Talk:Hero: 108

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

==iHeartMystiqueSonia!==. Mystique Sonia is awesome. Smart,sexy, and strong-cool! Thanks for making Hero: 108, MoonScoop! (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC) This page needs serious cleanup. I don't want to tamper with the page myself, cause I just joined some days ago. Sonia-love-struck Tom (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


This page is terrible! It has every bad thing in the book: it's fansite like, it doesn't give enough information, the part about Mystique Sonia being a "total girl" is a bit offensive towards women, it contains original research, and, most of all, it is a stub!!!! I don't mean to be an angry ranter, but still, every one of those things is true. Sure, it isn't exactly a popular, well known show, but this is Wikipedia, where popularity nor obscurity should matter when it comes to creating high-quality, informative articles. I'll edit this some, but it will take a whole lot before this article is even up to code. TVtriviagirl (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I edited the episode section, added something less promotional-sounding to the synopsis section, and did a major cleanup on the characters section (although I didn't remove the template I added there earlier). I completely removed the animals subsection, since most of it is either fancruft or repeated in some form in the episode section; in case there was actually some useful stuff there, here's a link to the previous revision, so editors won't have to sort through the diffs. B7T (talk) 06:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


Wouldn't this show qualigay as a jont Taiwan production for country of origin -- (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Please spell correctly and re-phrase that one more time.-- (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


I reverted the page to an earlier edit; the last edit pasted back in some details that had been removed, and wrote over some other improvements to the article. The subject of the article is not currently notable enough to require this level of detail, much of which is of more interest to passionate followers of the show rather than the general Wikipedia-reading public. A more appropriate venue for the deleted content might be Wikia's Hero 108 Wiki. B7T (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Animals section[edit]

I completely revised the Animals section into a list of examples of the show's style; it had a lot of non-encyclopedic information in it, and the new revision, which reduced the length of the article about 30%, is a compromise that I think should ideally be shortened even further, perhaps even doing away with the list altogether. B7T (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, i say vote for complete removal.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Water Margin[edit]

The lead states this show is loosely based on the famous Chinese novel Water Margin. I do see some similarities in name and appearance between Lin Chung and Lin Chong, and the number of characters. However, some type of source needs to be provided. Without such support, it is little more than fan speculation. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It is in no way fan speculation. I'm not sure where you would even find a kind of source for it though because it's something that's usually obvious to anyone who is familiar with Chinese literature that any reference 108 heroes is a reference to the Water Margin. The comment in the description even said it was loosely inspired though and that should be enough. It's also more than just a famous Chinese novel, it's one of the Four Great Classical Novels and a story that many Chinese, or even Asian people for that matter since a lot of Chinese literature had been proliferated to the surrounding Asian countries, just simply grow up with, so when we see a combination like this, especially in a series with blatantly obvious Chinese undertones, our mind automatically goes "Ah! The Water Margin!" I realize Wikipedia thrives on citation and quality, but how do you cite something that is so deeply embedded in a culture and has been referenced time and time again for centuries to the point that people just know? No scholar in Chinese lit in their right mind would sit down and write rules for everyone else in the world on how to figure out if something is a reference to the Water Margin or one of the other classics. When you get into it, you just know that they're so popular and influential that when their traits pop up in other places, that it's a reference because they're the epitome of Chinese lit and that's why they're regarded as the classics. They have other more interesting papers to write and people in their field just know. Can you even imagine what it means to point to 4 books and say "These books represent our culture"? That's the reason why they have received the designation! Plus it's not just a name similarity with Lin Chung, but the exact same name with a romanization preference. Chinese has so many different dialects that there's different nuances in saying the same word and also the Western system of writing is imperfect at representing the sounds of other languages and does not completely capture the exact manner of properly pronouncing words in other languages not represented by the roman alphabet, and as a result there's different systems of romanizing them and which you choose is up to personal preference. It's even more than the number of characters that is similar. The characters are blatantly numbered, which was a peculiar trait to the Water Margin story itself rather than any other reference because they were numbered by rank first by the 36 Heavenly Spirits and then by the 72 Earthly Fiends, which also helped set it apart from the other classics. Even the popular Suikoden game franchise, while blatantly using the Water Margin name, also has a numbering system for their heroes while also using the rank system from the novel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
You are under the mistaken impression that everyone is Chinese and or knows about the Water Margin. I don't care how obvious it is, Wikipedia demands a source. The area of the main website that describes the show is still down. I'm sure there has to be some other franchise source that mentions the connection. Despite this, no one has attempted to support the assertion in the 8 months since I put up the "fact" tag. I am, therefore, removing that bit from the lead. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)