Talk:Heroes (American TV series)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

(formerly from archive 11)

Wizard Universe interviews

Wizard Universe is publishing a series of Q&A interviews with the cast and writers over the next few days. The first Q&A with Jack Coleman was published today. These interviews may be good sources for references and additional article information. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 00:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The second interview, specifically the second page may or might not offer something. With regard Wizard stated: "One of Sylar’s powers was his ability to freeze someone, which implies that he killed someone who had that power." Writer Aron Coleite did not deny this, but wasn't really give much chance to respond to it directly, either. Not an encyclopedia grade slam donk, but something. Furthermore, question related to the Haitian was given the round about response that "he has a lot of control." Said response wasn't really a good answer for the question, which was basically "the Haitian’s powers are a little confusing", but at least said something concrete. Overall, I think we're probably not gonna get much. Jack Coleman gives great interviews from I've read, but otherwise, I'm not hopeful. Thanks for mentioning it, though. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The writers did confirm Sylar can freeze people in this interview. They also confirmed his memory will be getting better as a result of absorbing Charlie's power. --Stabbey 15:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

2007 Updates to the Page

This is kinda stubbed. I'm going to edit this while I'm at work. I added the Season 2 Premiere info. I think Canada has a 2007 Season 2 Premiere. Anyone care to quote a website? Imper1um 18:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand this – the List of Heroes episodes lists all episodes, also those from 22 January on, for season 1. Also, Fallout didn't really seem like a real end of a season to me ... Can anyone enlighten me? --hangy 19:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason for that is because it isn't Season 2 thats being released, but part 2 of Season 1. Jacobshaven3 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Updated Chapter 1. I should have the entire episode Synopsis done tonite at 8:00 PM EST. Please add here if you see any problems with the page. Thanks --Imper1um 20:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a complete article about Genesis - no need to have the information twice ... --hangy 20:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The article isn't stubbey regarding the episode summaries, it's just condensed the current information, anything extra isn't really required, in my opinion. though other areas of the article may require more information, I'm not too sure. Jacobshaven3 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"Heroes" redirect

Hey. I just thought I'd give a heads up that the redirect page of Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been fought over a bit. The issue, put simply, is whether it should redirect to Heroes (TV series) or Hero (disambiguation). You can see that page's talk for more details. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I toook a look, and the page was protected. I'd further say thanks to Ace for actually reverting the changes back. They were set to aim here, and Ace instead fixed the page to go back to the Hero Disambig. This edit helps show that the regular page editors are not fanboy zealots, but instead continue to be good contributors to Wikipedia who don't place excess value on our own pages. Seems like Ace's promise is in effect still. ThuranX 01:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel it should go to this page. Its the same as an issue I had with the Random Disambig page. It was changed so that looking up random would lead to the page on randomness, rather than the Random disambig page. If someone types in something, I think the benefit of the doubt should go with the word they type in rather than attempting to define what they "meant" WookMuff 01:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. I think it's right to redirect to Hero(disambig). There are many connotations to Heroes as a word. Giving hte widest sset of options is far better. Disambig pages function as a sort of index feature, and should be used whenever there's reasonable conflict. It's one click and a few lines to read as it is. Further, the page has been protected against redirecting here. You'd have to go appeal a decision at WP:RGM to get it redirected, apparently. I can tell you, though, that it's clear that two regular editors of this page will support the current disambiguation page redirect over going to a straight redirect. ThuranX 02:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys, could you take it to Talk:Heroes? Gees. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 06:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just weighing in :) I am done. WookMuff 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

International Broadcasters

Please add Philippines to the list of Asian Countries that will be premiering Heroes on January 31, 2007.

This is based from http://www.startv.com/schedule/daily.html?country=PH&feed=1c9b46a17677079c691a9b0af26bc683&year=2007&month=1&day=31 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.90.128.28 (talk • contribs) 03:16, January 18, 2007

Info on "the symbol"

There is an instance of the "symbol" in the show which is not mentioned in the article. In episode 8, at 17m 10s the symbol is visible in the cycling code of Chandra Suresh's computer. souldancer (59.167.18.26 03:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

hey everyone idk if this has been mentioned before but on NBC's myspace video section they have a video that says what the symbol means. here the link [1] ... since the episode with this info hasen't aired i'm unsure on hw to go about putting this info on the page ... im new. --Greg yeah 11:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Does being "new" cover the typing issues, too? >.> Seriously, though, this isn't a general explanation of the symbol. Notice that there arec subtle differences between the Japanese version and the regular version. For one, the lines on the "S" don't usually go through to each side. No, this is a specialize symbol with a specialized meaning. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 14:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly civil, ACS. It would be like me pointing out that you aren't new and made just as many typos. WookMuff 19:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Even so, I think it's much to early to compare the two symbols with that detail. There are so many ways to write letters in the English language, it's sickening. So, just because this version is slightly different from another version, doesn't mean it's not the same symbol. But, I'm not saying it is the same symbol either. It's too early to go either way. The similarity, though, should point that they are referring to the same thing. Time will tell. PureSoldier 20:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, for the most part. I'm not saying this a separate symbol so much as it has a distinct, separate meaning. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If it differs in meaning, I can understand that. Similar to the Nazi's taking the Swastika from other cultures, thus changing it's meaning. However, the Haitian, for example, could know the meaning behind what's on the sword, altered it for purely aesthetics value, and using it the same way. We don't know enough about why the Haitian (who, I believe is the only one that has the symbol intentionally) has the necklace, to make the assumption that it's a different meaning. Once we know why the Haitian has it, then we can make those comparisons. PureSoldier 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I love the concept that the symbol means different thing to different characters, before “Godsend” I thought it was part of a DNA strand double helix in 2D. Matthew 22:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That’s what I figured was the case … and in other news I’ll start typing everything in Word first, then spell check it, and finally paste it here to ensure that there are no spelling or grammar errors ^_^ --Greg yeah 21:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the ticket, Greg. See, Wook? All in the spirit of selg improvement. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Good to note: based on the episode 'Godsend', the symbol is mentioned that it comes from the Japanese kanji 与 (yo), meaning award, gift, godsend etc. Shao-Yoshi

"yo" means "to give" (the kunyomi verb "ataeru") or "gift". It can only have a divine pretext if coupled with other characters that give it such. Neoyamaneko 17:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If that's really the case, you should cite a source to include that fact in the article. I don't really think it's that important, after all this is a work of fiction. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but the kanji you mentioned would be literal translation. Not to mention that dialects differ on translation. So, their dialect could mean exactly what was said on the show. PureSoldier 18:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, the line "On the hilt of Takezo Kensei's "samurai sword"." confused me; who is Takezo Kensei? I haven't heard of him and he's not on character page.

I can't find him online, except relating to heroes. He's a character in a story that is told to Hiro by his grandfather. I'm not sure if it's based in truth or not. He's not actually a character in Heroes. PureSoldier 13:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Takezo Kensei is a 16th-century samurai, probably fictional and created for the series. His full name appears on a museum plaque in the episode "Godsend," on the display containing the replica of the katana Hiro is seeking. In the subsequent subtitles translating Hiro's dialogue, the name is spelled Kensai, though Hiro is clearly saying "Kensei" each time.

