Talk:Heroes (TV series)/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11


Spoiler Alerts

Some spoiler alerts would be nice. I don't think they have to show up everywhere- they don't belong on the Hamlet page- but common courtesy and all that...

See WP:SPOILER. –thedemonhog talkedits 17:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've said it before, I'll say it again: If you look for information on a T.V. show don't be surprised if you find information on that T.V. show. Padillah (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review:Characters

I was asked to come make a peer review, so here it goes. First off, it looks quite good, although I personally don't see much difference from previous changes. But my main issue is with the characters. There are too many. I know certain characters like Simone Devaux are listed as main characters, but that does not necessarily entitle them to their own article. Now don't go hating me yet because I do hate it when people suggest merging main characters, but I dont want to do this for all of them, just the ones who had minimal mentions in the plot for the first and second season, and I would be willing to re-establish certain articles if more info comes during later seasons. So I'll start by saying who I think should be merged and a brief reason:

Simone: Only in the series for five or six episodes. Her mention could be something that describes her love for Isaac, then Peter, and her death. Not very notable.

Maya: Served merely as a way for Sylar to get to America. More info may come as season three arrives. For now, not notable. Claude: Simply say he acted as Peter's mentor and was a member of the Company. No appearences in season 2, Forgetable.

Angela: State her "evil" plan and her role in the Company.

Molly: Appeared for a few episodes in season 1 and a handful in 2. State her role with Sylar and adoption by Matt.

D.L.: All he did was try to be a better dad, helped out Niki, then got shot. Woop-dee-doo.

Isaac: State his role to Peter, how his artwork was important, and his death.

Linderman: Although he seemed to be a major player, he truthfully had barely notable importance to the plot.

That's all I have for now, don't hate me. Every other character was a major player in season 2, main characters for both seasons, or ones that have notable appearences for both seasons. BioYu-Gi! (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree...judgements like these will be better noted once the series is cancelled or ends. who knows what the future hold for these heroes characters and their development.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 00:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
We can adjust it in the long scope then, CiC. Until then, I agree, in part, with BYG's assessment. IF things change in the future, we can change our coverage. But for now, Simone and Claude especially have limited notability. Maya, Angela, and Molly are ongoing characters, DL, Isaac and Linderman played more pivotal roles in plot movement (Claude, by contrast, primarily served as a character development tool for Peter.) I would support severe pruning of Simone and Claude, and some reduction to the others. ThuranX (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. If the character's importance changes then we can just re-add them. If you look at other articles you will note that then tend to A) have just the actual main cast members listed (no reoccurring or minor characters) or B) have a separate list for minor and/or reoccurring chracters.--88wolfmaster (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand and agree when it comes to recurring characters, such as Claude, but Simone, none the less, was a member of the main cast...not a recurring character. i dont think we can judge her characters notability...but everyone else, like claude, linderman, angela, molly and whomever else is not a memeber of the main cast, and i support reductions or merges in those articles, if that is what is being proposed. in the overall picture, when you look at television article, especially those of FA status, it is very common to have a seperate stand alone article for all characters whom are main characters, even if they were only involved in the show for one season. i think we can all agree to that. i think the confusion over this topic is simone deveaux, because most viewers, much like all of us, dont want to credit her as a series star, even though she was one. thoughts?--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 04:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I don't understand why all editors of Wikipedia LOVE to delete things. What's wrong with having Simone's page? It is not harming anyone, and it can be improved. Why must someones page be edited once they die? Just leaving Simone's page is not harmful, nor leaving Claude's. Now I know someone will reply by saying some policy is not being adhered to, but if the pages aren't, then just leave them! ЩіκіRocкs talκ 07:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe if they were included in the opening credits, they shold be included as "Main characters". However, that doesn't mean they should get a seperate article, of course.ZDLKRV (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I prefer to merge those into a list of characters page, but I don't have a problem with keeping a character article. My main objection, and i think the more pressing matter right now is the lengthy table of characters on the main page, which could use trimming. I'm sure we could at least come to some agreement about that now.--88wolfmaster (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's down to less than 15 now, and that is pretty good compared to other TV articles I have seen that deserved less space (cough)ANIME(cough)ZDLKRV (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
How can the main character chart be trimmed? Tp trim it would be unencyclopedic. I understand that Wikipedia is not a list of everything about a particular topic, but who are we to determine which characters are notable and which are not? if they are a main character, then they are a main character. If I never watched heroes before, then I would want to come to heroes page and find out who are the main characters and what impact they had on the show. I do not support the shortening of the character chart. that doesnt make sense to me. As far as main character pages, I support improvement. those pages need to be improved, but not just deleted. supportive character pages can be improved, trimmed or merged. but i agree with wikirocks. to delete or merge pages is just lazy on our part, because no one feels like doing the research to improve the pages. why delete? just improve. we have been talking about improving character pages for a while and placing more out of universe information, but none of the pages have been significantly changed (althought a lot of users have made small and fantastic modificatons). so, i dont support trimming the main character chart...or deleting main character pages. i support improvement, and improvement in the supporting characters pages as well.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 17:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. Well since we can't delete any characters from the table...why trim their "summary" i.e. one line each, with some having two if it is absoloute neccessary. For example, why do we need to mention Gina in Niki's summary? She was in 1 episode for 1 second, how notable is that? And this sentence "Sylar takes his alias from the brand name of a watch company," is it really needed? Is it that important? So if we give only one line for each summary, the table would become smaller and look better. Problem solved [in my opinion]. ЩіκіRocкs talκ 05:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Summaries have been condensed. –thedemonhog talkedits 05:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Good job, it looks better now. ЩіκіRocкs talκ 06:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
AS per my edit comment, I've done a bit more clean up of the descriptions, and rearranged some of them to move the descriptions of the powers closer to the start of the line. I've also removed some time-specific "former"s (per the customs for fiction writing.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 06:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Good edits, but it's skeptical, not sceptical. Anyways I think we're doing way too much work on the table. When the cast gets too big, I tink we should delete it. ЩіκіRocкs talκ 06:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
"Skeptical"? Not if you're Canadian, eh? As for the table, I'm presuming you mean that we should eliminate the table-style formatting in favour of more compact prose. (Not cutting the information out.) --Ckatzchatspy 06:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know that [Canadian's spell it with a 'c']. Anyways you presumed right. Once the table gets too big it won't look good, but I think for now it's fine. ЩіκіRocкs talκ 08:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The proper spelling is with a 'c', but I suppose we have to let the US keep it's little idiosyncrasies! :p I like the table as it is, tbh, I think it's much better than the old one. Ged UK (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Chart looks good, and SImone doesn't need her own article. Let that redirect to the list of characters page. Same for Claude, same for many others who cannot assert real-world notability. I've brought this up at the WP:HEROES page, but no one ever listens, and when TTN comes around the next time, I'll be supporting his edits. ThuranX (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree...chart looks great! i'm still not convinced about Simone. I am going to try to improve her article over the next couple of weeks. but i do support claude.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 16:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I looked online and looked through some tawny cypress interviews. i couldnt find any good out of universe stuff to add to her article...sorry. does anyone else want to attempt to improve her article?--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 23:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Just want to say, the entire cast section looks enormously better than it did a few weeks ago when the peer review was started. The alternating left and right images help to break the lines up a bit, making it much easier to read. Compare to this version from two weeks ago, for example. Great work! Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 19:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Love the updated character table. And just my 2 cents. If the actor's name appears in the main pre-show credits, then that character should be a main character. If they appear at the end of the show, then they are a guest-star. It's the way that the production company hires them whether in a "starring role" or as a "guest star." Simone was a starring role. Molly was a guest star based on the way the actor's names were listed. Can't we use that as an objective criterion rather than a subjective one of how important they were to the storyline? Also--I question the addition of the line to Hiro Nakamura's entry about "He is convinced..." No other entry has anything like this other than the character's abilities, and relationship to other characters. That line should appropriately go on his own page, not here. Tedying (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 16:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


I notice that there is a need of more pictures. Well for the cast and characters section, why not put pictures of individual cast members? I will try to put some right now. Discussion 03:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. –thedemonhog talkedits 03:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Finished. I think the page looks much better now. Discussion 04:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Not to be a spoil-sport, but do you have explicit authorization to use those photos? If not, you should not use them. The current atmosphere for on-line use and the free-use policy is that all photos on-line are assumed to be the copyright material of the photographer or the company employing the photographer. Unless there is a free-use clause (or the material is explicitly released as publicity materials documented for public release) then you should not use it. Tedying (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Since they're all free-use images, doesn't that mean we can use them wherever we like? Discussion 06:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure they are all free-use images? Images have to be retrieved from the source (e.g. NBC) and should have an explicit free-use clause, which NBC does not have. If you go to the NBC site, at the bottom is a Terms of Use clause which says under 2.d.x that you will not "resell, redistribute, broadcast or transfer the information" which would include their photos. You would have to get the photos from somewhere that specifically notes the photos for publicity purposes that are released for free use. You should be able to find clearly and explicitly on the site that you get the information, that they either own the photos or have the right to release. All sites should have this under a "Terms of Use" or some such clause. Web-sites like Wikipedia are now considered "broadcast" of information and are no longer protected by the free-use clause. That only pertains to personal use, not public use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedying (talkcontribs) 19:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not called "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" for nothing. The individual cast photos are free and if they were not, they would not be in the article. For more information, see Wikipedia:Copyrights. –thedemonhog talkedits 19:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Good one demonhog, I'm not sure what he was on about... Discussion 05:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
What I am "on about" is that other web-sites have been tapped by networks like NBC for using screencaps of shots. Even blogs which don't make any profit are warned not to use copyrighted material. The nature of using screencaps that don't belong to the posters threatens to put their images into the public domain and break their copyright protection. And although I don't think there is a problem with the headshots from interviews, etc, the screencaps from the show are the issue. Despite the little Wikipedia free use disclaimer, I think those screenshots could get Wikipedia in trouble if NBC catches on. That's why I wondered whether anyone had actually gotten usage disclaimers from NBC who owns that material. Tedying (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but Wikipedia will be fine. See also Wikipedia:Non-free content. –thedemonhog talkedits 18:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Passed article for GA

I note that a comprehensive set of suggestions has been received via requests for peer review. I also note that all but three of these have been actioned. Of the three outstanding tasks, the voice version request counts as a verdict of "pass" for GA, or why record it?

The other two outstanding points — copy-edit and reference format — are not sufficiently "below par" (imo) to exclude acceptance at GA. I note the GA criteria regarding referencing at 2(b) — "provides in-line citations from reliable sources" for assertions that might come under challenge.

I interpret the GA criteria to be ensuring basic clarity and verifiability of content. This is distinct to FA which requires consensus that presentation of material has reached an achievable optimum, given the constraints associated with diversity of opinion inevitable in collective decisions.

