of Heroes

Apparently Heroes is coming back the 14th of January? It was from the December 17th article of The New Yorker. http://www.newyorkercollegetour.com/websites/readerlink/sections/index.html There it is.-Babylon pride (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

not sure how up to date that infomation is.... It's basicly an ad and may have been created and paid to run before the current issues.harlock_jds (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No, volume 3 of Heroes has been postponed indefinitely. No new episodes have been completed, nor will they until the conclusion of the writers strike. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My friend had the magazine in her hand. I highly doubt she would've had 2006's. I know it has been postponed (not really indefinitely. Just until the writer's strike is over and they expect it to be done with next September) but it's from December 14th's. You can check the site: there was a December 14th issue. I just found the article and posted it. Maybe I'm wrong with the date. Don't get snippy, thedemonhog. But yeah, it is an ad more or less. It's just a magazine. I'll double check. Also, sorry about the wrong URL. http://www.newyorkercollegetour.com/websites/readerlink/images/ss/323.jpg That's the only thing I can link to since it keeps linking me back to the sections.-Babylon pride (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Just adding it wasn't 2006. I just checked and it was January 22nd that the hiatus stopped. And the 14th is a Monday. But NBC clearly says Volume Two is wrapped up so now I'm wondering why there's such a fluke from an issue just a day old?-Babylon pride (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

i know it wasn't 2006 ( i checked the dates) but i think that ad might have been designed and sent to the times before the strike impacted the dates... i'm sure the origional plan was to come back on the 14'th but the strike prevents that because they have nothing they can do (and no ep's filmed)harlock_jds (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How was I snippy? –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't being snippy. I know snippy, and Mr.thedemonhog is no snippy. Seriously, snippy involves calling someone an ass-clown who Jesus and the Twelve Apostrophes unanimously agree need to be called that. On another note, do you have a citation that says that the season is actually concluded? There was some minor tumble about that a few weeks ago. I'm just making sure we aren't going to see another kerfuffle about it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In an IGN December 14 interview, show runner Tim Kring said that they shot some scenes from the next two episodes, but have no complete episodes, nor will they until the strike is over. Director/producer Greg Beeman stated in his blog that if the strike does not end soon, the second season ends with "Powerless." If the strike does end soon, Heroes will resume production and make more of season 2. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

(←dent) Good to learn (I for one thought the season was done). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

NBC.com says it's concluded. I saw it yesterday in a rush to see if that article was a mistake. I know that disproves it but felt like mentioning it. It was on the right hand corner saying that now that volume two is done, (which may not mean season two. I dunno) fans are wondering what Angela's power is and to talk about it on the boards. But I can't find it since the site changes the little ad parts there so often. Sorry. -Babylon pride (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that season concluded with one volume concluded and the next one beginning, we need confirmation that the season, and not the volume are indeed finished. Otherwise, season 2 is still rolling. We wait for citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sylar and Ando

There seems to be a lot of edits where people have changed the season of Sylar and Ando. They are constantly being reverted, and a small edit war has started. Can we do anything to stop this vandalism?  Wikirocks  07:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I just added some hidden text using <!-- and --> telling contributors to not move the "1" from the guest starring to starring field. Semi-protection could be requested, which would cause the information to stop being changed, but I do not think that the IP's changing the information would learn why it was changed. Looking at their contributions, it appears that they were only trying to help and are unlikely to visit the talk page or find out why their edits were reverted. –thedemonhog talk • edits 08:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's good. I was thinking of doing that too (I really was) but was not sure how to do it. (  Wikirocks  09:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

Nissan product placement text

I've removed the following text from the article for discussion:

"===Nissan Motor Company, North America=== Nissa Motor Company has been the most notable promotional campaigns for the Heroes series. On July 21st, 2007, it was announced that Heroes and Nissa would embark on a cross promotional campaign, resulting in Nissan sponosoring the Heroes World Tour, as well as presenting the season two premiere with limited commercial interuption. Nissan vehicles have been present on the show since the pilot, including the Nissan Rogue, which was used in several storylines in season two. On December 21st, 2007, Nissa awarded six winners of an interactive promotion on NBC.com, with Nissa Rogues, signed by Tim Kring. Barbara Blangiardi, Senior Vice President of Strategic Marketing & Content Innovation for NBC Entertainment states, "One of the elements we liked best about our Nissan partnership was our ability to involve our viewers. Through their support of this innovative interactive concept, Nissan helped everybody win.""