I agree that the bare reference to Takezo Kensei is confusing. I'll try to rewrite the line, but it could easily become too verbose, which is probably why no one has rewritten it yet. --Stormraven 19:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

People, for the last time, a japanese variant's supposed meaning does not apply to every version. Let's not misinform readers. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"last time"??? LOLZERZ!!! you know that more IPs will get into it. ThuranX 23:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd be more worried about registered users. *Looks at Dp.* Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How exactly is this misinfomation? Why is it wrong to put what Ando said in Godsend? dposse 01:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Does everything have to be in a new topic for you? If so, it's gonna gett qwuite cluttery...fast. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You're probably sick of hearing this, but you should try to be more civil. Now, would you mind answering the question? dposse 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me. I find your lack of attention a bit trying. "Seriously, though, this isn't a general explanation of the symbol. Notice that there arec subtle differences between the Japanese version and the regular version. For one, the lines on the "S" don't usually go through to each side. No, this is a specialize symbol with a specialized meaning. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 14:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)," "People, for the last time, a japanese variant's supposed meaning does not apply to every version. Let's not misinform readers. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)" Now, if repeating myself has made my point clear, I humbly ask that you revert your own edits. Civil enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace Class Shadow (talk • contribs)

This article is about a tv show. Even though it might be true that the Japanese characters mean something else, it's meaningless. Ando Masahashi, a Japanese character, stated it in the show last night. As of the episode Godsend, it means "great talent" and "godsend" in the show. This is in the Heroes fictional universe. They explained what the symbol means in their universe. It is very important to put that infomation in this article, because that is what the writers of Heroes want us to know about their "symbol". This is why i put "revealed by Ando Masahashi" because i wanted to make clear that this revealed as a truth in the series canon universe. If you wish to reword my edit, fine. But please do not remove it. If you wish to add what the Japanese characters really mean, put it as Trivia with a source. dposse 03:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to risk stepping into the middle of this to offer a suggestion. You both have valid points. As it currently reads, the article implies that Ando's is the only explanation of the symbol. ("In episode 12 (Godsend), the symbol is revealed by Ando Masahashi to be a combination of two Japanese characters: 才 (sai) meaning 'great talent' and 与 (yo) meaning 'Godsend'.") This is perhaps, as Ace Class Shadow insists, too absolute and therefore potentially misleading.

However, I think dposse has a good point in that the information deserves to be included in the article. I recommend a revision of the sentence so that it isn't so absolute. How about if we make it read: "In episode 12 (Godsend), the symbol is described by Ando Masahashi as a combination of two Japanese characters: 才 (sai) meaning 'great talent' and 与 (yo) meaning 'Godsend.'" --Stormraven 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried at least once to change data so it's not absolute and only refers to the Japanese variation. It wasn't accepted. I can be a little harsh and hardheaded sometimes, but I'm willing compromise in general. However, I can't say the same for several others. Will say this, though: DP, shut up with regard to "reliable sources" already. None of us are trying to force OR into articles, and I'm tired of you implying that we are. If anything, verifibility is that issue I'm raising with you. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I see. When i link to wiki guidelines, it's an attack. When everyone else does it, its perfectly fine. Just relax, Ace Class Shadow. I wasn't trying to imply anything. I just want to make sure, like you seem to be complaining about, that our infomation is correct. We're talking about another language here. It's easy to make mistakes with things like that, especially a difficult to translate language like Japanese. Ok? dposse 04:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You're doing it all the time. Case in pont, the Zach thread(s) above. But that's okay, because, like I said, you're being a little hypocritical. Tell me, how can you verify that what applies to one symbol applies to another? Let's compare... the symbol with the sword hilt symbol. Now, they look similar. No one's denying that, but are they the same? Do the they have exactly the same meaning? Not verifiably, no. I'll give you another comparison. The sun and the moon. Do they have the same meaning just because they have similar shapes? How about an "I" and a lower case l? Hell, way not add a pipe ( | ) in the mix? Simply put, it's not enough that they look alike. Sure, it's enough to qualify as a version of the symbol, but to say that it's meaning is abosule would be misinforming the public. Wikipedia has standards and a reputation, ya know. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous ACS. Your examples are completely on the wrong track. A better example would have been something like the letter a and the anarchy symbol, something that is basically the same but with stylistic differences. As far as I can see, however, that is just an artistic and cultural representation of the same symbol. Is the symbol in the pool from episode 2 not the same because it was very rough and distorted? The symbol isn't the sun and the moon, anyway. It is two symbols which appear to have great significance within the FICTIONAL world of the television show. The writers, or at least the prop and set design people, have made it clear that the symbol is of some importance, and that the symbol on the sword is the symbol on Jessica's back is the symbol on the Haitians necklace is the symbol on Chandra's book is, as I said, the symbol shown on the pool. WookMuff 07:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a helix as well. It is the same sybol almost as used in the online game, and tey call it a helix. Makes sense to me especially with the DNA, and molecules!Kylefsu32 08:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Kyle

Update template at top of article

Dposse, I am confused as to why the {{update}} tag was added to the top of the article. Is there something specific in the article that is not up-to-date (prior to tonight's episode airing)? - fmmarianicolon | Talk 20:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Minus that "hiatus" statement—which was inherently wrong and poorly worded anyway—I can't see anytthing. Thus, I removed it. Tags shouldn't be used willy nilly. The article seems in good shape. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You should've asked this on my personal talk page. Anyway, i was unsure about what to do with the "hiatus" statement. I felt that simply deleting it was wrong. So, i left the update template there. Perhaps that wasn't very bold of me, i know. Sorry. dposse 00:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an article issue. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a comment directed towards me, though. dposse 01:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigils

I hate the term, it's just a fancy word for symbols and it doesn't really apply to the mark or the eclipse. While "symbols" would be an improvement, I think something more general like "recurring elements" might be better. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "Sigils" is a poor choice for a section name. If anyone can come up with any better suggestions, then please post them here. dposse 00:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I incorporated the term sigils before the addition of the eclipse section. I used it, as Minderbinder says, as a synonym for symbols, which is no longer appropriate because eclipses are neither sigils nor symbols. I tried "Recurring images," but ThuranX didn't like that, apparently favoring a very technical definition of the term images. I still think "Recurring images" is fitting since these are all visual elements. But I'm not deeply invested in the article, so I'll pretty much leave it up to all of you to hash it out. --Stormraven 03:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, SYMBOLS is the ideal, because sigils are marks with a single specific meaning, whereas symbols evokes both symbolism, logos, and sigils. Until we know the story-purpose of each, and it's significances, we should keep it as symbols. Further, your tone above is unneeded. mocking me for being careful with the article by suggesting I'm 'very technical' isn't needed. ThuranX 04:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No mockery intended, ThuranX. Apologies if it came across that way. --Stormraven 14:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "the mark" is neither a symbol nor a sigil... it's a scar from a pair of incisions (as per the latest two issues of the Heroes comic). It's only notable because there are two cuts right next to each other instead of just one. --ΨΦorg 08:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the eclipse isn't a symbol either. Recurring elements? Recurring visuals? Recurring stuff? I'd settle for symbols over sigils, but I think we can do better. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Recurring Imagery, perhaps. Though ThuranX doesn't like Images, imagery is possibly the most correct term, in so far as combining aspects of both visuals and symbolism. Of course, thats just how it seems to me. I have no issue with Images. An image only means a still picture in computer terms, to my knowledge. WookMuff 19:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with imagery. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

External link

At the moment there's a link at the bottom of the article that claims to be "Heroes NBC Forum", but is actually just a link to a fan forum. Should this be there? --Inexplicability 15:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Also i have a fan site - www.moonoversun.com, which doesnt get a say. Maybe you could start a seperate section for fan sites under external links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim rishi (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:SPAM - articles do not contain spam, kthx. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Heroes 2.0