I further interpret peer review of the current article, to this point, to be making effectively the latter point. Presentation of content, including style of expression and format of references has not reached optimal form. However, these are not grounds to fail a nomination for GA. I wish to stress here that I understand the GA process to involve both constructive criticism aimed at offering specific points for improvement, but also acknowledgement of high standards already achieved by hard work. Both these factors are noted in WP:How to Review Nominations.

Hence, I have passed this article for GA, according to the standards specified and according to the spirit in which this process is to be understood. Additionally, I endorse the peer reviews and encourage the team that has produced this Good Article to close off on the outstanding tasks and re-present the article for wider feedback via nomination for FA.

In detail, I find this article to be well written. The prose is clear. Vocabulary selection is slightly literary in places, the tone is exemplary for encyclopedic text — it avoids sinking into proseline, advertorial or fansite blogging. The text remains engaging without becoming informal, while being objective without becoming abstract or distant. It avoids complex grammar. Most significantly, it proceeds in short logical steps linking related material under an overall structure that provides a solid framework for a reader to approach and assimilate the information. As such, it conforms not only to specifics of the manual of style, but also to the general principles of clear and encyclopedic text the manual is designed to protect by exemplifying.

There is considerable, notable and verifiable content in the article. Not only is it verifiable, it is actually verified. In fact, its strength leads to one area for improvement — standardization of reference format. However, these sources are contained within a section dedicated to the attribution of sources as required by the GA criterion 2(a). OR is not an issue in this article. Nor is POV. It is stable, save for incremental improvements of uncontroversial nature.

The result is an entry that addresses all major aspects of its subject, without undue attention to details, in a readable and responsible manner. It is also appropriately illustrated, enhancing, rather than diluting, the text.

Thank you for this article and congratulations. It only remains to encourage every effort to push further to satisfy the criteria for FA. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is fantastic! Good work everyone who helped bring this article to GA stat...Now, we simply need to clean up the refs and get a good copy edit and then i think we will be ready for FA. Thanks to user Alastair for your comments and upgrade...we appreciate it. The writers strike really helped all of us put this page into perspective. I hope we all keep improving...thats all I gotta say.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 06:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't read through this entire review, but I have to say that one thing that stands out negatively are the unformatted footnotes. Gary King (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair comment Gary, we all note it, and it bears repeating. I take responsibility for unilaterally passing the article for GA despite that outstanding and accurate constructive criticism. The article cannot be passed for FA without that issue being addressed. However, credit where credit is due. This is an excellent article -- the content, sources, structure and illustration are just plain good, in fact, better than good. To be featured, it needs to be flawless under the scrutiny of consensus, and references will be checked! We know what needs to happen next, let's "make it so". Alastair Haines (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello editors. I find the soundtrack table very out of place and it really is an eyesore. Could we make it like the one here? Or maybe we could even make a new page for it. Thanks. Discussion 06:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply, anyone? Discussion 13:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Why do you need someone to reply? No one is opposing, so just make the change.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 17:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm not going to waste my time and do it, only to have someone revert it five seconds later. That's why I'm asking, and for suggestions too. So instead of trying to be smart, you could say something constructive. :P Discussion 07:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes it is difficult to read someones tone when they are writing. I was not trying to be "smart."--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 16:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, OK, well my mistake. I can see where you're coming from. Discussion 08:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Volunteers to Clean up Refs

Hey! We need to get like 10 or 20 people who will commit to clean up 20 refs. I am going to start a sign up list for anyone who is interested. Just sign your name next to the refs your are going to commit to cleaning up. For example, if you agree to clean up refs 25 to 50, sign your name next to it below. We just got GA status and I think the refs is the name thing that will stop us from FA. Sign up below to clean up some refs.

Sign Up...thanks...--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 06:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering...Chris, why haven't you signed up? :-) Discussion 11:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC) be real honest, I am probably the main reason we have so many lazy refs. I dont really know how to format I copy and paste websites...a lot of users call them lazy refs, or unformatted refs...sorry dude, but I dont know have to cite sources properly on wikipedia to save my life...i would be more harm than least 70 percent of the unformatted refs are thanks to me...sorry...!!! A lot of users wont contribute to the heroes page until the series returns or get some more buzz...probably around comic con time...when that happens, I am sure we will get a better response and more users contributing...right now, the page is kinda dead because their isnt much to contribute.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 04:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's something for you, then - a handy script for adding a citation tool. You can read about it here. The script used to require installation in your monobook.js file, but has recently been added to the "Gadgets" tab (right-most tab) in Special:Preferences. Look in the "Editing tools" section for "refTools". Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 05:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like not many users are volunteering. Should we start directly asking people to help? Discussion 13:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I say we wait...right now the page is kinda season three starts getting more hype and buzz, more people will come...a lot of the regular contributors of this page havent edited this page since the end of the second season. We will have a lot more activity on this page when the series returns from its 9 month hiatus...--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 16:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Well that's kinda exactly why we should get people to fix the refs now! When the third season starts, there will be heaps of new info, and then we'll have double the work. If we finish what we have now, then we won't have as much work for later. And for you're ref fixing troubles, try going here cite web. I learnt from there. The section meanings are explained below the formats, and once you pick it up, it's really easy! :-) Discussion 07:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Spoken word version?

What is required for this? I have the ability and resources (I have done VO work before) and would be more than willing. I only have concerns regarding the mutability of the article. Isn't that an issue? Or is there a specific version of the article I should use? Also, what tone is required for the reading? Can some life be allowed into the reading or do you require the "NPR Drone"? Padillah (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the lines of a sing-a-long. Or maybe not. How often would this have to be updated anyway? Once a season? Rekija (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably be a good idea to listen to other spoken word articles. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 20:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"Sing-a-long"? Ho ho ho. Nice one Rekija. :D Alastair Haines (talk) 08:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
"NPR Drone"? Had to wipe my monitor after than one! ;) Please do this Padillah! You have the technology! Just do it! May help with copy editing as an additional positive side effect. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll do it. I'll take a listen to some of the other spoken-word articles and see what kind of feel I get from that. I'll let you guys know where to listen to various versions of it. Anyone know where I can find versions of the "theme thrum" for PD use? Any ideas about using snippets of Mohinder's lead-ins? I have some StakTraxx that could take the edge off (and they are free-use, royalty-free). We'll see if we can't raise the bar in spoken-word renditions. Padillah (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at the rewording "hatchet job" I did on Synopsis and fix it? I'm trying to make it read well for the spoken word version and it just came out all wrong. Maybe it needs more splitting up or something, I'm just getting it more and more wrong. Thanks for the help. Padillah (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Spoken word help

What is the best way to read the parenthetical cast names? I.e. in the passage "In episode eleven of the first season, Jack Coleman (Noah Bennet) was upgraded..." should I rad that as "In episode eleven of the first season, Jack Coleman (who plays Noah Bennet) was upgraded..."? Or is there a better way to represent that vocally? Padillah (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

How would you read the cast table? Would you read the headings for each line? (i.e. "Name: Claire Bennet...", "Name: Noah Bennet...") Or do I read the frmat of the table and then just the contents? Padillah (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably more like "[character] is played by [actor]". That's how I hear it in radio productions, anyway. Otherwise, it'll sound like a jumble of words.

"Starring" list

The list was removed earlier in favour of a link to the "Cast and characters" section. I've reverted it for now, as I don't think it is too long. However, since the point has been raised, what is the feeling here? List or link? --Ckatzchatspy 08:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as I was the one who inserted the link, I think it's pretty obvious which one I support. The link looks much cleaner, and I do think the list is a bit too long. Discussion 09:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I support the LIST. Its more encyclopedic...besides, the list isnt too long to me...I think it is just fine. There isnt a limit on how long the infobox is and it doesnt really help to just link it below. the infobox should have info in it and not links to other sections. i say keep the list...its better, more encyclopedic and more accesible for quick thoughts...any more?--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 16:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Fine, keep your ******* list! We'll see who'll be laughing when the list is as long as the page itself! **Maniac laugh** Discussion 13:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I really hope that was in a sarcastic tone (as evidenced by the manic laugh at the end). Padillah (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to prune the list. Tawney Cypres and Leonard Roberts are still in there for crying out loud. If this series is going to continue the way it has been and we are not going to prune the list to "Currently Starring" then we might as well just switch to the link now since the list is gonna get huge! Padillah (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
That aspect of it has been discussed to death... "starring" reflects the entire run, not just the moment. --Ckatzchatspy 15:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I would not mind cutting down the list so that it only mentions those who have been starring from the pilot through "Powerless" (Milo Ventimiglia, Ali Larter, Hayden Panettiere, Sendhil Ramamurthy, Masi Oka, Adrian Pasdar, Noah Gray-Cabey, possibly Greg Grunberg—was he credited in the pilot). –thedemonhog talkedits 19:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend splitting the list into two lists, the current "starring" cast and the "retired starring" list which could include a note per character such as "(Deceased: Chapter 1)" Tedying (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Both options, however, involve Wikipedians deciding who warrants a listing, and who doesn't. Personally, I chose the list over the link because the length of the list doesn't bother me in proportion to the overall article size. However, it is much more desirable to use a link than to make judgements as to who should be included and who shouldn't. (In addition, we'd just be creating problems with the "Characters" section, as partial lists or split lists in the infobox would only encourage similar actions in the body of the article.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 04:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The list is fine, but I'd be willing to compromise in that the infobox starring list reflect whatever the current season is, and the cast and characters section remain indicative of all starring roles from series inception. ThuranX (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should live the list as is...this is an encyclopedia and the starring list should reflect the overall series and not the current season. It is more encyclopedic to include everyone who has starred in the series rather than us providing a POV as to who is important enough for inclusion and who is not. Yes, the list is long, but big deal. It doesnt change the quality or flow of the article.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 15:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Blu Ray Release and Season 2 release dates is not a credible source for the DVD release. It is one of the only sites that is reporting the information, and no information about DVD releases and dates can be found on any credible or official websites. So, for now, we need to find a credible official verifiable source for season two dvd and blu ray information. unfortunately is not credible enough for inclusion in wikipedia. Thoughts? I checked Universal Entertainment Home Video website, Universal Media Village and and found no information regarding the dvd. Does anyone have a verified crfedible source? --ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 15:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Check List of Heroes episodes. I found a reliable source (PR Newswire). –thedemonhog talkedits 14:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is the direct link if someone wants to add the info on the season 2 dvd and blu ray release comments and complaints here! 16:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph

I am trimming down the Lead significantly, as recentism seems to have crept in with some unnecessary details (when the second season began, etc.) I'll be removing it, but would be amenable to discussing any of the edits I perform. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead is too long? Wow, that’s a first...everyone was complaining in the peer review that it was too short. I think the lead is too short for an article of this length. I think currently, the idea would be to either leave the lead as is over expand it more...this is a pretty long main page article...the lead is sufficient or under-sufficient for an article of this size...but too short? Nah, I don’t think so. I disagree with trimming the lead. Look at the peer review...expanding the lead was a big topic. I don’t think the article includes too much recenticism, seeing how there hasn’t been any recent activity or breaking news about the series since December 2007. It gives a clear overview of the show, date, times, season, production staff, extensions, and awards. I mean, I think it sums up the article well and is fine.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 04:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I hate how how Chris disagrees with everything ;) but I'm going to have to agree with him. Sorry Arcayne, but I like the lead. It looks really good and does summarise the article really well. Thanks for the thought but I disagree. 05:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
There's still room for trimming... a bit of trivia here, a too-specific-date there... I've given it a pass - the revised version is here and the diff. is here. --Ckatzchatspy 06:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't always disagree, do I? lol..okay, I mostly do...but, back to the point. I agree that the lead does have trivia, so I like the little tweaks that User:Ckatz made. Originally, when I expanded the lead (after the peer review) I modeled it after a couple of featured television articles that I had read on, I just wanted to say that it was for that reason that I originally included some of the information that I did. However, I will say that I think the lead is good in correlation to the legnth of the article. Currently, I thik the version that Ckatz has posted is good and better than it was before...but, the originally lead doesnt need to many changes, in my opinion.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 15:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I learned to challenge article changes from Ckatz and Wikipedia should have verified sources and encyclopedic content--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 15:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Brea Grant gets cast in Heroes

Heroes has a new character. I put the infomation in "Casting". If you wish to place the infomation somewhere else, that's fine. The infomation should be put somewhere since it's been officially announced. [1] dposse (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

that's the right place for it, agreed. (fixed the title, too.) ThuranX (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Well Heroes is starting soon, and I was wondering if anyone wanted to get Powerless to GA or FA status before the season started. The page is almost there, and with some new info and some clean up, I'm sure we can have at least one notable episode of Heroes! 07:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants to include this...

this is an article from talking about new heroes trading cards...i dont have time to include the information in the wikipedia article, but if anyone has a spare moment and is desperately anticipating some verifiable legit heroes scoop, check out the link and include the info in the article...

thanks!--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 03:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Style and scope of ingress

I think the ingress to this article is way, way too much focused on the commercial success of the series. This is not at all interesting in a long-term perspective compared to information about content, general synopsis etc.

The broadcast statistics, number of viewers etc, should have it's own section, while the ingress should be much short, have more focus on content, and briefly mention the most important things about its commercial success.

I bet that 95% of the hits to this page is NOT from people looking from broadcast statistics. In addition, the current structure simply makes it pretty boring to read! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


In the 'Casting' section the quote from Brea Grant says:

"I'm stealing a secret that's been kept in Hiro's family for a long time that he's just now found. He stops time right as I grab it, but in that second it took him to grab it, I almost make it out of the office."

>>> He stops time right as I grab it, but in that second it took him to grab it, I almost make it out of the office.

>>> as I grab it, but in that second it took him to grab it

>>> as I grab it....him to grab it

I believe that this is an incorrect quote. Can someone please confirm this?

Sigmarz (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's an awkward quote, but it is confirmed as real via the easily accessible link that follows it in the article. –thedemonhog talkedits 08:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright sweet thanks. Didn't even see that link before. Sorry. Sigmarz (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


Who were the writers? what epsiodes? Much difference in the team between seasons? (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

See List of Heroes production crew. –thedemonhog talkedits 00:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Casting (indiviudal characters)

For the Casting section right now, it has how the casting process works, as well as information about casting the main characters (such as Peter and Hiro). The casting info for Peter was recently also added to the Peter Petrelli page, so now his casting info is on both pages. Would it work better to just have the casting process itself be on this paste, and transfer the casting process for individual characters to the character pages? Ophois (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a condensed version of the casting of individual characters would still be nice to have on this page. –thedemonhog talkedits 23:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"No. of seasons 3"

Has the 3rd season even rapped filming? saying there are 3 series seems rather speculative, though it is a given that there is going to be a 3rd series, anything could stop it being finished &/or shown! In short: there is no 3rd series yet (see WP:CBALL)...  Doktor  Wilhelm  01:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

They're certainly part way through filming, it starts in the autumn (in US and UK anyway, the UK showing will be in the same week as the US it seems), but I don't know what effect the Screen Actors Guild strike will have. Digifiend (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth I've heard on NPR that the SAG is not going to strike but will work under the old contract until the new one is passed. That being said, we've got commitments from the network and everyone involved, WP ain't paper and if we got it wrong we can correct it when we do find out what's right. padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actor name Pronunciation Guide

Please help me with the proper pronunciation of the actors names at Heroes Pronunciation. Thanks for the help. padillaH (review me)(help me) 21:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

whats the significance of this?

Are you asking what is the significance of pronouncing a persons name correctly? Or the significance of the spoken word version of the article? padillaH (review me)(help me) 13:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about pronouncing a name correctly. People don't come here to get their names right, but to get information, I'm just saying you're wasting your time. You should go find information about the wiki pages that needs attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that may be true but we've been asked by the GA committee to produce a spoken-word version of this article during a GA review (it's at the top of the page, it might be collapsed so you may have to click the "show" link). To that end I've volunteered to do the spoken word version of the article and was looking for help with the pronunciations of peoples names. However, from the complete and utter lack of response from others regarding this you may very well be correct that I am wasting my time. padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, don't take it personally. I'm sure many other users like me saw your message, but were not sure of the pronounciation of the names either. :-) / 06:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that (Corny? No, that's not nice, sorry.) ;) padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
lol, that's alright. I love it when other users attack me personally; one of the best parts of Wikipedia. / 06:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, God no! I didn't mean that as an attack. I'm sorry. I was just poking fun at the way you split up your username. I didn't mean to offend or attack or anything. I was genuinely trying to thank you for the attempt to console me. Yesterday sucked. padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that Cornucopia was sympathizing with you (not taking offense for your "joke"). –thedemonhog talkedits 16:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thedemonhog is right (as always). :-) / 05:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


Due to all of the footage and discussions on the Season 2 DVD, I feel that we should include the volume "Outbreak" under the season two section and give the information about it and the details of its removal from the storyline. Anyone else agree or disagree? Ophois (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know what "Outbreak" is, but I think we should have it on the page. / 05:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean "Exodus"? –thedemonhog talkedits 05:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
And all the pieces fall into place... / 05:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
It appears that "Outbreak" is synonymous with "Exodus", which is covered in the "Synopsis" section. –thedemonhog talkedits 05:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The volume is called "Outbreak" on the Season 2 DVD. Anyways, there is still a lot more info about "Outbreak"/"Exodus" available than the mere sentence that is given on this page. Ophois (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections to me adding a more detailed section about it under Season 2? Ophois (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
No. And I do not own the DVDs so I will be unable to help you.  ;) –thedemonhog talkedits 05:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I concur. / 05:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The "Exodus" name needs to be included as well, given that Kring is on record as having used that name on several different occasions. --Ckatzchatspy 07:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link or anything that has Kring giving that name? Ophois (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Just look for the citations in this and the List of Heroes episodes pages. –thedemonhog talkedits 18:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Here are some other interviews (here and here) where Kring uses the name. --Ckatzchatspy 19:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so that leads to another question. Should the lost volume be mainly referred to on this and other pages as "Exodus" or "Outbreak"? Both have reliable sources. "Exodus" seems to be the original main naming, but now it seems that "Outbreak" is the official name. Ophois (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I removed OUTBREAK without noticing that it was being discussed (since thier has not been much discussion on tis page since December 2007). Anyway, I think if we are going to use the name OUTBREAK we need to provide a source/citation that is verifiable and concrete. I have not heard any references about OUTBREAK. However, some of you may, and if you have a verified source, please use it. Otherwise, it should remain Exodus, rather than saying Exodus (also rferrred to as OUTBREAK). Thoughts? Outbreak seems to be a plot point rather than a name. All interviews that I have read, including the extras from the season 2 DVD have also referred to this volume as Exodus. I have not read or heard any references to outbreak. I think we need to find a concrete source to tag to it, if we are going to use it. OUTBREAK seems like a quasi-fan creation, rather than an actual term of usage...thoughts?--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 05:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The Season 2 DVD extras that I watched all referred to it as "Outbreak". I don't recall any mention of the name "Exodus" given in them. Ophois (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The sources you provided do not verify OUTBREAK. It is a New York Times interview, where the writer refers to the volume as Outbreak, but it is not a direct quote from Tim Kring. Outbreak seems to be the main plot point of Exodus, not the name of the volume. Just because it is referred to as Outbreak, it does not mean that OUTBREAK is an encyclopedic reference. I am going to remove it until we get more concrete sources. Right now, it just looks "unsupported"; like we are added unneccesary information to the page...please find a verified you have a quote from the DVD or a location within in the DVD/DVD Extras where the information on OUTBREAK can be found?--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 15:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Stupid is kind of a harsh word. –thedemonhog talkedits 18:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. unsupported sounds much better. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
You're bad...unsupported.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 00:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What is a "volume"?