While referenced, this seems to be too much like an ad. The television articles don't usually do write-ups about product placement within shows. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. A trimmed down version (less undue weight) might be ok. -- Ned Scott 18:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe it is rather long. A trimmed version might work. Missan has a huge pressence on the show. I suppose that is the same with any show that has a huge sponsor. However, Nissan has really been pushed in most promotions for the show, including the world tour. So, it may or may not be that important, but i think if it was trimmed down, it would still be very encyclopedic. It is well sourced information. Any more thoughts?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with above, it needs to be trimmed but Nissan have had a notable enough presence. But it def shouldn't sound like an ad like it does above. Rekija (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think one of the critical things to remove to stop it sounding like an advert is to get rid of the model types, as I don't think they really add anything to the entry Ged UK (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ratings

For several countries there are no citations, so we should probably remove the lines with uncited information. QuasiAbstract (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I think we should wait a bit so we can find sources. Australia has no citations, but I live there, and I can 100% confirm everything that has been written. I also doubt that any of the other countries have false information. Again, I think we should wait for some citations, but we should put a tag on the unsourced info; then finally if the statements are unsourced, we will delete them. ЩіκіṚσςкЗ^(ťáŁκ) 14:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Verified Volume Three

The section on Volume Three says it will air in 2008. Has this been verified? The ref links to a blog entry for epi 10 that talks about how epi 11 was always going to be the end of Volume Two and if the strike ends quickly Volume Three will be back in the spring. That's not verification of it returning, especially since the ref is from before the strike anyway. Padillah (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this falls under common sense. We know that either as the beginnign of season 3 in the fall, or as a late second half of the second season, volume three will start. Short of NBC cancelling Heroes, it will air in 2008. we're not 'predicting' a date, just a common sense year. ThuranX (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it - it was added a short while back without any proof. (While it may well be likely, we can't make the claim without some sort of proof.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually ,we can. Only controversial or contested facts need citation. While it's preferable to have it in other cases, Common Sense is still allowed to work. The only conditions for it NOT airing in 2008 are a year long writer's strike or cancellation, both of which are incredibly unlikely. I'm not going to re-add it, but remember that citation is encouraged, but not an absolute for uncontested, common sense items. ThuranX (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's why I asked. It didn't say "Spring 2008" so it could happen any time during 2008. But I don't know how far we want to take some of this stuff. Thanks for the info. Padillah (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this conversation is finished or not, but I must say I agree with ThuranX. What are the chances of Heroes not airing in 2008? I think we should add the statement again....[please note that as I am writing this, I have not checked the page, and I don't know if the statement has been re-added]...because as said prior, it is just common sense. :-) Щіκі RoςкЗ^(talκ) 06:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, we cannot say "Villains will air in 2008" as we do not know that for a fact. "Common sense" or not, there are too many variables to consider. When will the strike end? When will production resume? Will Kring etc. change their plans for the series (as per a previously stated desire to rejuvenate the show) and delay "Villains"? Simply put, we have no proof. Beyond that, what is the point of the text? We don't change the number of episodes in the infobox until a new episode actually airs due to these sort of uncertainties; why change procedure just to make a claim about an entire volume? --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What are the chances of Heroes not airing in 2008? I'd say there is a greater that 0% chance that is doesn't come back till 2009 which means we can't say it'll be on in 2008. harlock_jds (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Though this may be considered OR or speculation, we could say "Heroes should come back in 2008." QuasiAbstract (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait a tic - didn't NBC itself say that Heroes will Return in 2008? I seem to remember a trailer right after the season finale that said "In 2008, Heroes Returns". That's official and authoritative, since it's NBC itself making the statement. I'd add the line "Promotional materials for the series indicate that Volume 3 will air at some point during 2008". It's non specific, but backed by NBC's promotional materials. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultraexactzz (talk • contribs) 13:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention that, I remember the same thing. It aired after the last episode. QuasiAbstract (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It was added initially on that basis. However, it now appears Ckatz is demanding an online ref cite, making it a 'controversial' statement. A quick review shows that the statement was at one time sourced to Greeg Beeman's blog. Perhaps Ckatz would like to chekc that out and find out what that source said, and restore it. ThuranX (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I already did that. That's what made me question the citation in the first place (ref opening statement of this entry). Padillah (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I'm not "demanding" anything... just saying that we can't make claims that we can't support, as with Padillah's comment. Furthermore, look at some of the text in the WGA strike article:

"CEOs are determined to write off not just the rest of this TV season (including the Back 9 of scripted series), but also pilot season and the 2008/2009 schedule as well."

and

"if the new media issue is not resolved to their satisfaction by the DGA or WGA by July of 2008, SAG is likely to join the writers in striking when their contract expires, a move which could potentially bring the Hollywood film industry to a near-complete standstill."

Stating that it absolutely will return in 2008 is not verifiable. If you really must add it, stating something like "NBC says the series will return at an unspecified point in 2008" (or something similar) would be more encyclopaedic. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Production

Hello. On the DVD extras, there is an interview with tim kring, where he talks about the concept of heroes and the casting for heroes. i dont know if anyone else has watched this on their dvd, but i think this info is important. i dont mean to compare this article to the abc drama LOST article, but since that article is a star article, i will compare the pages. the production section needs help. on the dvd extras, kring talks about how the show was concepted and i wanted to add that to the production notes. but i dont know how to source the info since my source will be the dvd extras. also on the dvd extras, they talk about casting. casting is important to the character section, which needs some out of universe info to make it more notable. i want to add that info from the dvd as well, but i dont know how to source info found on a dvd extra. any thoughts? Basically i am saying we need to expand production section with some text on the shows conception. we also need to expand the character section by including some info on casting, like the have done on the lost page.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You could use Template:Cite video to help you source it. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Main Character Chart

What reasoning was given to have the Main Character chart changed? Why was the chart changed and not discussed? What was the reasonings? The chart looks like the chart used on the LOST page and the Lost article is a featured article. What is the reasoning? And why was it not discussed?--76.168.220.243 (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction: The chart resembles that of the Lost characters page, which is not featured, A or good class. Link to disputed changes. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot summaries

I think the plot summary section is too long for each season. I know I should not compare this article to the LOST article, but they seem to be able to sum up an entire 23 ep season in a few sentences, whereas, we here seem to do it in several paragraphs. Can it be summed down to give the two or three basic plot points, without giving detail to the characters story and development, which can be read on a character page or episode synopsis?--76.168.220.243 (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot summaries on main TV articles do not need to be short. Those at featured articles The Wire and The Office are quite long (in fact, they should be cut down). On another note, many users here like to compare this article to that of Lost. While the main Heroes article should strive to become like the main Lost article, keep in mind that the Lost article is not perfect and is in need of a featured article review. Also, please read iTocapa's essay on the state of this WikiProject and comment on it. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Episode 14 - Star Trek reference in car plate

Did anyone notice the reference to the NCC 1701 (the first Enterprise vessel from Star Trek). George Takey, as Hiro's father, has a car with this license plate. You can see it when he leaves, near the end of the episode. Where can we put this kind of information? Mahaus (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's already at Distractions (Heroes). –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Volume 3

Volume 3 is going to be the start of season 3. So why is it that it is still listed as part of season 2. The writers and Tim Kring reworked Powerless to be the season finale of season 2 because of the strike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.237 (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

They rewrote "Powerless" to serve as a potential season finale. If the strike ends soon, volume 3 will still be part of season 2. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Planned or spontaneous?