Hey. Ace here. Okay, I know I haven't exactly been spreading the love lately, but I've got a new project that I think we all can agree on. Admittedly, this was first touched upon last year by EnsRedShirt. However, we all agreed it was way too early.; I even questioned the point. Still, a lot has changed since then, including my opinion of Wikipedia:WikiProjects in general. Between a second season being a lock, the overall success of show—including it's recent slim victory over 24[2]—and the number of editors already working together on this, I think it's time. WikiProject Heroes, specifically its talk page, could help ease some of the traffic this TP has gotten as the unofficial collaberation page. Other TV series projects should indicate that its only a matter of time before one is made. And, looking at that project page, we already have a lot to manage/work with. So, what do you say, guys? Either way, we'll going to be working together for a while. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm warming to the idea, but is the project going to be more then a banner? will we actually as a project collaborate to make articles on Heroes better? :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, it's just a WikiProject. Don't make a friggin existential question out of it! Heh. But yeah, that was the idear. But now that you mention banners, those might be a good way to get people's attention. The support exists, I just need to point it in the right direction. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested and will definitely get involved if it does go ahead. Jacobshaven3 23:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly my point ACS, It's just another WikiProject, I support it but I'd like to be part of something bigger and better, something that doesn't just sit there gathering members, i.e. Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost which I created and hasn't done anything. So yea I think before creation we should go in there with ideas/plans :-) - please don't take my messages as trying to make things difficult, I'm not, I like the idea, but I'm just expressing my opinions. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with your opinions, Matthew. I've also reached my bark/bite quota for today. I do think this project will do more than "sit there". For one, the open tasks section is a good place to highlight a problem/improvable article. I'm excited. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, Ace. The Wikiproject might actually help to calm this arguments between the editors here and also help to make sure this tv shows article is up to scratch. dposse 01:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

May I propose the SGS as the pic for the banner/tag? :) --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 06:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Great, guys. Good to see the positive feedback. Don't forget to sign the "members" list. Nothing says "valid" like visible support. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of the term 'Imagery' instead of 'Sigil' , 'Symbol', and so on.

These are symbols, signs, and sigils. They are single icons, in the graphical element sense. They are not Imagery. In the visual arts, Imagery specifically refers to connotations in the image united. For example, if when Peter fell from the ledge fighting Sylar, he had landed on his back, arms extended laterally, legs together or slightly bent in the same direction at the knee, but extending downward, we would have 'Crucifixion imagery', esp. as referential to his 'sacrifice' and Near-Death Experience. If after Hiro's jump back to the 'present', he had landed with a hand clutched over his chest, and his other hand held aloft, we might have a prophetic imagery, of a man holding the truth close and holding it aloft for others. However, we have what are essentially graphic design elements. They are little different from typographical characters, or corporate logos. As such, they re logos, symbols, sigils, and so on. Runes, even. They are not, however, Imagery. I hope this clarifies the situation. ThuranX 03:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It clarifies your flawed opinion. An eclipse is not a rune, a surgical scar is not a sigil. WookMuff 03:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

ELement better defines, as they...are. PureSoldier 03:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I made it pretty clear. I've given a fairly solid explanation of the difference between Imagery and a symbol, sigil, character, rune, or whatever synonym for scribed insignia you prefer. A further clarification: = is a character in most fontsets. The Pieta, Anunciation, and Adoration are not. What we see in the show are NOT imagery. They are symbols. As for my opinion being flawed, your attitude should be curtailed fast. You're pulling for ridiculous technicalities. 'Now it's a scar, and that's a Naturally occuring phenomena, not imagery, so YOU are wrong.' ThuranX 04:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"your attitude should be curtailed fast. You're pulling for ridiculous technicalities." Yeah, sure, ok. WookMuff 04:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I support my idea of using "Element" by this definition: "a component or constituent of a whole or one of the parts into which a whole may be resolved by analysis" Which seems to define what you're trying to. PureSoldier 04:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah ok, i didn't get what you meant in your previous comment, but i agree that elements is a perfectly viable word, i just feel that it should be noted they are visual elements that (for two of them at least) possibly contain deeper meanings. WookMuff 04:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that after a few minutes...thought it'd better be clear than not.PureSoldier 04:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I was good with 'Elements', and left it while fixing other things in tht section. I Just decided it was necessarry to make clear my objections to the wholely erroneous use of 'Imagery', to avoid it being reinserted. ThuranX 04:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think elements is the best choice, but I'd like to point out that "imagery" in my dictionary is "visual symbolism" which seems perfectly appropriate for all three. And a scar or eclipse isn't a sigil by any stretch of the imagination. And Ace, what's up with removing the explanation of the symbol given by the show? --Milo H Minderbinder 13:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In-Sink-Erator

The note about Emerson's lawsuit is an interesting tidbit -- I think a small note should be added that inserting body parts into a garbage disposal unit *will* almost certainly result in bodily harm. Emerson apparently just doesn't like to have this displayed on T.V. I wouldn't want anyone to interpret Emerson's claim as a suggestion it's safe to reach into a garbage disposal unit (although it would serve Emerson right to get a large injury claim leveled against them due to their IMHO frivilous lawsuit).

The article is apparently protected so I can't add it myself, but basically I'd like to see a note added to the effect of: The In-sink-erator user manual makes it very clear (bottom of page 6) that you should not reach into the waste disposal unit, and that you should disconnect power from the unit when doing maintenance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejtttje (talk • contribs) 08:17, January 29, 2007

There would be two or three problems with adding that. First off, it would probably be considered original research, and may be a non-neutral point of view, adding information in order to support a position rather than to neutrally state the facts. Second, Wikipedia already disclaims that it is providing legal or medical advice, so to add another one here would be redundant. --ΨΦorg 22:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Characters section

The first reference to Simone calls her 'Isaac's ex-girlfriend' before Isaac is mentioned. Can someone fix the order of the character list so this isn't as awkward. Thanks -- Matt--64.42.209.81 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In the newest episode (that just aired mon 1/29), Clair's mother was introduced, as well as micah's power's details. If anyone could fill in on micah's page, as well as adding clair's mother, that would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.135.173.212 (talk • contribs) 04:13, January 30, 2007

This is not a place for requesting general edits to Heroes-lated articles. Furthermore, the episode just aired. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 07:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor point, but there is a rather goofy debate on whether it is preferable/proper to wikilink Jack and Leonard's names once, or more than once, in this section. True, there is a general Wiki guideline about avoiding redundant links, but the format of this section (some brief commentary followed by a listing) makes it awkward to link Jack and Leonard's names in the former but not the latter, especially since all of the other actors' names are linked in the list. -- Tim (Littlebluedog 16:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia articles improperly reproduced on NBC's Heroes wiki

• Not sure if anyone's interested, but it looks like the episode summaries over at NBC's Heroes wiki have been lifted right from Wikipedia with no attribution. Plus their wiki doesn't appear to say under what license they're presenting the material on the site either. See their episode articles and compare to the episode articles here. Parts of their Sylar article also appear to have been lifted from here as well. Looking around the site it looks like a bunch of other articles are also using content right from Wikipedia without attribution. :( --Inexplicability 05:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If its a wiki also, why not fix the citing yourself (and link back to their respective articles)? Marcsin 19:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't have an account there and the account creation didn't seem to work for me last time I tried. Also even citing the material may not be sufficient depending on the license they're claiming for their material. I dont know details about the GFDL so I figured I'd let others here more familiar with it see if something needed to be done. --Inexplicability 21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no create-account button. That's annoying. You can only log in if you already have an account. Avt tor 22:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The NBC Heroes Wiki shares its accounts with the NBC Forum. Just create a forum account and you can use that username/pass for their wiki. --Joshtek 01:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Plot