The use of the term "volume" in this article (as opposed to "season," "series," or other words traditionally associated with television series) is unclear. The distinction between seasons and volumes is not explained, nor is it clear whether the producers of the show actually use the term "volume" or if it is just a fan reference. The term should be defined. PCM2 (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the program uses the term volume in the same way that it notes each episode as a chapter, in keeping with the comic book format of the series. While we cannot say without citation, a volume tends to be a season (called, confusingly enough 'series' in the UK, with the show being called a 'programme', instead of a 'series' or 'show'). I hope that directs your research efforts into finding a citation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
So far Season 1 = Volume 1, Season 2 = Volume 2, and Season 3 is scheduled to be Volumes 3 & 4. It can be confusing, I get that. If its not explained why they refer to the seasons \ storyarcs in this way it should be explained. Particularly as there are so many references to "volume". SWatsi (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
So long as you have a citation that explains it. Without it, we are skipping down the OR highway. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Prep for the season starting tonight

Is everybody ready for the onslaught of vandals and deluge of OR? Is there some way we can proactively protect at least this page and the character pages? We know were going to need it. It'll probably be a big enough job even if we do protect them. Any strategies? padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

We need to watch Heroes tonight and watch this page at the same time. Now that the season is kicking off tonight, unseasoned users are going to tear this BEAUTIFUL article up with OR and POV and all kind of BS. We need to watch, copyedit and revert things as soon as they are added to the page. I am in US Pacific Time, so I will be seeing heroes later than those on the east, I cant take the first shift...but I can come during the end and help clean things up! Is thier a way we can get a temporary block on this page?--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 14:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no gravity - the earth sucks. Get a helmet, two lollipops and stand by. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I will be bringing the Request for Protection request (waving it in my hot widdle hand). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I made the mistake of trying to add the following bit about Dr. Suresh tonight: "He gains super strength, the ability to climb walls, and other myriad physical abilities through an injection of Maya's adrenaline and certain enzymes during "The Second Coming"/"The Butterfly Effect." You guys seem to be swamped, so I'll just post that here for myself so maybe I can add it back after it's over. Sorry if I made more work for you guys.CallidoraBlack (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Or, you could just NOT add anything abotu Suresh's powers until we know more, like in the next few eipsodes. There's no obligation for us to guess about where the writers are going, get citations and add. ThuranX (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Suresh says in the episode that he has the ability of hightened senses. Lets just leave it at that for now until we get more details.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 14:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I was just trying to go with what Suresh said. He said he had heightened senses and was stronger, faster, etc. Also, we see him doing some of those things. I see your point though, it seems from the preview for the next episode that he will be undergoing more changes. It may not be worth listing them on this page now as at least some of them may only be temporary (his method of gaining them was fairly reckless and the possible end results are endless). I'll stick to correcting spelling errors and the like for now.CallidoraBlack (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Important quote to remember: "I'm saying, I'm an insect who dreamt he was a man and loved it. But now the dream is over ... and the insect is awake." That's all I'm saying. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

International Season Premiere dates

What is the policy concerning this? Are we going to list every country where Heroes air and list the premiere date and channel? I do not think this is encyclopedic, but I dont want to remain within the scope of wikipedia policy. It seems really insignificant to continue to list countries where Heroes air, especially when it isnt attracting a significant amount of viewers in those venues. Thoughts? I remember someone once told me that the focus of television articles should be based on its country of origin. Heroes is an American Television show that has an international appeal, but I do not know if it is significant enough to continue to list countries, air dates and network channels. thoughts?--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 18:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


Doesnt the "Artwork of Isaac Mendez" page seem a little IN-UNIVERSE? We should change the title of that page to the Artwork of Heroes (TV Series) or something along those lines to make it more encyclopedic. Also, Sylar, Peter and Utusu from tonights premiere also paint the future. Should not thier artwork be included? (I would have discussed this on the Artwork of Isaac page, but a lot of the discussion boards in the Heroes project have been dead for months)--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 14:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That entire page should be folded into Isaac's page. ThuranX (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with ThuranX. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I actually think Chris has a point. If the artwork is going to continue to be pivotal (and with the emergence of Usutu, it may) then we should bunch all of it together and talk about it all. What makes Isaac the owner of the artwork? Why would we merge Usutu's art on Isaac's page? Padillah (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, now there is a point of comparison, as more than just two or three people paint (and not just Isaac's ability being absorbed by Peter and acquired by Sylar). Maybe a sub article entitled "Artwork of Heroes"? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Heroes showing new episodes on G-4 network

I do not see this commented in the wikipedia article that new episodes are being broadcasted on the G-4 network. I also don't understand how new episodes are being shown on the G-4 network while it is clearly a NBC show, I know about show syndications but usually it is episodes that were already broadcasted. I think someone should research this more and talk about this, I think it is very important.-- (talk) 07:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You can find information on G4 under the Multimedia/TV section of the article, which is towards the bottom on the article. If you encyclopedic and verifiable information about the relationship between G4, NBC and Heroes, please feel free to add to the section and add citations. G4 is advertising new episodes of HEROES because it is a new episode to the netwoprk. Even though it is not new to those of us who watch it on NBC, Global or BBC it is new to those watching it for the first time on G4. Also, some cable and dish providers do not broadcast NBC in America, so some people have to watch Heroes eps for the first time on G4 is thier provider does not carry local network. I hope this helps you. Happy editing!--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 03:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Does the table under "Cast and characters" section repeat things from other articles?

If yes, i think we have to remove it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? Lots of things are repeated on Wikipedia. Take the lead section of every article for example. If you mean directly repeat, then it ahould probably be reworded. –thedemonhog talkedits 23:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Because this article is too large, for one thing. Paring down redundant information into sleek summaries is one good way to do that. --otherlleft (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be back. First of all, it's one of the most important section. Second, it describes the characters in the series. And, if you really want to remove it in this article, then, maybe we can put a link containing the name of the cast and characters including their descriptions in the show. --- Celester Mejia11:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
No, do not add it back. What we have now is sufficient: it still describes each character. –thedemonhog talkedits 03:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Article Size

This is certainly a good article, but at 124 kilobytes it's quite long. Much of the length comes from overly-long summaries of other articles, so it looks like splitting it up has already been done; this really needs a lot more summary. I took at stab at summarizing the opening to the list of episodes.--otherlleft (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed split of section Production into its own article

Heroes is significantly over 100kb in length. This section is not duplicated in its entirety anywhere else, so the information could easily be split off.--otherlleft (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

100 percent disagree to split the information about production. That is the core of this page...information in that section is the most encyclopedic and most revelant. It should remain on the main page. The HEROES page is modeled after other featured television seris articles. You should take a look at some of them before you make anymore significant changes. However, with that said, I do agree with some of the cuts you have made...however, the production information seems really relevant and it would probably hurt the article more than help it.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 07:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know of a featured article in television that does not have a production/development section in the main page? I dont! I think moving the production section would be foolish if we wanted to reach FA status. I dont know of any TV series FA articles that doesnt talk about the conception, development, and production of the series on the main page. Thoughts?--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 09:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Your points about the value of the production section are well-taken, but the article remains quite long. As with any split, I envision a meaningful summary remaining behind. I don't see this article achieving FA status at this size, and this remains one of the easiest sections to remove.--otherlleft (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
It might be easy to remove, but it is not the one we should remove. As mentioned above, the subject material is key to keeping the article relevant to an out-of-universe perspective. If we're going to trim, the "Media" section would be a better place to start. --Ckatzchatspy 18:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The multimedia section could be moved to its own page or trimmed down. However, I dont know if I have ever seen a television article where the multimedia section was significant enough to warrant its own page. Perhaps someone could trim it. I dont know. As far as I am concerned, this article is fine. Is thier a wikipedia policy that talkks about article length? If so, can someone link it here for review?--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 20:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article size discusses this at length. That pages recommends that articles over 32 KB be split, and states that articles over 100 KB in size "[a]lmost certainly should be divided". According to the history page, the version of the page as of time of this comment is 108,346 bytes. - SigmaEpsilonΣΕ 21:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Chrisinchrist, I respect your position (as left on my talk page) that 101kb is small enough for this article. I respectfully disagree, based upon my reading of Wikipedia:Article size. I would prefer that changes be based upon consensus, so please keep the dialog here where other editors are likely to follow it. It's clear to me that the article simply must be pared down significantly, and I would like to find consensus on what sections would benefit most from this clipping. --otherlleft (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I say condense the section, with the option of creating a separate article for more in-depth coverage. –thedemonhog talkedits 14:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the rancor

My first wikidrama - I made some good-faith edits and someone trashed me anonymously on my talk page. I'm perfectly willing to go along with a consensus, but one generally reaches that by logging in and discussing it on the article's talk page.--otherlleft (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Official Music on Heroes

I am a bit perturbed because every time i add something about music that was featured on Heroes a certain (un named musician and a few others ) comes and "undo's" it. I can prove that Catlow was on Heroes and it was an official selection by NBC!! Why do people keep taking it down? The selection was made by the shows producers and was composed by the shows official composers Wendy Melvoin and Lisa Coleman-so what is the issue?? Anyone? Thanks for helping us out :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananarchymusic (talkcontribs) 03:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Part of your text duplicates existing material; the rest is no notable. That is why others have been removing it. --Ckatzchatspy 03:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What text is duplicated? I checked and their is no duplication. I removed the link to my friend Lisa Coleman's (Heroes Composer) music website and significantly shortened the existing post. When you say "not notable" can you please state what you are saying more clearly. I have not seen people say it was "not notable' what does this mean please? In yoor opinion what is "not notable"? Bananarchymusic (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I am wondering at this post above: "I'm perfectly willing to go along with a consensus, but one generally reaches that by logging in and discussing it on the article's talk page" I am agreeing with this and do not think you should be the only one to decide what is notable with reference to NBC's heroes TV Program..Bananarchymusic (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Your text reads:

"On September 22nd, 2008 the third season of Heroes was kicked off. The season started with a special one hour 'clip show' countdown that was broadcast right before the two season premiere episodes were aired.The Canadian Indie band Catlow had songs selected off their debut album titled "Kiss The World" on the season premiere clip show. The band Catlow has a web page at for more detailed information on the band and their music."

/The clip show is mentioned in the "Season Three" section. There is no reason to single out Catlow out of all the music the show has used, and there is no reason to add their web site. --Ckatzchatspy 04:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Writen Really Well

Whoever the people who wrote this page are, nice work. Its just about featured article quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC) AGREE...-- (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Narration for season 3

Can someone please rewatch the episodes and place the narration provided by Sendhil Ramamurthy (Mohinder) in the episode pages like we've done for the past two seasons? Thanks. dposse (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

How to handle Nikki and Tracy?