Is the main plot planned from beginning to end (like "Lost" claims to be) or do they make up the plot on the go? 88.68.205.32 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

They claim to have the general idea of five seasons planned.[1] –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

??? How can this be happening ???

Please check these two pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroes_%28TV_series%29: [[2]]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroes_(TV_series): [[3]]

They seem to be the same but the part about the third volume (Volume three: "Villains") is different in each page. The latter seems to have more information than the former. Is it only in my computer or does this happen to others as well? How can this be happening?

They seem the same to me. Maybe you had a cache issue (or maybe i'm not paying enough attention!)Ged UK (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Mine too are the same. Щіκі RoςкЗ^(talκ) 14:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just hit refresh (but I doubt that you still have the problem). –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? Because I didn't have the problem. I was just saying that the pages are the same on my comp. lol. Щіκі RoςкЗ^(talκ) 16:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I was replying to the original poster. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [4]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Improvements and Changes to main page

I made some changes to the main page. I hope everyone likes them. Please make sure to take some time to read the changes and make any corrections and improvements. I modeled some of the changes after the Lost page since it is a featured article. I think this article can become a featured article we just need to continue to improve and expand the stub and weak sections. I made sure that everything I added was well sourced. if you have additional sources, please add them, but be assured that i added no original research. Also, in the cast and character section i added some info about supporting characters. i know there has been an issue in the past with contributors stating actors as main and recurring. please keep in mind that characters are billed. they are billed as main, recurring or guest. i place supporting because supporing is not a cast billing necessarily. supporting also means that the cast member is not apart of the main cast, but supports those characters and the storylines. i hope i stated that clearly as to not create confusion. thanks. please feel free to make any changes and post all your oppositions for discussion. i hope i made good qaulity changes. the expansion to the production section was done based on the request made on the project page. basically, i tried to complete some projects from the project page.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as the paragraph on supporting cast...i modeled it after the paragraph on the Lost page, which is a featured article and will be the featured article on January 31st.

Numerous supporting characters have been given expansive and recurring appearances in the progressive storyline. In the second season, Rose Henderson played by L. Scott Caldwell and tail section survivor Bernard Nadler played by Sam Anderson were featured in a flashback episode after being reunited. Mira Furlan as Danielle Rousseau, the shipwrecked Frenchwoman, appears throughout the series. Some of the "Others," including M. C. Gainey as Tom, William Mapother as Ethan Rom, Tania Raymonde as Alex Rousseau and Nestor Carbonell as Richard Alpert have been shown in both flashbacks and the ongoing story. Similarly, Jack's father Christian Shephard (John Terry) has appeared in multiple flashbacks of various characters.

The paragraph I wrote is exactly the same, i just changed the names and character names. Is this OR? It has no source...yet it is still fact because these are supporting characters...thoughts???--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you arbitrarily chose to label certain characters as supporting without reference is OR, or at least POV. Claiming that certain characters have made impact without outside sources is POV. The section sounds like an article from a magazine, not from an encyclopedia. QuasiAbstract (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. What Lost has is an example of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, an invalid argument for inclusion. As such I have also removed the paragraph. ThuranX (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me...no big deal--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to rewrite the section in accordance with wikipedia policy. re read the section and let me know if this has no OR and POV.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that all the changes you made are great and the article is on its way to WP:GAN and eventually WP:FAC. Nice work and keep going, –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you like the changes user:thedemonhog. I know you do A LOT work on the lost pages and i modeled a lot of my changes after all the stuff you guys do on the Lost page. I love the Lost page and i always thought the heroes page could be just as good since the shows are so similar in production and the whole serial huge cast drama series category. anyway, i hope everyone keeps working to improve this page to the standard that lost page has set.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I state that it's all OR. Just because you moved it to another section doesn't hide that fact. You made some interesting additions about the casting process, though I question the notability of the process, as it's not too distinct from numerous other shows. Please do not revert it further, as there's no consensus to include it. ThuranX (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I made no additions to the casting section, seeing how the main page did not have a casting section before today. Casting is very important for a television show and it is real world out of universe information. As far as the information that is being disputed, i would like to urge users to look at a comparison...one from the lost main page which is a featured wikipia article and the second is what was attempted to be added to the heroes main page which wants to be a featured article. i like users to address the pros and cons of the two exerts and give thoughts to it.