Does anyone else agree that the Plot section is badly written and is not an actual plot summary? It doesnt actually tell anyone the plot, instead it talks about the tag-lines and phrases like:'kicks off the second arc', and such. I am in Australia and have only seen the first episode so far... and this plot summary on here isnt clear to me, so wouldnt be clear to anyone who hasnt ever seen Heroes. This is an encyclopedia, remember? Not a clique fan-site where it's to be expected that everyone knows what it's all about. Regards, Matt

(from Wikipedia:Talk page) Please sign and date your contributions on all talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). When you save the page, those four tildes will be converted into a signature and time. The "Post a comment" feature (the small "+" sign on a separate tab, at the top of a talk page) allows you to start a new section without needing to edit the whole page. --Diluvial 01:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Would anyone mind adding the picture format of the show to the infobox, or mind if I did it? I'm not exactly sure how to source it other than I've watched the broadcast over the air, and it's 1080i (as most of NBC's shows seem to be). Uagent 06:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

License plate on Sulu's Car

When getting into the car at the end of the Feb. 5th episode, the license plate on Sulu's Car reads NCC 1701. This is the number of the Original ENTERPRISE. 12.197.58.243 03:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Devin Hennessy

I caught that also, that is a great tribute! :) --Mjrmtg 03:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Should update the "where does it air?" list...SciFi U.S. has dropped the show.

The 7PM Friday showings of HEROES have been pulled from SciFi's schedule. It won't be on this week (Feb. 9th), and there's nothing currently listed up thru the end of March. That means the listing showing what channel the show airs in what country is no longer correct for the United States. One airing per week now. Mondays on NBC only. *sigh* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.65.1 (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

The Sci FI channel in America takes multi-month breaks, does it not? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Sci-Fi isn't the primary network, so it can't really "drop" a show that's on the NBC schedule. As long as it's on NBC, it will be on Sci-Fi from time to time. Even Sci-Fi's most important programs like Stargate, Battlestar Galactica, and Doctor Who fade on and off Sci-Fi's schedule from time to time, but this doesn't mean they are cancelled. Assuming that editors wish to update Wikipedia on a weekly basis, it would be possible to add and delete entries as information became available. When it comes back (as it certainly will), it might be on a different day. Avt tor 15:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Niki/Jessica Sanders needs added to the list of characters that have the sigil for "Godsend"

The latest episode has it on her right after she finds out about she's leaving prison. Nightwkr 20:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's already there, has been for months, but thank you. If you reread the section, you should see it. ThuranX 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

(formerly from archive 12)

Zach's Homosexuality

Why is there still no mention on the decision to "de-gay" the character of Zach. Omitting this information from the article is clearly POV. It is "important" given that the producers felt the need to make a public statement about the issue. To ignore is clearly one-sided. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.64.214 (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Why haven't you added it yourself? We, as editors, aren't here at another's beck and call. Maybe we are busy. Maybe it would be in the best interests to input the information yourself, since you seem to have a good knowledge of it. I may get around to doing it later in the week though.Jacobshaven3 04:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence or source that says that he was homosexual. His Myspace (which was created by the writers/creators) say that he is straight. Unless you can provide a source that states your claim, it cannot be added. As it is right now, it's perfectly sourced and NPOV. dposse 04:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do agree with the original poster, he/she is correct. His old myspace was unsure and there are interviews around stating he was going to be gay, but higher powers changed minds at the last minute due to conflicting reasons. (most say the actors agent forced them to change since he was leaving to be a part of the new terminator tv series). However it will take time finding evidence, which is why I haven't already done so. Jacobshaven3 04:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a WP:reliable source that says so, then go ahead. But lets do this encyclopedically, ok?dposse 04:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats the exact reason I've not added it yet. :-) Jacobshaven3 12:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Tim Kring made statements in an interview about having a gay character before the show aired, and made a followup comment after the controversy happened. The NBC synopsis of the "save the cheerleader" episode also described Zach coming out to Claire, but was changed afterwards. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is a mention of it on the List of characters in Heroes page, which I think is a better place for it considering it is about the writer's choices regarding a character, not about the series itself. --ΨΦorg 23:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Why haven't I added it myself? The article cannot be edited by newly registered users, so that's why. You may want to drop the attitude. Remember Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia:Civility. A reference to the issue is here [3] AND [4] 06:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.64.214 (talk • contribs) 00:48, January 20, 2007

As far as I'm aware, I was being civil, where is this attitude problem you speak of? If editing is that important to you, why don't you create an account and wait for 4 days until you can edit pages, you would have already been able to edit by now had you done that. I find it quite offensive to be ordered around as though my time and the others here are at your disposal, and that is quite uncivil. You could quite have easily noted which sources are necessary and asked, politely, to edit the information in. As I have already said before, I'll see what I can do, unfortunately, I can't do more than that.Jacobshaven3 10:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is what I've gotten so far, but I'm worried it's OR (though I've only used information from the listed sources) and too long for the subject matter (I've not even mentioned the controversy yet). Can someone trim this and fix it, before it goes into the article please? I'll carry on next time I get a chance. Jacobshaven3 12:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother. You still have this attitude. No one was asking you to quit your job and spend all your free time on adding a one sentence summary. I didn't realize it was a federal crime in asking. If you were civil, you could have said, leve the links, or wait a few days, but no, you rant and rave about "I'm not your slave, beck and call, add it yourself." I sense a trace of homophobia in your tone and I suggest you examine your own biases. The article can stay POV if it makes you happy. Great community you have here, very welcoming to new comers. Note the sarcasm. 203.87.64.214 04:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this reply of yours is distinctly uncivil. Although you've bandied the term around liberally in the past few days, Jake's done a perfectly acceptable job of helping you while being civil. You, on the other hand, are attacking him for not jumping and asking how high when you say 'jump'. I'd suggest you take a few days to cool off, realize that we aren't here to do for you what you could easily do for yourself. Furthere, there's been a great deal of talk about this here on the talk page. Please read it. Thank you. ThuranX 04:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ThuranX for the defense, I'd just like to add that, as an openly Bisexual wikipedian, I find being called homophobic incredibly narrow minded of you, and incredibly Uncivil. If you care to read the page you may notice that I've been promoting the addition of that information from the moment it was brought up. I just want to do it the correct, Wikipedian way, and as comprehensively as possible. Jacobshaven3 05:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality Controversy

During the first half of Season One of Heroes, the character Zach, was portrayed as an in the closet homosexual. Despite this never being outright stated, many subtle, and not so subtle comments were made throughout the series. In the opening episode "Genesis", Jackie Wilcox teases him about having an erection in the locker room, and in the episode "Homecoming", he is outright called the "gay-boy." This lead many to believe he was gay, especially when further on in the episode "Homecoming" Zach told Claire that he was "proud of who he was" and he tells her, regarding her power, "You've got to embrace your inner freak ... the only thing you'll regret is denying who you really are."

Further evidence of Zach's sexual orientation can be found on his [official myspace profile], which classifies his orientation as unsure, and said his favourite films included, "Rocky Horror, Priscilla Queen of the Desert, Hedwig and the Angry Inch, Velvet Goldmine, Withnail and I." All of which have homosexual main characters.