What do we do about these two? The only argument for them being the same is their appearance (and the actress but don't make me bring up Eddie Murphy). I think that, for the time being, unless we can come up with a better reason they should be separate since we can establish that they have distinct powers and as far as we've seen it's easier to think they are twins than Nikki somehow got from a blown-up building in New Orleans to upstate New York (while acquiring a new power) while her son was outside the building. The writers could do it but it'd be one heck of a stretch. Padillah (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Then again, two Peters exist in the same time and place during the premiere... point being, unless we have something to prove it is a different character altogether, we should keep them together. (This also gives "real-world priority to the listing, as it groups by actor rather than by character.) --Ckatzchatspy 19:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

However, She is different because she has ice which niki didnt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggonix (talkcontribs) 00:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

To Go Along With This Suggestion

In the section where it talks about the characters, it talks about Isaac Mendez who had died in either season 1 or 2. (I can't remember which.) Which brings me to this question. How can we "re-word" the Niki section? Here is why I ask... If I'm not mistaken it was Jessica who had the super strength not Niki. Now maybe I'm wrong about that, but I still think that Jessica should at least be mentioned in that section. Even though Isaac and she had died, he was talked about in that section. Now maybe I have no clue what I'm talking about, and if so please inform me; but that is what I feel. Thanks and Happy Editing! ⊥m93 (TALK) 19:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Now. I do believe/agree with Padillah. They, even though the possible relation, have different powers. Therefore, I agree that they should be separate. Maybe in the same cell, but with separate descriptions/summaries. Thanks and Happy Editing! ⊥m93 (TALK) 19:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I suugest we represent it as it is. 'In the third season, 'actress' portrays Tracy Strauss, a character presented as unconnected to Niki/Jessica. When confronted by a reporter's suspicions, and Nathan's suggestions, that she is Niki Saunders, she denies it. She demonstrates a freezing power by accidentally freezing and killing the reporter pursuing the connection. When it comes out that she's Niki and Jessica's lost triplet, separated by the company, we can explain it then, just like once Lady Petrelli admits Sylar and Peter are fraternal twins, we can include that. This is a season of siblings on opposite sides, LOL. ThuranX (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I see what your saying. But how do we mention Jessica? Even if she isn't related or even the same person, she still was the one who had the super strength if I'm not mistaken. Even if Tracy and Niki are two different people that look alike, Jessica was still a half of Niki (sort of, but you get what I mean). How do you suppose we mention Jessica. Thanks and Happy Editing! ⊥m93 (TALK) 20:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
What? Who cares about jessica? She's part of Niki's write-up. ALi Larter has played one schizoid character, Niki Saunders, AKA Jesica Saunders, and now plays a new character, Tracy Strauss, who has no apparent connection to the other two. Write it up that way. Keep the Niki/Jessica thing compartmentalized away from Tracy, until, like I said ,the 'lost triplet' thing is established. ThuranX (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I was only asking the opinion of others and what they thought about mentioning her. I understand what you are saying anout Tracy and I agree with you. I was only asking what others had thought. And the "Who cares about Jessica?" comment... For one I do. And I'm sure I'm not the only one, leaving you out of that group seeing as how you don't. But that is beside the point. I don't care if Jessica is dead. So is Issac M., but he was mentioned. And even if she is dead, she was a hero/villain for a little bit. Thanks and Happy Editing! ⊥m93 (TALK) 21:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I think what ThuranX means by "Who cares about Jessica" is that Jessica was never a real person. Speculation regarding the powers aside Jessica was shown, beyond doubt, to be an alternate personality of Nikki. She is mentioned as such in Nikki's article - done. It is hard enough proving the notability of these characters and the fact that they deserve their own articles, to try and justify an article about a personality splinter would be a strech even for an inclusionist like me. Padillah (talk)

And it looks like Tracy and Nikki are related somehow. Awesome. (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, after this last episode (Season 3 Ep. 3 counting the premiere night as 2 episodes) it really seems that Tracy is NOT the same person as Nikki. Zimmerman seemed to know several people who looked like her/them. Applejuicefool (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It is probably safe if we wait until next week when we get more details on the Nikki/Tracy connection. Lets not waste time speculating. Any unverified info on the topic will be the best bet is to wait until Monday! Also, please remember that this is not an idle forum for Heroes chat and gossip. Thier are plenty of fan sites that offer services and programs for heroes fans who wish to chat with other heroes fans about the events within the series. Happy hunting! I hope you find a fan forum that meets your chatting needs. Lets just not do it here.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 03:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

They are clones. Yay! I was wondering when they would send in the clones. ;) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree to wait and see about Tracy vs. Niki but I must object to Jessica being treated as a person. She was indisputably a psychological manifestation and was in no way real. She should not be regarded nor represented as real. Just because Niki's personality didn't have the rage to access the super-strength doesn't mean she didn't have that power. In fact, they demonstrated that she did near the end. Mention of Jessica as anything other than a personality splinter needs to go. Padillah (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean putting Jessica as a whole person as herself. I don't think that she was "important" enough. I was merely just asking for ideas on this topic. But since I have recently had issues with my computer; I will not be able to be online for a while at a time. Therefore, I will drop this subject. That is unless there comes a time for it to be brought up again. Thanks and Happy Editing! ⊥m93 (TALK) 20:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Indisputably? That doesn't seem the right word to ever use with Heroes. While we haven't had any evidence yet that Jessica is more than a psychological construct in Nikki's brain, we just don't know if such evidence will be forthcoming. I agree that she shouldn't be treated as a separate person at this point, but I can see scenarios which could play out in which she would be proven to be (or have been) a real person. All I'm saying is, don't get it locked in yet, mentally, that Jessica isn't a real person. Applejuicefool (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm using too few references to too many different people. That Jessica (as Niki's sister) was a real person is pretty indisputable. Niki's adoptive father has had conversations with Niki and D.L. has talked about her - The sister was a real person. As for the "Jessica" that was a splinter personality of Niki, you are right. It may seem cut and dried right now but if they tried hard enough they could make her be a real person. We do have out-universe references that state she is not, they even admit to changing Niki's power from multiplicity to strength and giving her a split-personality. But in-universe is never guaranteed. Padillah (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The Formula

Where should we cover the formula? IMO the season 3 synopsis section of the main article, The Company (Heroes) and Mythology of Heroes would all be suitable locations, I'd prefer The Company. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It should probably be covered in all three with a more detailed description in either the mythology or Company article (in the long run, the Company article should probably be merged into the mythology article or the Company-related information should be better summarized in the mythology article with more extensive coverage in the Company article). –thedemonhog talkedits 02:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article Status

Is it reasonable to strive to FA status for an article about an ongoing TV series? Even if not, I think this could be one at some point if it is kept concise. WP:FA? indicates that article size is a criterion upon which articles are based, so as we develop summaries for more and more seasons we will have to make them shorter and shorter, depending upon related articles, if we want this article to maintain the focus necessary for that goal.--otherlleft (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, other in-progress television shows have obtained the bronze star. –thedemonhog talkedits 23:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly's "Five Ways to Fix Heroes"

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already, but here is,,20235213,00.html?cnn=yes WhisperToMe (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

show to add to the "Shows that referenced Heroes" section (or not)

I just got my hands on the last 6 eps of Robot Chicken and there's a Heroes skit in one of them. It could be added to the "shows that referenced Heroes" section, but I notice that says "SOME shows that have referenced Heroes" so it's not meant to be a complete list. I leave it up to the regulars to decide if it should be added or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

iTunes as a reference?

Does anyone know how to site iTunes as a reference? In my last edit I lost a reference to the issue with iTunes and NBC, but wasn't able to replace it with a link showing that Heroes is there. Algr (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Pseudo-documentary Loose Change?

I'm no fan of the film, but pseudo-documentary refers to mock documentaries, not documentaries people happen not to like. It's clearly NPOV. (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "pseudo" is wrong, but I think some kind of qualification is appropriate. Or is the link to the "loose change" article enough? I'll pull "pseudo" for now. Algr (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Overview section

I haven't been here for a while, so I removed the section and replaced the info back into the lead. Has consensus been established for it to be shortened? From what I see here, I am guessing no. And for the firing of the two producers, where should that be placed? There is no crew section, so I moved it to the lead for now. / 06:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of not having been here, where has the casting section gone? I understand that the article was getting too long, but not all the information has been moved to the individual character pages. Was the information intentionally removed? / 06:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That lead is WAY too long, and misses the point of what an intro is for. There is a whole paragraph about internet tie ins that belongs in the multimedia section. (Practically every Sci fi show has an internet presence.) And season ratings breakdowns are far too much minute for an intro. It should say something like "The series premiered to outstanding ratings, which leveled off in the second season. Move the number lists to the relevant season sections. Algr (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference error

There appears to be an error in the first paragraph where there is no open ref tag. Feltcap (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Episode List?

There is no list of or link to a list of episodes of Heroes on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually there's at least two links to the list of episodes. In the infobox, just after the number of episodes it has a link to the list of them, and just after the Season Synopis area theres a link to List of Heroes Episodes. I think we're covered. -- WORMMЯOW  14:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Cast list

I think it's high time the cast list got updated, you have mixed actors from Seasons 1 and 2, none from season 3.

There aren't any new cast members for season 3, other than the upgraded Cristine Rose. Ophois (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I still feel cast members should be cut down, as an example, Erik King is no longer featured on the cast list page for Dexter, after departing in Season 2.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
That's an issue to be corrected in the Dexter article, not an error here. The standard is to treat a series as a complete work, rather than being "in the moment". --Ckatzchatspy 00:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


I've noticed that some of the superpowers on the show aren't really superpowers. Yes, most of them are, but having a photographic memory doesn't make you superhuman. Plenty of people have a photographic memory, myself included, so technically, the character Charlie Andrews isn't superhuman. Nintendoman01 talk, 8:34, 16 December 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Well, there's three ways to answer that. Firstly, the concept of Heroes is that they are ordinary people with extraordinary abilities - where evolution is taking us to the next step in our life. It doesn't have to be big steps, but could be just improving on something we already have. Like the woman with very good hearing, or the one who can tell if you a person is lying... Secondly, I think Charlie Andrews is a character who not only remembers everything she sees or hears, but also learns these facts.
Thirdly and most importantly, this isn't a forum for discussing Heroes but rather a place to discuss improvements to the Heroes (TV series) page, even though I love getting involved in speculation and am a terrible wikipedian for doing so...-- WORMMЯOW  08:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Not to continue to fan the flames but the article you linked to presents the entire thing as bunk with one guy quoted as saying the entire concept was a "unfounded myth". All due respect, and understand this is coming from someone that regards themselves as having a near-Eidetic memory, we don't have truly Eidetic memories. They are not nearly so common as you present, in fact they are so uncommon most doctors think they don't exist at all. Padillah (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Eclipse of what by whom?

The eclipse that is shown is clearly an eclipse with the moon passing between the sun and the Earth. I think the best way to note this is to call it a Solar eclipse and provide the link. What is the rationale behind changing it to a lunar eclipse? Padillah (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I must apologize to Edoctor, he is absolutely right. The logo shows, as best as I can work out the syzygy of the sun, the Earth, and the camera. It may not be an eclipse of anything (except the camera). And it's definitely not a solar eclipse. Sorry. Padillah (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Powers of Sylar, Peter, and Arthur.