first is from Lost a featured article:
Numerous supporting characters have been given expansive and recurring appearances in the progressive storyline. In the second season, Rose Henderson played by L. Scott Caldwell and tail section survivor Bernard Nadler played by Sam Anderson were featured in a flashback episode after being reunited. Mira Furlan as Danielle Rousseau, the shipwrecked Frenchwoman, appears throughout the series. Some of the "Others," including M. C. Gainey as Tom, William Mapother as Ethan Rom, Tania Raymonde as Alex Rousseau and Nestor Carbonell as Richard Alpert have been shown in both flashbacks and the ongoing story. Similarly, Jack's father Christian Shephard (John Terry) has appeared in multiple flashbacks of various characters.

second is text i attempted to add to the heroes article:
Numerous supporting characters have been given expansive and recurring appearances in the progressive storyline. Angela Petrelli, portrayed by Christine Rose along with season one antagonist Mr. Linderman, portrayed by Malcolm McDowell have appeared throughout the series. Claude the invisible man, played by Christopher Eccleston and The Haitian, portrayed by Jimmy Jean-Louis both worked for The Company and Noah Bennet within the series. Other supporting characters that were introduced included Molly Walker portrayed by Adair Tishler, who was first introduced towards the beginning of the season and reappared towards the end. She played an even bigger role in season two. Bob Bishop was also introduced in the season season as the head of The Company. He is portrayed by Stephen Tobolowsky. Hana Gitelman, played by Stana Katic is the guide for Heroes Evolutions; she has only appeared in two episodes, but has appeared in fifteen graphic novels.
Thoughts? I am not giving OR or POV. I am just stating the characters that we here at wikipedia have determined as notable because they have their own pages. Similar to the rationale done on the Lost page. Secondly, I dont think that an encyclopedic section shouldnt be added becuase we dont want to invite fan cruft or give people the idea to add OR. We just revert like we always do and add hidden text...that will help lessen the problem. --Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