I've seen two of those films and enjoyed them thoroughly, and I'm fairly positive that I'm not gay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yincrash (talk • contribs)

However, controversy arose when NBC stated he was Heterosexual —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobshaven3 (talk • contribs)

We know all this already. It's already in his profile on List_of_characters_in_Heroes#Zach. However, all this supposed "evidence" is original research. This issue is dead. Zach was, as it says on his Myspace, "unsure". However, as NBC stated, he is straight. Just let it go. dposse 16:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

How is this OR? I said I hadn't finished yet. the above poster gave evidence that there is controversy there, and everything written above was rewritten from those sources. It's just as an important case, if not more important, than the Lawsuit against them, which has an entire section to itself. Why shouldn't it be seen as important? Why do you insist that one sentence should do? I'm starting to understand why the IP has been getting frustrated with the people here! Jacobshaven3 17:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Because there is no reason to add more. It's not a huge part to his character. So, there was some bullying by the cheerleader. So, he was confused with his sexual preferences. He's a male teenage high school student. All that is normal. We have provided a reliable source that states that there was confusion over his sexual prefernces, and that NBC released a statement clearing it up. You are just, if i may use a cliche, beating a dead horse. There is nothing more that can be said about this issue. dposse 17:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the situation. The situation isn't notable because he's gay, it's notable because the character was originally planned to be gay (which Kring himself said in an interview months ago), the show itself and materials like the myspace page foreshadowed that, but for some reason the character was changed to be straight. This caused an outcry from gay fans, which was reported in the press. I'm not sure what would be NOR about this, it has been documented by sources which include comments from Kring himself. In addition, the NBC website synopsis even said that the character came out in that episode, but the synopsis was changed. I definitely think the whole thing is notable (and not covered well by the character page), and definitely deserves more mention either in this article or the character article. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Three points...

• Notability: I would agree that it is notable because several media sources have asked the show's producer and writers about the change, including at the Television Critics Association winter press tour (one of the major press conferences for the networks) where Kring stated that Zach was originally intended to be gay. (Reference: Owen, Rob. (January 19, 2007) Tuned In: Can 'Heroes' continue to save the day for NBC? Pittburg Post-Gazette. Accessed on January 20, 2007.)
• Original Research: One cannot confirm that Zach was meant to be gay based on the aired show content. Although the cheerleaders teased him, Zach never stated to anyone that he was homosexual in the material that made it to air. One also cannot confirm that Zach was meant to be gay based on the official MySpace content. There are many straight and bisexual people who enjoy the same films with gay lead characters that Zach listed on his MySpace page. Even referencing Kring's pre-show Out.com interview is borderline original research because he states that he planned for a gay character but didn't mention specifically who it would be. So, up to this point I would concur with dposse that "Zach was intended to be gay" = original research. However, Kring has stated at the press tour specifically that Zach was intended to be gay. That statement is verifiable via the above reference, so now the topic is not completely original research.
• Location: The Emerson lawsuit is included on the main page because there's not a better Heroes article to include it with: the lawsuit affects the show and NBC / GE, not just the first episode. This issue deals specifically with the character of Zach, so it should be included in Zach's section of the character article.

- fmmarianicolon | Talk 19:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine. All i ask is that you don't try to pile one example after another and call it "fact". That's original research, and it's far from encyclopedic. This isn't a fan wiki where you can do those kinda things. Find reliable sources and verify this infomation that "the creators planned him to be gay" and not just wanted to create a character with a number of inside jokes. Otherwise, leave it out of the article. dposse 01:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yo. Easy up, D. We're all on the same side. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Fancy that, still no mention of his sexuality. I guess no one bothers with POV anymore. 02:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Zach's character section on List of characters in Heroes regarding this issue. For any further queries, please use the talk page there. Thank you in advance. Jacobshaven3 03:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If a person's sexuality doesn't matter then who cares if it's changed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Just a BRIEF comment regarding an earlier statement in this thread. fmmarianicolon implies that these articles can only site information from the actual aired episodes, and that anything else is original research. This is simply not true. when talking about the motivations and machinations behind the scenes, it is PERFECTLY reliable and verifiable to cite interviews with the author and other similar sources. To say that Krang has stated that Zach was supposed to have been gay, then to state that his orientation was changed mid-season is not OR, but to state as unequivocal fact that NBC forced the show's producers to change Zach's sexuality IS OR unless you can cite a published, reliable inside source that states it. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 21:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC) (wow, I guess that was not so brief, after all, huh?)

Actually, Zach's orientation was changed due to "tiny details" stemming from the fact the actor's management got worried that his portrayal of a gay character could cost him during his run with the ney Terminator series. Mrja84 17:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what has been widely speculated, but not surprisingly nobody involved is willing to go on the record as to the reasons for the change. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(Reply to BillW) I think you may have misread what I wrote, or I didn't communicate it well enough. I do not think that anything outside of the actual episodes is original research. Determining that Zach was gay because the cheerleaders teased him about his sexuality in the episodes was original research. Earlier in the season, Kring's interview with out.com about including a gay character was also borderline original research because he did not state in the interview that Zach would be that character. However, the creator confirmed Zach was to be gay at the winter press tour. The article about that tour is indeed reliable and verifiable. In conjunction with the tour article, the out.com article could now be used as reliable and verifiable. I hope that clears up any confusion. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 19:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Mark

Now that the mark has apparently been explained away as a surgical scar, does it really need to be on this page? I mean its no longer a mysterious and unusual occurance, and its certainly not a recurring element on par with the symbol or even the eclipse. How does everyone else feel about this? WookMuff 20:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel that it does belong on the page. It's a reaccuring element in the sense that it's a unexplaned piece of the Mr. Bennet/The Hatian puzzle. We now know the what, but we still don't know the why. dposse 01:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It still is mysterious, we don't know why it was used, all we know is what made it. PureSoldier 02:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are both missing my point, but thats due to my point being hazy at best. It just doesn't feel right. I dunno. I will accept your rationales unless i can say exactly what i mean. WookMuff 02:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is needed, because new viewers may watch or read a novel with Ted/Matt and believe it something. By displaying the data here we are tell new viewers that is was explained and it is important to the show. We have at the very least 3 characters (Matt, Ted, Hana) who are hunting down H.R.G. for answers. The mark is apart of their story. Mrja84 17:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Tattoo

Could someone provide a source on Niki only having a tattoo while "Jessica"? I assume we've seen her without it since she's had a couple scenes with skimpy clothes, but a specific cite of an episode or scene would be great. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If memory serves, the pilot? and didn't we see it appear at some point, like fade in? sorry i can't be more help but I am fairly certain she is without it in the pilot ep and that, say in the ep where jessica seduces nathan, we see it appear WookMuff 20:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In Hiros when Niki wakes up after her night with Nathan the tattoo is gone. However we have not seen Niki's shoulder since then to confirm if it is now there permanently for either personality.Marcsin | ^Talk 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In Fallout (Heroes) the tattoo is there when Niki is initially running through the forest, then disappears after she had fallen after seeing the blood on D.L.'s jacket, the idea being that she was Jessica running after D.L., then slips back into Niki after realizing what she'd done. Uagent 10:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Uagent's example's the first one I thought of as well. It switches back and forth from there to not there as she switches from Niki to Jessica and back. ThuranX 12:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In Run! Jessica is using make-up to cover the tattoo. This seems to explain that the tattoo is only there when Jessica is dominating their body, and that others can only tell the difference through this tattoo. It seems like proof that only Jessica, not Nikki, has the tattoo. Bio 19:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Goofs

When set in India, Heroes uses many different ethnic groups to represent indians. In the background can be seen Oriental Asians, Afro Americans, Japanese, Arabs and even what appears to be a Samoan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.129.62 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps to some people all non white people look the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.201.117.59 (talk • contribs)

Why presume such a thing? In today's multicultural society, I would think it odd NOT to have a mix of ethnicities. (If you were to shoot a scene in a North American city, you certainly wouldn't populate the set just with Caucasians.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Another goof I noticed is that in Peter's vision, when he is in a coma, he sees the invisible man. He can't see the invisible man unless he himself is invisible, yet the other characters in the vision can see him. How does that work? Bio 19:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The invisible man may not be invisible at the time of the explosion, they haven't said if he is invisible all the time or if can turn it off and on at will. IG-2000 21:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe peter picked up the Haitian's power somewhere along the way, although that's complete speculation.