I think these would be best represented as a simple "Power Mimicry" with different methods. Much like the Precognition of Angela and Isaac are differentiated by the method. Especially given the revelation that Sylar can gain powers without killing. Opinions? Padillah (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Way too many unknown details at play about all three for us to say anything definitive. When unsure of what to say, saying nothing is the best option. :) EVula // talk // // 17:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the third season

How come there is no mention of criticism several fans have in regards to the way the current season has been handled?

sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ) , and "Several Fans" doesn't sound very notable at all (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
It is notable, but thus far, no one has taken the time to add a paragraph with citations to the article. –thedemonhog talkedits 01:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times has a lengthy article on the third season's problems and falling ratings. The latter point should be addressed in the Wiki article - it gives too much emphasis on the strong viewership of the original season, but doesn't give due weight to the falling ratings since in the past 2 seasons. --Madchester (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Did any TV show ever get past it's first season without fan criticism? Algr (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. But most shows don't take a deep plunge in quality after it's first season. (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


A lot of the same information is repeated in Season Two and Season Three ("Generation" and "Villains") (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Luke


An editor wants to add several genres to the infobox. I have moved them here so that we can discuss and reach consensus. The genres added are "adventure" and "thriller". Personally, I'm not convinced we need them, or if they even apply (especially "thriller"). Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 03:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently the editor has restored them again. Anyway, what is the feeling about these? --Ckatzchatspy 03:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Heroes is definitely not a thriller and I would not call it an adventure either. –thedemonhog talkedits 05:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cast list

It's high time the cast list got updated, Cabrera and Cyress haven't been in it since season 1, and Dana Davis was only in season 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to read through the talk page archives to see past discussions regarding this subject. In a nutshell, the cast list reflects all main characters, not just the current ones. This is common to all television series articles, and is also reflected in how articles are written as an overview rather than "in the moment". Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 23:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Look at Dexter though, Erik King was removed from the cast list season 3 onwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If so, that would be an error as the cast list should reflect all cast members throughout the series history. --Ckatzchatspy 23:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Season 3/4 vs. Volume 3/4

How should Volume 4 be classified? In the previous seasons/volumes each volume lasted one full season. NBC billed the 2009 premiere of Volume 4: Fugitives as being the "season premiere." Likewise, the Volume 3: Villains finale was billed as the "season finale" through advertisements. Despite this, Volume 4 is constantly referred to as the '2nd half' of season 3. What is the official stance on this? Who gets the final 'official' word, NBC or Tim Kring? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Season 3 comprises volumes 3 and 4. It is unorthodox for a scripted show to air two seasons in one September through May television season. –thedemonhog talkedits 01:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
What are you basing this on? If NBC advertises it as a "season premiere" doesn't that mean that it's a new season? Will we have to wait for the DVD release to know the exact classification? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC) –thedemonhog talkedits 07:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Remember that NBC has a promotions department that is separate from the production of Heroes itself. Probably a simple, overlooked mistake. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 10:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
If this discussion is about whether the synopsis section should have one subsection per season or one subsection per volume, I am in favour of splitting it by volume, as each volume is a separate plot arc. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Even so, season 4 is completely different from season 3. There are new characters and a whole different plot. So I also support splitting volumes 3 and 4.
Khanhngo (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


What you people think of adding ratings for each volume to the ratings section. At the moment it's just seasons, but i think it would be a good idea to do volumes aswell. What you think? IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think volumes is an important concept for the show, however, the ratings should be broken down by season, because that is how television series are ranked...not by volume. --ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 04:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah true IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

More Ratings

I think we should add the ratings for each episode to the main page under a smaller heading of 'weekly ratings'

Because they do it on other pages such as Chuck and 90210. As well as many Australian TV Shows. I think its a good idea and gives a good gist on how things are going. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

They are already at List of Heroes episodes. –thedemonhog talkedits 05:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Dead linked at not with good side by side comparison like Chuck IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Heroes Wiki template

Given the events surrounding Template:Heroes Wiki yesterday, I have temporarily removed the link from the characters articles and opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heroes#Heroes Wiki, part two. Please weigh in and voice your opinion. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 10:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Character articles are getting WAY out of hand.

Guys, we've got to come to some sort of agreement on the length and breadth of the character articles. They are, almost every one, editorial-laden, in-universe, fan-cruft. This is from a recent addition to Claire Bennet:

In "1961," Angela is finally revealing to Claire, Noah, and her sons Nathan and Peter the secrets that have haunted her for over 4 decades.

What kind of smarmy crap is that? Great for TV Guide, not for what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. My problem is if I start trimming I know in my heart I'm just gonna get reverted "because it's important to the character". Is there anyone that agrees we need to start trimming? Or am I gonna have to fight tooth and nail for every edit? Padillah (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But until the episode airs, that's all we have to go on. Ophois (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This may come as a shock but "1961" has aired already. And I'm almost positive most of the first three volumes are past. You can't convince me that the 56k that makes up the Claire Bennet article is from unaired episodes. And if that's "all we have to go on" then we wait for the episode to air. We don't need to scoop anybody. Not at the expense of turning into a fan forum. Padillah (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I misinterpreted what you said. Yeah, stuff from future episodes shouldn't be included, as they haven't aired. But if something is wrong with it once it airs, just rewrite it. Ophois (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't even try. 2 years ago, I tried to put some common sense regarding how Heroes articles are written, but my thoughts were rejected (see I gave up, but I still consider them to be terrible. I still believe an article ought to be the description of someone/something and not the story of it, especially for Wikipedia articles that should be in encyclopedic format. -- Lyverbe (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to give it a shotin user space and see what I can come up with. I agree it should be a description of the character, not a run-down of what they've done. It can be supported by the TV show but not a regurge of it. Padillah (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I considered doing the same for Claire but I never got round to it! Perhaps I'll come back to it now the season is over. -- WORMMЯOW  08:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, Lyverbe is right, the first thing we need to decide on is a character template. I've even been thinking about using a FA real life person and then expanding it a little to encapsulate the fictional part. But I'm not sure who to use. Padillah (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of using someone like Pauline Fowler. She's a soap character who has had long drawn out stories based over 21 years, and that article isn't insanely long. What's more, it's a featured article, so it should work well as a template. What do you think?-- WORMMЯOW  13:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
That's good, I think we can use that not only for the format of the pages but for the level of content. After 21 years her article is 69k long. After three years (really two and a half because of the strike) Claire's is ~56k. I'm going to see what I can get done in the next few days. Thanks for the template. Padillah (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Glad I could help. Of course, Pauline's actually 21 years, average of 3 times per week all year round, works out over 3000 episodes. compare that to Claire's 60 or so. Still, now the season is over, we might have a chance to tidy up the articles. -- WORMMЯOW  07:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

erh;title;2&om_act=convert&om_clk=news interesting... short volumes? IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Heroes (TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article clearly goes against a couple of criteria for GA including, improperly cited refs, tags used in a correct manner, and a subject without a known end point.--(NGG) 00:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I recently fixed up some excess wording and cruft in the season overview sections. In that case, the introductions were a bit repetitive. Also, I do notice some badly formatted citations. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Volume 5

The person who wrote the little section about the volume 5 intro states that the character we see played by Ali Larter is Tracy Strauss, but is there any evidence of that? It could be Tracy, but it could also be yet another seperate character. Another result of the experiment that created Tracy and Nikki, maybe. I personally think that's more likely, but we can't be sure either way.

MrTrent9484 (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's Tracy. The writers said she would return later this season, and have stated Barbara won't be on the show for a long time. Ophois (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. MrTrent9484 (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Ophois, Can you please provide a source for the writer's statement to this effect? I understand you have stated this, but you still need to provide a source. There was no dialog in the scene to prove that she was Tracy Strauss. If we were going by physical looks alone, she could just as easily been Nikki Sanders. A source, such as an interview, is needed to back up your statement.Erpbridge (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
here Ophois (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I think its only fair to speculate of sorts. Mr trent is right, anyway did the credits say anything?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
And here Ophois (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing in that one but them saying Tracy will be in Vol 4 and Barbera will not be in vol 4. They say nothing about vol 5. The first ref is more compelling but I think this is a far as we can go on that ref. It scares me into thinking people are going to be trying to redefine Tracy's power based on this now and that's just not supported. Padillah (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, well, sorry. It just seemed quite obvious to me. Anyway, I think reanimating Tracy and giving her a new ability will be as bad as having a "sci-fi ghetto storytelling element with clones". Edzinsh (talk)11:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Well technically its not a new power bearing in mind that ice is usually directly related to water, anyway its not likely to be Barbara as the writers are not even sure wether they want to bring her into the series period never mind when...BrotherDarksoul (talk)
Just as an update, Ali Larter had confirmed that the character was indeed Tracy Struss on Jimmy Fallon before the finale aired. Ali Larter on Jimmy FallonMarkoPolo3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC).
Thanks for the news, and welcome. Any chance of sourcing it to somewhere that meets the sourcing requirements? ("Heroestheseries" doesn't fit, but there must be a news source out there that can confirm this.) Thanks again. --Ckatzchatspy 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The source is in the video on the page, not the page itself. I assume information coming from Ali Larter herself is acceptable? I'll try and find this posted on a more credible source though. UPDATE: heres the video on hulu as well- (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the updated link; I've added it back in. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 18:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

HAS ANYONE SEEN this?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the article too long?

thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think ALL the articles are too long. We've got four years of stuff in most of these articles. There's still detail of the case scene between Claire and Sylar... from season one! In Claire's article. All the character articles have gotten out of hand. This article could be trimmed a bit but those need to be hacked on with an ax. Padillah (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah it is way to long. We should make a lot more of the headings and sub-headings expandable. And we should have a link to --Trevorrrj (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Writers Strike in Season Two

Ok I get there was a writer's strike and people are not happy about it but, please don't hit me over the head with it. Well thats what jumped out at me when I read this section. How about we change the wording a little. I think mentioning it twice in section would be enough. Blackash (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

UK First Season

The first season of Heroes did not premier on Sci-fi UK, it, like Season Two and Three, aired on BBC two. The BBC Two site even has it's own Season 1 Guide: [2]. On another note, Season 4 is to be called "Redemption". [3] (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No it did premiere on Sci-Fi before the BBC. It was repeated on BBC Two & Three after the run had finished but every series should now premiere on the BBC first. Could do with better reference to the Sci-Fi run, and mention of the repeat run to avoid these mistakes?? SWatsi (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, I see, then I agree with the mention of the repeat. (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I've improved this section. The BBC Two/Three showings are not "repeats", as they are the first showings on terrestrial and main-stream digital respectively. U-Mos (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Season 1

In the section of season one it states that characters gradually learn about their "abilities". However true this might be I suggest to point out that the presence of the eclipse be part of it. You see it in the title sequence before every episode and on the front cover of the DVD. (English Version, I cannot say what overseas have) Its not fair to overlook it. Andrewkowalc (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Heroes wiki