One thought: Plagiarism. classy. A second thought. It's still an 'Other Crap exists' rationale. That's not enough, and not all the characters do, or should, have their own pages. We had a list of characters page that met the needs for those characters. That someone else passed Lost as an FA with that says something about the reviewer. It's a fluff 'graf. I reverted it. leave it out. ThuranX (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think any in the casting section is word for word. i ref everything. and if i did make a mistake and word for word some text, lets work together to rewrite the sentence or the information. we should be working together to improve the sections, not bashing one another about a mistake. i didnt copy and paste anything but websites for the lazy refs. but, if i did type something word for word it would be a better use of your time to fix it or improve it rather than accussing someone of plagiarism. classy. secondly, it is all POV and OR if you really want to talk about the character pages for Bob, Angela, Linderman, Claude, Molly, Hana and the Haitian, as most of their articles are written in-universe and have hardly any real world content. yet, we all agree to keep them. What third party source do any of us have that states that those seven characters are billed as recurring characters? None, but we give them notability because of the impact their character has had on the series. I am simply doing the same thing. In the paragraph, i never gave those cast members a billing as recurring or main cast members. i just stated that Numerous supporting characters have been given expansive and recurring appearances in the progressive storyline. How is this OR? These characters have had the most apperances and explanded storylines than any other non-main character or cast members. I am not billing them as a recurring character, like sylar was or ando...i am simply acknowledging that they have a pressence on the show and have had several more appearances than Lynette the waitress or charlie andrews for example. I would like to also say that it is not okay for you to judge other peoples contributions as you did with the lost article. several users have worked hard on that article and are proud that it is featured. a lot of work went into that page and a lot of users here on the heroes page also contribute to the lost page. thanks...smile--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The opening statement is lifted directly. ThuranX (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problemsMaybe you should review this policy to learn more about Plagiarism because you may not be fully aware of the policy. The casting section is well sourced and nothing that is listed in the casting section is posted without a source. some of the sections have two or three sources...all to accredited newspapers and entertainment websites...--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Chrisisinchrist: I am just stating the characters that we here at wikipedia have determined as notable because they have their own pages… I am not billing them as a recurring character, like sylar was or ando...i am simply acknowledging that they have a pressence on the show and have had several more appearances than Lynette the waitress or charlie andrews for example. Agree. ThuranX: Other Crap exists… That someone else passed Lost as an FA with that says something about the reviewer. The Lost article was promoted to featured article status in September 2006. Standards for featured content have changed since then. The references are not well formatted and I would support demotion, however the Lost article does have great information. Raul654 passed Lost as an FA; he passes everything because he is the featured article director and decides when there is consensus. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't really been following this discussion, but I do agree with Chrisisinchrist. He is a good editor and I believe he knows what he is doing. Щіκі RoςкЗ^(talκ) 05:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User thedemonhog. thanks for responding...i still think lost is a great article...i never contrib to the lost page, because i think it is great...but thats your opinion...lol...What is your opinion on the inclusion of the information that was taken out of the article? do you agree that it should be remain removed or do you agree that it should be included or are you on the fence about it? please post your thoughts on that...thanks...to the other user who posted right before me; user:wikirocks, thanks for the support. please review the discussion so you can give an opinion about the supporting character section i wanted to add...and once again thanks for the support...--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I wrote "agree" after quoting you in my most recent post (I think that it should be included). –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

out of universe information

Does anyone know where I can find some out of universe information on the mythology of Heroes? Like interviews, press releases etc. Not about the recurring elements, but the mythology of the Heroes world and the mythological elements. Also, I need some out of universe information on The Company. It has been tagged for so long, and I have had a difficult time finding third party information from newspapers, mags, interviews and press releases. I will also be posting this topic on the project page.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

try entertainment magazines at the library, esp. Empire, which has featured the show's cast a couple times. ThuranX (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Mythology and the Number 9

Hey, I found some interesting interviews with Writers Joe Pokaski and Aron Coleite. They commented in a series of interviews titled Behind the Eclipse that fans of the series Heroes should be watching for the number nine (9) to have a significance in the show. (I qouted this from heroeswiki). Take a look at the link I posted to heroeswiki and of course the links to the interviews with Coleite and Pakaski. I was wondering if, based on those interviews, if the number nine should be added to a mythology section in the article...links below--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
http://heroeswiki.com/Theory:9
http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=9000
http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=8817

Thoughts? Has anyone else read this info before?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We need to be careful about sections like this, as the Helix section almost ran away with itself. It should be limited occurrences that are sourced if any are listed at all. I looked at the HeroesWiki page and had a flash from the movie The Number 23. If you look for the number, you'll find the number. We don't want it to go to far. "Well, see that dog? If you add the number of legs a dog has to my brother's roommate's age, you get 33. If you multiply 3 and 3, you get nine! It MUST be added intentionally by the writers. Wikipedia, here I come!" Maybe too lengthy of an example, but you know someone will try it." QuasiAbstract (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I just thought it should get a mention as a part of the overall mythology of the series and maybe thats it. if you read the interview with coleite and pokaski, they give some interesting stuff...thats all that should be added...that out of universe stuff. the occurances should be well well well sourced if they are going to be added, not just random occurances like on heroeswiki. i only linked heroeswiki so that i could credit them for the research...but we can probably do a credible write up about the mythology of number 9 in the series in like 2 or 3 sentences--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)