Hold on, didn't "Claude" state that "You wake up in the morning and it's on, you can't turn it off"? Substatic 19:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It would make sense if Claude's power was removed in some form. Bio 22:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that we haven't seen if his invisibility affects mechanical or electronic means of detection (cameras, motion sensors, laser tripwires). Perhaps his invisibility is more of a mental or organic ability, only affecting humans? Substatic 20:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In The Fix, the van that Hiro and Ando are kidnapped in changes about halfway through to a taller van that looks like it has been in a chase (there are weeds on the front and the back door is swinging open). The van then changes back to the original style when they are stopping to meet "The Big Boss." --Snicker^|¥°^€| 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible editing gaffe: In "Distractions", during the scene where Sylar telekinetically smashes the phone against the wall of the Bennets' home, there's a cut. Right before the cut, you see him move his index finger on the hand holding the glass (shot from in front of Sylar). The second time is shot from just behind the glass and is the one where the phone actually flies out of Sandra's hand. Both the finger flicks appear to be identical. How's that for anal retentiveness? Substatic 19:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got one... maybe not a goof, but it is some trivia. In the episode of Heroes where Hiro's father comes to retrieve him from his quest, the license plate of the black car his father leaves in is NCC-1701, the registration number of the USS Enterprise in the original series of Star Trek. Could someone add a trivia section to the article and put some of that sort of stuff in it? Commandodan 22:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Any episode trivia should be on the episode page. It's already mentioned in the Distractions (Heroes) article, there is no need to be mentioned here. EnsRedShirt 22:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

D.L.'s occupation

He's currently listed as "an escaped criminal". However, he's not wanted any longer for anything. Is anyone averse to me changing it? Suggestions as to what to classify his current status AS would be good, too. Thanks! Mel21clc 20:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it's been changed to something else since he was acquited. However, the infomation that he was a escaped convict needs to stay in since he used to be one. dposse 01:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that we should at least change the wording. He's a former construction worker, and, in the same manner, a former fugitive. He's not an escaped criminal any longer, and to leave it that way may be confusing. --Valaqil 14:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless he was actually convicted of something, which did not seem to be the case, he was never a criminal. If he escaped custody, then he's a wanted person (a warrant would have been issued for him). If he was never on trial, which also seems to be the case, he could never have been acquited, rather the charges would have been dropped (or if they were never filed, then the case was not persued). Thor Templin 14:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the graphic novels, he was in prison, so that would make him a convict. He was framed for murder and for stealing two million dollars, after all. However, considering his "good guy" nature, I don't think 'convict' or 'former convict' do justice to his character. I find 'former fugitive' to be a better fit, though.  Anticrash  talk  15:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Heroes episode

It appears an admin (out of process I may add) has come along and deleted all the screen capture. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I know. We have to do something about this. We need those pictures back. Is there anything that we can do? I can't believe that those idiots deleted them even though we had a rationale! Someone needs to upload the pictures again, and this time make sure that every single one of them will pass inspection. And listen, please upload the SAME pictures as last time. dposse 23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they need to be uploaded again, looks like they can be undeleted like articles. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion and looks like they'd be listed on WP:DRV. Go for it. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're asking me if i wish to get a deletion review started, I suck at that type of thing. Someone else who is more experienced can do it. dposse 00:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't either. Matt, you want to get it rolling? --Milo H Minderbinder 00:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to links

I'm not sure if anyone has noticed, but the hyperlinks on some/most of the words until just before the plot section have been replaced with some rather inapproiate ones. As I am still new to this whole editing thing could someone please help clear it up? Thanks ````

I saw that another editor is cleaning them. I ran down the culprit, User:Batmangreen, and have reported him to AIV. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 05:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Helix Sightings

Hey in Godsend there were two not very noticable sightings --- one with the branch in Mohinder (lizard) tank ---- the other in a plate of pasta --- here is the link if you would like some proof http://www.9thwonders.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=49615&hl=helix just thought i would tell you guys —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.77.45.237 (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

(formerly from archive 13)

Rede Record ??

Hi. I am from Brazil and I didn´t understand why Rede Record is among the International broadcasters. I took a look at their site and didn´t find anything about Heroes, also, they aren't broadcasting Heroes. Since Universal Channel is part of Globosat (Rede Globo) and not Rede Record, there is really no way to run. So.. I think Rede Record should be removed.

Heroes 360

SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM OF HEROES 360 FOR NEW INFO ON MATT'S PASSWORD

• Last night among the many promos there were for next week's "Godsend" premiere, there was one talking about Heroes 360. All that was mentioned was you could "experience it" when Heroes returns and to check out the official NBC site. What is this? Should it be included in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.206.248.250 (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

google has nothing. [5] are you sure it wasn't a game for the Xbox 360? dposse 18:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• no it doesn't have anything to do with videogames. it says Heroes 360 (as in 360 degrees).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.248.250 (talk • contribs)

It's either an ARG, or you make a mistake. dposse 21:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I definitely don't think it should be in the article until we have much more detail about it.--NMajdan•talk 21:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess we won't find out until Monday. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.173.244.106 (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

You can find out more about the Heroes 360 here: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=20070119nbc01

--ΨΦorg 03:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's definitely a brand new ARG! I'm excited about this. dposse 14:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey all, I'm a noob when it comes to this... does my information on the WAP interface and website violate WP:NOR? I tried out the various codes myself, but because its online, there are hyperlinks, so... I wasn't sure. UltraNurd 21:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

the information provided under the Heroes 360 seems too long and a lot seems unncessary. It includes steps to do, such as "what text to send to which cell phone number", "which hyper link to click" etc etc. I don't think these should be included, wikipedia is not a game guide, no point in putting in detailed walk through of the game. Z3u2 20:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If anything, it should be on its own page. Also, it should probably contain spolier warning, as it reveals information about Heroes 360. That is, IF it should be on Wikipedia. PureSoldier 01:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the main Heroes page is too cluttered as it is. On various message boards, I have seen people reference Wikipedia to find out what is going on IN the game. This is a usefull resource, but (and maybe its because the game is so new, and we all don't really know what its ultimatly going to be) this section looks sloppy. I think a page on its own would help that. This is obviously going to be a big deal, and the content of this game will most likley be large, so I say give it a page. MoonKnight52 18:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a game guide or walk-throughs.

I don't think (for now) a new page is needed.

Since we don't know too much what this game is going to turn out to(at least i don't), we should just need a few short paragraphs describing on what it is. Z3u2 18:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Then let's remove the information beyond a brief description. I would hate to lose the information, but HeroesWiki will probably have something on it anyway.PureSoldier 20:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with PureSoldier, if we are not going to give detailed content information, then this is too confusing and sloppy. I dug up this description

Beginning on January 22nd, viewers will be invited to experience "HEROES" in a whole new way. As they investigate on-air clues and learn new truths about the characters, their involvement will lead them to new platforms, including interaction with unique mobile content; a WAP (Wireless Application Protocol) site that one of the characters gives them access to; a special "two screen" application which provides a real-time experience; access to the fictional Primatech Paper company's phone system; and significantly increased original content on NBC.com including secret files, hidden sites and original commentary from cast members added to each streaming episode. http://www.heroes-tv.com/modules/news/article-474.html That should be the whole section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MoonKnight52 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC).sorry MoonKnight52 21:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

By dug up, did you copy from another site? If so, it'll probably need a rewrite. And for those who still want the walkthrough, it's on the HeroesWiki.com site. PureSoldier 22:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

By dug up I mean found a website with a quote from NBC stating what exactly Heroes 360 is, and from the discussion on this topic, I thought it would be helpfull by changing the exsisting mess of a section to a description.