This link reappeared after being gone for quite some time; I removed it, and it was restored with a description that it is the "official" wiki. Two things: one, the site is linked from the main page of NBC's Heroes site. Per WP:EL, we don't need to link to it since the link is thus easily accessible from our existing link to NBC. Two, even if we do use a direct link, it should not be described as the official site since NBC's link distinctly groups it under "other" instead of with their "official" sites. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 18:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's a stretch to call it the "official" wiki. Besides, Heroes Wiki's authority comes from its stability and activity, not from NBC's stamp of approval. Also, I think everyone's in agreement that the broken link to the old, abandoned wiki isn't helpful. But I'm not familiar with the external link policy you're referring to, that Heroes Wiki, which I believe is worth an external link based on its own authority, should not be linked because one of the other linked sites also links to it. I see something about minimizing links to interlinked official websites, but again, I don't feel Heroes Wiki is an official website, but something quite independent. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Heroes Wiki is "partnered" by NBC; they provide the primary funding, and as such is their main endorsement. Now, most articles which have a Wikia wiki, have a direct link to them on the main subject page. This should not be any different. Are we favoring Wikia over other wikis now? Also, the fact that the Heroes page already links to the wiki is quite weak. We link to other wiki's as a service to our readers who want more in-depth information. WP:EL is also quite clear about other wikis under What not to link; Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked. Is short, the Heroes Wiki should be linked. EdokterTalk 15:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not a question that it "should" be linked, really more if there is consensus to link it. (We are under no obligation to provide links to external sites.) The fact that it is listed on NBC's main page is actually an incentive not to link it, as our goal is to reduce links, not increase them. There's also been some talk of tightening up on the Wikia links. As I said, it is about consensus; the link was actually removed some time ago, IIRC, and there's not been a push to restore it until this discussion started, so... --Ckatzchatspy 18:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
True, a reduction in links often improves an article, especially if the links are unhelpful (as the broken link to the abandoned wiki was). In this case, though, a link was replaced, resulting in article improvement but maintaining the same number of links. As for consensus, continuing developments on Heroes Wiki (expansion and official recognition) might be contributing to a consensus shift. I'd be in favor of linking Heroes Wiki, and perhaps trimming the link to the ex-producer's blog instead. The pictures on that blog are nice, but what flavor milkshake he had at the shoot is information I can do without. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


I changed the intro to say this is a "fantasy" rather than "science fiction" series. Even by the very relaxed standards of TV, the "abilities" of most of the "heroes" are simply magical and flat-out impossible scientifically. Just blathering about genetics every now and then (and they seem to have given up even mentioning that any more) is not sufficient to make it "science fiction".Barsoomian (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Uhm... "scientifically impossible" is the very defenition of science-fiction. It does fit. EdokterTalk 14:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
And "Scientifically possible" is the very definition of "Hard Science-Fiction". Heroes is not SF, whatever the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfpoulet (talkcontribs) 15:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
"scientifically impossible is the very definition of science-fiction" No, that's "the very definition of fantasy". Which was my point. Heroes isn't hard, soft or even marshmallow science fiction, It's fantasy. They don't even try to explain how any of these "powers" work. They just happen. If it's SF you have to at least do some handwaving to make the events plausible. If you include Heroes as SF, better go over to Pushing Daisies and change that too (currently it's described as "Fantasy")-- as that was actually more logical in its worldview. Barsoomian (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
If I had to define SF with only two words, they would be scientifically possible or even scientifically plausible, which are both far from impossible. --Dekker451 (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Throughout the series, you see dr. Suresh study the phenomenon of these special powers using his expertise in genetic evolution. In The 4400, the powers were explained as a result of the influence of the future human kind. If this isn't science-fiction, then what is? They both are science-fiction, and practically every website classifies them as such. EdokterTalk 10:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
There are numerous comic book stories that feature scientists studying superhuman phenomena. Does that mean those stories should be categorized as SF? --Dekker451 (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Where then do you draw the line between SF and Fantasy? Arguably, Heroes is neither, it's "superhero fiction". But it certainly is not science fiction. Suresh never explains anything that I noticed. You might as well say that Harry Potter is SF because Snape and Dumbledore "use their expertise" to study magic. As for 4400, I've never seen it, have no idea why you think it's relevant. I suppose that indicates you couldn't find anything approaching a SCIENTIFIC explanation in Heroes itself. Again, that was my point. And why did you revert my punctuation correction? Are you going to revert everything I do just on principle now? Barsoomian (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no line; they overlap. SciFi Channel show a lot fantasy series if going by your defenition. However, you are the only one asserting the series is fantasy, and you were obejected. That usually means you need to build consensus before you can make the change again. Failing to do so constitutes edit warring. The spelling was simply overlooked. EdokterTalk 13:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Why should a 24-hour cable channel be considered a definitive and/or authoritative source? --Dekker451 (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can see, you are the only one who has said it's "Science Fiction". Three people have voiced an opinion, and 2 voted for fantasy. Three people mean nothing, but that's all we have here.

And the channel that used to be called "SciFi" gave up the name because they were hardly showing any. Is professioanl wrestling science fiction? And why can you revert me and assert that if I do the same, I'm edit warring? It takes two to "war". Given your assertion that ""scientifically impossible" is the very defenition of science-fiction" it seems you have no knowledge of the subject beyond what you see on "SyFy". And "the spelling was overlooked". So I was right, you are just blindly reverting without reading what you are changing. Since I'm sure you will just revert anything I do, I'll leave this for the moment. I don't have the stomach for dealing with you now.Barsoomian (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

of course wrestling is sci-fi. It posits the existence of a parallel reality in which sweaty men in spandex grappling each other is macho and popular, and not a poorly scripted soap opera. ASH1977LAW (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Opinions: Fantasy/SF?

Please anyone else who has an opinion weigh in -- preferably with some explanation, not just yea or nay. Barsoomian (talk)

I agree with Edokter. It's science fiction. According to the The American Heritage Dictionary, sci-fi is a type of fantasy. Thus, it science fiction would be listed, as it is more specific. Ophois (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, I know Wikipedia can't be used as a source, but take a look at the articles you would be linking them to. What Wikipedia says about science fiction applies perfectly to Heroes. Ophois (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
No, it does not. I have cited my sources. Barsoomian (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
And about your comments that the series does not give scientific explanations for the powers... they did, at least in the early seasons. Though not much anymore. Ophois (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, science fiction is a kind of fantasy. It is a SUBSET of fantasy, a kind of fantasy that tries to make the events it describes plausible in a scientific framework. Heroes does not do that. So it's Fantasy; but not SF. See these collected definitions of science fiction by respected SF authors and critics.

Kingsley Amis: Science Fiction is that class of prose narrative treating of a situation that could not arise in the world we know, but which is hypothesized on the basis of some innovation in science or technology, or pseudo-technology, whether human or extra-terrestrial in origin.