MoonKnight52 16:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I added some new info under the 360 section. Do we still want to refrain from listing the developments in the game? It seems to be giving some good info, (i.e., the purpose of "the mark") and will most likely continue to give up pertinent details about the story. I'd vote for a dedicated page for the ARG, but if the consensus is against that idea, then that's fine too.  Anticrash  talk  15:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For information which is not obtained from the show itself, we should like to the information (either to an official site, another fan site, or another Wikipedia page). The television show is a work of art that stands on its own and should not rely on viewers to do anything but watch the show to appreciate the story; the article about the show should talk about the show, not about universe background details used for other things. I have no objection to a Wikipedia page on "Heroes 360". Avt tor 17:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

no objection to a page for Heroes 360

Z3u2 00:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Chorder 03:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC) :

If we're gonna be honest with ourselves we have to admit that Heroes 360, if it is anything like "The Beast" or "I Love Bees" (the other famous ARG's) will require multiple pages to discuss it's minutia.

As a non-posting avid Wikipedia reader, I think even I can recognize that as a "bad thing". See the above articles for good examples on how to make concise posts on an ARG.

If it helps, I've created a Google Groups page to organize a Cloudmakers style effort for the puzzles. Since Google Groups can support uploads, pages, and a forum, I think it's a better fit than Wiki. Registration and management is open to all: http://groups.google.com/group/heromakers/

I definitely think that 360 should be it's own entry. As it is now, the 360 section of Heroes TV is only serving to confuse and muddle the page. The 360 experience is not a part of the TV show, rather a spin-off, and should be treated as such. AwakeningAZ 19:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

MATT'S PASSWORD

I have no clue how to make this work, but I need to tell someone this. The last file that needs to be found, is Matt Parkman. We have been given the three previous passwords, and we need to find the last one out by ourselves. I think I know how to find the code. If you study the codes, each one BEGINS WITH THE FIRST TWO LETTERS OF THEIR FIRST AND LAST NAMES. Hannah Gittlemen's password starts with HG, Sylar's starts with GG (Gabriel Gray) and Theodore Sprague's is, you guessed, TS. So, the first part of Matt's password is MP for sure. Following that, is twol lowercase letters. That's all they have in common. Also, each password has two numbers next to each other in it....if you find anything out, or this is helpful, please email me at. Thanks!

• The password is MPggtn75x according to a text message received today. Calm down and be patient. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markpregen (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Addition to Nikki's bio (not plot summary, bio)

In the episode "Fallout" Nikki seems to access Jessica's powers to break a night stick. Though it may not be conscious, she still access the power. The bio currently says that she hasn't accessed Jessicas powers. 161.185.1.100 22:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)doro626 2/8/07

That could have been Jessica reacting to danger and surfacing just long enough to protect herself. Until we see Nikki use Jessica's power again, it can't really be menttioned.

On another note, in Run! Nikki was able to split away from Jessica in the same way that Jessica used to do to Nikki. They may both be able to use the power(s) at will. Bio 19:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is clear they both have super strenth, and that Nikki was orginally not aware of the power untill she became aware of her alter ego.--68.192.188.142 17:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to me that Jessica appeared and broke the chains, and then became Nikki again, not that Nikki had super-strength. Avt tor 16:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not the way I saw it, it seemed to me that Niki instinctively used that power because she felt her child needed her. Or it could just be a mother's natural instinct to use extra adrenaline and in that instant she did. So the show's producers could be messy with us. But I doubt it. It's a hint, of her true power. Remember Niki doesn't remember her Dad killing Jessica when they were younger. Who knows how long she had this "other" personality in development. What she saw her power of strength, it frighten her and she created another persona to be the "protector" / evil counterpart with full access to that power. (Mrja84 16:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

There was an interview that popped up on Digg.com with the show's creator. He stated the pwoers of each character stems from the character design. He then indicated that Nikki's power, because she's a single mom with a lot of problems, is the ability to be in two places at the same time. http://www.ogmog.com/2007/02/07/heroes-execs-discuss-shows-future-lost-more/ Azselendor 22:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Split Heroes 360 in a seperate article

I suggest we split Heroes 360 in a seperate article. -- Magioladitis 17:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's not directly related to the TV show as if it was part of it. -- Lyverbe 17:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

agree Z3u2 19:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree Bio 19:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree it is very much apart of the show. Through it we have learned that certain people will be meeting up in the next episode. Also it is a way for viewers who saw the clip during Deal or No Deal to be informed as to what exactly Hana is doing with her time. I admit it's not a vital part of the show, but with so many characters it's an extension of the show like the graphic novels. And since the graphic novels have their own page. I agree to the seperation. Mrja84 17:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. It's only purpose is as a promotional exercise for the series. There's no reason to give this relatively small idea a full article. Instead, work to expand and refine it within this article. ThuranX 17:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Lost Experience, a part of Lost, is a seperate article. Even Beyond Jericho, an extension of Jeriho, is a different article. Why not Heroes 360? -- Magioladitis 18:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should have a separate article as well. I was also thinking that it would work better as a merge with the Primatech Paper article as that is the primary focus so far of the 'experience' -- Marcsin | ^Talk 18:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It's a part of the show, but also not. PureSoldier 21:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Better separate article.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 14:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It's not the show, it's an extension of the show. Avt tor 16:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Same reasons as above. --Careax 19:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. This user-interactive thingy isn't really part of the show though the setting is. --Addict 2006 01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been a week, and I'm the only dissenter. I'll leave it to the agrees to do the moving and setting up, as they're more interested in it, but let's get this change moving. ThuranX 02:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

ok. I did it. Please check for corrections. Magioladitis 02:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks!! Z3u2 07:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comic book connection

I think on the main page there should be a section dealing with the show mimicing comic books. Such as Ted Sprague mirroring the powers and storyline of Nuke —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.203.61 (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

The Main page is revolving around the show and anything connecting to it. The show is in no way using characters from the comics and representing them in the show. In fact, Ted was suppose to be a terrorist, but that changed. It was in a interview Tim Kring had I forget where. Not to mention a page describing to whom the characters relate to in the comic world because there are so many characters with similar powers it would be pointless --- (Mrja84 17:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

Having only read this and watched the pilot episode I'm struck by the story's similarities to Rising Stars by JMS. Only superficially and in terms of the general outline of the plot and the character outlines. Has anyone who has watched more noticed more on that? AlanD 23:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it was been noticed back in October. The discussion is in /Archive 6#Stories with premises similiar to Heroes. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 00:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that I'd only seen about half the episode when I posted. Having seen the first 2 episodes in full now I'm struck far more strongly by the superficial similarities between Rising Stars and Heroes (the cop, the artist and so on). I see Jeph Loeb (more widely known now for his TV work but previously a major comicbook writer) is one of the producers so it is unlikely that any connection would be accidental... but hey, there you go. Here is the discussion from before... I think that there may be a call to reinstate the previous list of works with related themes, perhaps, as suggested, as a seperate page. What do others think?AlanD 13:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Rising Stars