It's not a subset of fantasy but rather, they are both subsets of the speculative fiction genre.
SF doesn't "try" to be scientifically plausible. It either is or it isn't. If it is it's SF. If it isn't it's fantasy. Arguably "science fantasy" is an overlap, a bridging or mixing of the genres, but in my experience most people aren't familiar with that term even if they're aware of SF and fantasy. For that matter it Heroes isn't science fantasy either, but I thought I'd mention it anyway given the broader discourse regarding genres.
Either way, as has already been pointed out, it would be better categorized as superhero fiction.
[5] --Dekker451 (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There are many others, but most relevantly to this question: John W. Campbell, Jr.: The major distinction between fantasy and science fiction is, simply, that science fiction uses one, or a very, very few new postulates, and develops the rigidly consistent logical consequences of these limited postulates. Fantasy makes its rules as it goes along...The basic nature of fantasy is "The only rule is, make up a new rule any time you need one!" The basic rule of science fiction is "Set up a basic proposition--then develop its consistent, logical consequences." As for "scientific explanations for the powers": What? When? Please cite if you can. I've seen every episode (I don't hate the show, I just don't consider it SF), they never do, except to say that the powers are inherited, then later they can be induced with a potion. Then some can transfer them with a touch. There is no consistency or logic. (Other than typical comic book retcon logic.) No explanation of how these amazing, all different, powers that arise. Certainly no explanation of how particular powers can work, breaking physical laws with abandon. Harry Potter's Muggles and magical people is the same basic idea, though more logical.Barsoomian (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The entire first season is dedicated to explaining it through Mohinder. The abilities are gained through human evolution. Ophois (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Except evolution does not work like that, in science. It's just invoking the word "evolution" with no relation to the real world. Thus, it's fantasy. And beyond that, that does not explain how people can fly, heal from mortal wounds instantaneously, create nuclear explosions, etc, etc. Biology doesn't grant such powers. Anyway, it is acknowledged and even celebrated that "Heroes" is in the tradition of the comic book superhero story. Looking at probably the most famous of these (on TV), [Adventures of Superman (TV series)] I see it is categorised in Wikipedia as "Genre: Fantasy, Action, Adventure, Drama". This despite the "scientific" handwaving of Krypton, red/yellow suns, etc. Superman is acknowledged as fantasy. How is Heroes not? 16:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Barsoomian (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This explains the source of their powers. Ophois (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. It just boils down to "evolution". "Let's take human flight, as an example. One can imagine the ability to fly would enhance a person's chance of survival AND be attractive to the opposite sex." Sure, flying and these other powers would be useful. It DOES NOT EXPLAIN how they work. IF superpowers like these could arise OF COURSE evolution would favour them. Superman, like Nathan, flies by willpower alone. One major reason he is fantasy.Barsoomian (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Just because the show says there is an explanation and claims to offer one does not make it true. The excerpts from the fictional book don't really explain anything. They only make fantastic claims and a vague allusion to natural selection. Far from explaining "every little detail", they don't even bother with any explanation of how the powers work.
It's just the dramatic source for modern dei ex machina. --Dekker451 (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, early versions of Superman were based in science, not fantasy, but that's a different subject. Heroes does not have to give a specific explanation for every power. The explanation of every power is given and is based in science, which makes it science fiction. Ophois (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
(I know the 1930s Superman could just "leap" high, which was reasonable. We're talking about the 1950s Superman of the first TV series and later, who could fly faster than light on a whim.) I've asked several times for the "explanation" of these powers. You say they are given: be specific. How does Nathan's flight work, for example? We've become blase about this because of Superman and other such shows, but it remains totally impossible and inexplicable. "Evolution" does not explain levitation, invisibility, etc, etc. If they are inherently genetic (the original idea, silly as it is)it does not explain how a "power" can be transferred by touch. Barsoomian (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Which fits exactly with Kingsley Amis's definition of scifi that you provided. Ophois (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Not if you read the entire sentence. What is the "innovation in technology"? People are just born with magical powers, same as Harry Potter. Not even a radioactive spider bite or similar superhero origin myth.Barsoomian (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
"...a situation that could not arise in the world we know, but which is hypothesized on the basis of some innovation in science or technology, or pseudo-technology, whether human or extra-terrestrial in origin." Fits perfectly. Ophois (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I ask again: What innovation was hypothesized? I read the "Activating Evolution" page, nothing about innovations. Nothing about causes at all. If I missed something, please elucidate. Barsoomian (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Evolution in humans to the extent that it gives them superhuman abilities.Ophois (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
That's gibberish. HOW? Barsoomian (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
How do you explain someone naturally able to fly without wings, or someone who lives for ever young, or someone able to spark lightning from his hands? That is no science. It's fantasy. Heroes is Fantasy. Heroes is 0% SF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfpoulet (talkcontribs) 11:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Adam Monroe's ability is explained within the show. Otherwise, please read the above discussion, as it explains how it is science. Ophois (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't say "it's explained" without citing an explanation. If you're implying that "evolution" is an explanation, rubbish. "Evolution" does not explain how Peter and Sylar, etc can simply "absorb" powers from other heroes by touch, in a second. If they are genetic (which is what "evolution" means), than that can't happen. Even aside from the completely impossible nature of many "powers" -- transforming a body into water and back, flying ... It's purely magical, wish fulfilment. Fantasy. Barsoomian (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
No, it's explained as human evolution. Science fiction does not have to give every little detail on how something works. It just has to be based in science, which the series is. So I assume that you would consider something such as War of the Worlds to be "fantasy" because the technoglical aspects of the aliens' ray guns is not fully explained? Ophois (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't argue with a straw man. I never claimed that. But in WotW heat rays were a reasonable extrapolation of then current technology. Technology gives us many "powers" other creatures have never, and will never "evolve" in billions of years of evolution. Barsoomian (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
And as I've said before, multiple powers are explained. Adam Monroe can live forever because his cells regenerate at a rapid enough rate, and Peter can absorb powers because his genetic code resequences itself to mimic other powered beings (and the writers based this in current science, as this has been observed in organisms in the real world). Ophois (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
@Ophois: These "explanations" you talk about are not based on any science; if they were you would be able to provide sources supporting your claim! Heroes is not Science-Fiction. It's Magic. It's Fantasy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
"his genetic code resequences itself"? When was this ever stated in the show? Is this your own retcon, in which case it doesn't count. In any case, to "resequence" every cell in his body in ONE SECOND? (Really, just magic.) And "observed in organisms in the real world"? Fascinating, please cite these. Barsoomian (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
That explains why he is biologically immortal, but not how.
I'm curious about the real world organisms to which you refer. What species are they? --Dekker451 (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Barsoomian, "science fiction" and "fantasy" are, as your thread title suggest, matters of opinion. What the general public would call science fiction is going to differ very much from what a bunch of SF authors would call science fiction. Really, it just doesn't matter. Leave it as it is, even if it's wrong. (And don't forget, wikipedia isn't about right or wrong, it is about verifiable sources). If you have a bunch of good quality verifiable reliable sources calling it fantasy then you've probably got a good point. Until then, let it go. (And I'm someoen who agrees that it's fantasy, not sci fi. But most people don't call anything fantasy unless it has orks and wizards and hobbits and spells). Scrotal3838 (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If they're only "matters of opinion", why list them here as if they were biological species identifiers? Since people insist on a category, at least make an attempt to use the terms correctly. And though I've been steamrollered here and my arguments ignored, I will certainly not concede. As for "verifiable sources", that's why I listed definitions by actual, real, science fiction authors, the people who invented and define the genre. Which were just blown off. I don't really care whether it's called "fantasy", but whatever it is it isn't SF. If you do agree with me, stand up and be counted. That would change the odds from 2:1 to 2:2, instead of just reverting and dismissing me they would have to address the question. (Yeah, it's a trivial issue , but you took the time to write here.)Barsoomian (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is ignoring your claims. You provided sources with definitions, and those definitions fit with Heroes, as has been explained to you. Ophois (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
You ARE ignoring all the definitions of science fiction I provided, sourced from real science fiction writers. How much more authoritative can you be? And that you keep repeating "It's all explained" without giving any specifics. That does not constitute an explanation. If you're going to repeat "evolution": the word is invoked, but doesn't make a bit of sense. Look up a definition of evolution: "The basis of evolution is the genes that are passed on from generation to generation" : which is negated in many developments -- transfer of "powers" by touch, for a start. Barsoomian (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Heroes is sci-fi. Bad sci-fi. (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Heroes is Sci-Fi. Scientific plausible is a criterion for Hard Sci-Fi. They gave a not plausible explanation(Evolution(not that Evolution is not plausible, just the results shown in this series)). If Heroes isn’t Sci-Fi because there is no Scientific plausible explanation, than Star Wars isn’t Sci-Fi either(no Scientific plausible explanation for Jedi Powers) and Star Wars is undisputed Sci-Fi. -- (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No, "evolution" can explain how an attribute is passed down from generation to generation. It does not explain how it arose. And in "Heroes" powers are transmitted by touch, by a serum, by eating brains, etc... there is no vaguely internally consistent explanation or theory for "powers" given. As I said earlier, even Harry Potter is more logical. And as for "Star Wars", well , there is the midichlorians for the Force. And silly as that is, it seems to be consistent. They don't keep making up new "Forces", you can't steal or acquire a Jedi's "Force" by touching them. And anyway, that's the WP:Other stuff exists argument. If that's valid, see Adventures of Superman (TV series) which is "Fantasy" without any apparent dissent. "Heroes" is very much in the comic book superhero genre. Better to describe it as that rather than either fantasy or SF, but if one or the other, it IS fantasy. Not that anyone is actually paying attention to definitions here, the Heroes fans somehow feel offended that I even raise the question. Barsoomian (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
In my experience Star Wars is more often described as a space opera than SF, but even aside from that it's far from undisputed.
If scientific plausibility is only a criterion for "hard" SF and not "soft" SF, then what distinguishes the latter from fantasy? Never mind an overlap; without distinct characteristics they would be utterly synonymous. --Dekker451 (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Heroes, Avatar, StarWars, Doctor Who, Stargate, and Star Trek. They are all examples of fantasy shows with scientific trappings that when closely examined prove to be not plausible given our current understanding of how the universe works. To claim that any show which is not hard sci-fi is not sci-fi is simply ridiculous. Sci-Fi is different from fantasy in that a scientific explanation is assumed for abilities and inventions, even if not fully explained (warp drive, the tardis, stargates, the force, "mutant" super-powers, etc), as opposed to a mystical explanation for the fantastic. The line between fantasy and soft sci-fi is a blurry one, but Heroes never indicates that abilities have an arcane mystical, magical, or divine cause. All characters in Heroes who study the abilities seem to beleive in a scientific genetic cause for the superhuman abilities shown in the show. ASH1977LAW (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of Heroes Wiki links

Refer to the List of Heroes episodes Talk Page to weigh in on the discussion.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by SnakeChess5 (talkcontribs) 05:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Critical response for second half of broadcast history

Although this is seems to happen a lot for series on WP, it seems odd to limit the coverage of critical response to the first two seasons. The abysmal reviews of the latter seasons (e.g., on seem equally notable, though fewer reviews are available from high-profile sources due to decreased promotion by NBC and lack of interest. (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Season 5?

I don't have sufficient info to do it myself, but given that Season 5 just ended a few weeks ago, it looks to me like that section needs a serious revision, since it still talks about Season 5 as a future possibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dspitzle (talkcontribs) 01:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That was season 4 that ended. -- I need a name (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, Volume 5 ended, not season 5.--PJDEP (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

While not a valid link for reference...the Maxim article about Hayden Panettiere seems to indicate that Season 5 is in the plans and will debut Wednesday, September 22, 2010. (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Josef Adalian for New York Magazine's Vulture column is reporting that Heroes has most likely been cancelled: [6]. NBC's upfront on Monday will determine the show's future. --- Dralwik|Have a Chat 02:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but it looks like someone needs to change the first line from "Heroes is..." to "Heroes was...". I'd put the nail in the coffin myself but I haven't made ten edits yet. Jrvlasman (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Dekker451 (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone reversed my revision. Why? --Dekker451 (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Because Heroes is still "an American science fiction fantasy television drama series created by Tim Kring, which premiered on NBC on September 25, 2006". - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
If that's true then why would they not reply first to the suggestion of such an edit, instead of reversing the edit later? --Dekker451 (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Not everyone reads everything on the talk page. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
True, but when the reversion is made by someone who obviously has, then there's no excuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekker451 (talkcontribs) 13:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
In general, that might be true. However, with respect to the "is/was" issue, you have to remember that it comes up over, and over, and over again, every time a series is cancelled or ceases production. The lead sentence gets changed to "was" by well-meaning editors, then fixed, then changed to "was", fixed again, etc. We add inline notes explaining why the tense does not change, note it in edit summaries, even post on user talk pages, yet it keeps happening. On a site this size, with so many different articles to maintain, it is not always practical (or even possible) to read through article talk pages when correcting such a simple (and common) mistake. --Ckatzchatspy 18:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, then someone should explain that to Ophois, because he seems to be under the impression that the series has not been cancelled. --Dekker451 (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The series is and will always be a series regardless of cancellation status. The "is/was" issue has already been explained to you twice by two editors. If you continue to change it, I will report you for disruptive editing. Ωphois 15:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I only changed it once. And no it hasn't been explained at all, but I've still left it the way it is, so why are you making threats? --Dekker451 (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, please do report me. I want this to be moderated. --Dekker451 (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You're right. I think I was confusing you with another user. Anyways, Ckatz and Josh both explained it in this section, and both times your responses implied you understood the concept. However, you must have either feigned understanding or are just trying to be difficult since you are continuing. And harassing people on their talk pages is not helping your case. Ωphois 14:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Continuing with what? I understand just fine It's clearly you who don't understand since you continue to insist there should be no end date for the series when it has obviously ended.
And that's a lie. I didn't harass anyone anywhere. --Dekker451 (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I was merely following the community consensus, and if you noticed I have since conceded on that topic. I was referring to the "is/was" debate. And I know you know that every edit is stored, so I don't see why you are denying it when I can easily restore your comments on my talk page. Ωphois 15:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You can't have consensus without discussion, so how do you explain "following community consensus" when no one except you has claimed that this article is about some hypothetical future mini-series? And if you were following consensus then why would you concede?
I know every edit is stored. So what? I denied harassing anyone (which I have not done). I didn't deny making a comment on your talk page. Not that it has anything to do with this article. --Dekker451 (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The article's history, maybe? Ωphois 11:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Anyways, you've made it clear that it is pointless trying to discuss this with you, so adios. Ωphois 11:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
If you think I've done something wrong then report me. Otherwise what's pointless is you making empty threats. --Dekker451 (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Theme Music - Influence of Richard Band

I was surprised to see that the section on music does not mention the (transparently obvious) influence of cult horror film composer/arranger/conductor Richard Band. The theme music in particular is highly reminiscent of Band's work for the "Re-Animator" trilogy and and "From Beyond". I am not a musician, music critic or musicologist and would therefore value the opinion of someone better qualified than I before I attempt an edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)