The premise of Heroes among us is not a new idea and has been explored in comic books such as Rising Stars and the wikipedia page for rising stars includes a reference to Heroes. I'm not sure how or where best to add it but I encourage someone to add a mention in the main article. Horkana

We had a section listing various stories similar in premise, but ulimately the list was too big and not focused enough on the TV series to be included in the article. I still think a separate article or category should be made, though. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 07:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC) "

Claire power description

Why does it say that her ability is to "immediately heal", when it's definitely not "immediate" when the thing that has caused the injury is still in her body? AnonMoos 13:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should be changed to something like rapid cell regeneration as used on the Heroes Wiki.--Master Bob 14:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you know her cells are regenerating? I don't believe its been stated in an episode.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Her ability, as coined in the series, is "Spontanious Regeneration" I think the regeneration in the title alludes to cells regenerating... and if not, how on earth does she heal without her cells regenerating? Jacobshaven3 16:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Spontaneous regeneration. as given in the series, is exactly how is should be listed. The writers of the show have not seen fit to explain the particular bio-mechanics of the power, so we shouldn't hypothesize at all. in the written text of the paragraph, where synonyms are needed for flow, be accurate. We've seen her rapidly heal from physical injuries ranging in severity from minor cuts to fatal head wounds, though wounds do need to be clear of obstruction before her power is able to complete the healing. Keep spec out. ThuranX 21:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Cameos

I've readded Takei to this list, but would like to poll to see if there is consensus to remove the section and leave the cameos in the "other characters" section of the list of Heroes characters. ('Cameos' was really created as a compromise for the "trivia" section which was being 'warred' over.) Kyaa the Catlord 13:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I will remove Takei again as it is not a cameo, the producers said as much, and so has he. Do we really need to go over what the definition of a cameo is? (For those interested see: Cameo appearance.) Takei is reccurring and as such should be treated like that, not as a cameo. EnsRedShirt 14:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

His appearances to date have been precisely the definition of a cameo, just like the others in the subsubsection. Personally I've suggested adding him to the list of minor characters on that page.... Being preachy makes you look like a... Kyaa the Catlord 14:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the Cameos section is more appropriate for the characters list page. Takei is already listed in the Minor Characters section under his character's name. The Cameos section be a third header, joining Main Characters and Minor Characters. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Which seems like a sensible and correct course of action to take. EnsRedShirt 15:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Filious 23:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Hi, uh, not sure where else to put this, but I've noticed a lot of star trek references in the show. Might be worth noting somewhere.

BBC Radio 1

On BBC Radio 1 on 19th Feb 2007 they interviewed someone from heroes and he said that a lot of people recognised him in the UK despite the series not having been aired here yet. Should this go in the article somewhere? (preferably with some of the blanks filled in) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.31.72.96 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

On a related note, this press release notes that the U.K. debut of Heroes gave Sci Fi UK its highest ratings ever. Should this be mentioned in the reception section or the in the intro paragraph with the U.S. ratings? - fmmarianicolon | Talk 22:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

I think it might be worthwhile to add a section to the Heroes article that covers controversies. For example, the assemlage of a variety of people with superheroes is quite like the X-men and perhaps other stories. One could even go up to the edge of plagiarism. There is a discussion of this started by Tim Kring at an NBC blog. Sammyj 01:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussions on a blog don't necessarily equate to a "controversy". If Marvel or DC (or any other comic publisher) were to make comments about how they were uncomfortable with "similarities" to their creations, then there might be something to this. Otherwise, it's not really suitable for a Wikipedia article. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the text added by Sammyj:

"There is controversy among viewers as to the originality of the characters[6]. Others have pointed out that many of the characters' powers resemble those found in the Marvel X-men comics. Examples cited include the rapid healing seen in the cheerleader that is similar to that seen in Wolverine, Peter Petrelli's mimcry power that is similar to that of Rogue, and D.L. Hawkins ability to pass through matter is seen in Kity Pride. Although the episode that aired on Feb. 19, 2007, had X-men co-creator Stan Lee appear in a cameo as a bus driver who picked up Hiro, these similarities were denied by TIm Kring [7]."

I've moved the text here for discussion prior to restoring it to the article. As I noted in my edit summary, I think that adding this gives too much presence to a minor issue. All superhero genre shows invite comparisons - actually, most sci-fi series do as well. Just because some fans are making comparisons doesn't make it a "controversy". Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it a controversy if Kring is repeatedly asked about it? His explanations do seem fishy (e.g., [8]) Sammyj 02:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

89,000 citations in Google search of Kring and X-men shows that this is not a minor point of discussion (not all relevant of course). This is a lot more substantial than much of what lands in the WP, I'm afraid. But I won't add to this article any longer. You guys can figure it out for yourselves. Sammyj 02:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're applying value judgements (such as the above "his explanations do seem fishy") then I thnk you really have to examine the motivation for adding the text. Again, companies such as Marvel and DC are extremely protective of their intellectual property. If they're not complaining, then I suspect that the purported "controversy" exists only in a small, vocal element of the X-Men fan base. We have a reference to an interview which validates that comparisons do exist, but nothing to show the scope of the matter. Is it a wide-spread sense of outrage, a simple question that was raised at a comic-con, or something in between? Before Wikipedia gives it an "official" status, we really need to consider how notable the issue really is. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Fans will always find comparisons. They bitched about The Phantom being a Batman copy (nevermind Time). They bitched about Hullk's dad bieng a pseudo-Absorbing Man, and that was the same freaking company! fnaboys will bitch about pantone variations between colorist studios if there's nothing else to carp about. Until such time as a reputatble source gives us either a public statement or a serious review, or makes a serious comparative, there's nothing to look at. But to Continue, Iceman's dead, Mimic's Sylar, Angel's Nathan (rich and flying), Isaac is Destiny, Hiro is.... Molecule Man, Niki is.... Arclight? PowerGirl? Who cares? I Read XMen, I watch the show. It's impossible to not note similarities in the Genre. Given that Stan Lee's been IN the genre for about 65 years, what else can we expect? And what about things like The Heap, Man-Thing, and Swamp Thing? The latter two were created by roommates, and for different companies! So what? Without WP:RS —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThuranX (talk • contribs)

It's not at all notable. Fan theories or opinions have no place on wikipedia. I have no doubt there's a fan wiki out there somewhere that will take this infomation. dposse 04:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there a reference to X-Men in one of the episodes? I thought Hiro mentioned one of them. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hiro mentions alot of pop culture and comic books. Read his blog, and you'll find dozens of references to different anime, manga, american comic books, ect. It's part of his character. He's a geek. That has nothing to do with the theory that Heroes somehow stole its ideas from X-Men. It's a fan opinion, and it has no place here. dposse 15:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I think we need to get this page semi-protected. Newbies and anonymous IPs are starting random edit wars with random speculation, cameos, and theories. --EXV // + @ 03:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be a good idea, although you might also want to warn User:Sammyj to stop adding that POV/original research. dposse 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Two thoughts - one, the level of additions probably isn't enough to get semi-protection, especially given that the majority of the edits are content-related (as opposed to vandalism.) Secondly, keep in mind that Sammyj - while persistent - has only been here for a few hours. A warning might be warranted if there is a pattern of disruptive behaviour, as opposed to a one-off difference of opinion regarding content. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

advertisement

I removed the australian poster image. It was added withotu talk apge or edit summary, and doens't really add to the page. ThuranX 21:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Nissan product placement text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ratings

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

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

Verified Volume Three

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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