Talk:Heroes (American TV series)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

(formerly from archive 14)

Int. Broadcasters

According to the Japanese wikipedia page, Heroes will be released there as DVDs from Universal later in 2007.

The section is becoming very large and very ugly, surely we can do something about this? It may be better if we listified instead with columns (without the "Weekly schedule" as Wikipedia isn't a TV guide), this would probably look neater, but doesn't refute the question of: Do we need it? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Listified example

• Americaland (Somechannel)
• United Kingdom (BBC2/Sci Fi)
• Venezuela (Universal Channel)
• etc (etc)
• etc (etc)
• etc (etc)
• etc (etc)
• etc (etc)
• etc (etc)
• etc (etc)

• Americaland (Somechannel)
• United Kingdom (BBC2/Sci Fi)
• etc (etc)
• etc (etc)
• etc (etc)
• etc (etc)
• etc (etc)
• etc (etc)
• etc (etc)
• etc (etc)

• Americaland (Somechannel)
• United Kingdom (BBC2/Sci Fi)
• etc (etc)
• etc (etc)
• etc (etc)
• etc (etc)
• etc (etc)
• etc (etc)
• etc (etc)
• etc (etc)

Heroes In Canada

As most Global TV viewers know by know,heroes is know airing Sundays in canada a day ahead of the american broadcast.some people decided to put spoiler warnings in the next episode to not write about the plot untill it airs in the US,but that seems biased to me.Is it fair to leave it blank just because it hasnt aired yet somewhere else?192.30.202.18 19:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it hasn't aired in America, if it airs elsewhere first then that country is the original airdate and a plot may be put into the article. Systemic bias is what it's called. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If the people don't want to see the information before the episode airs, they have the option not to read it. Wikipedia is not censored in any way, including spoilers. Put it in, if you've seen it. PureSoldier 03:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't stop people in the US posting spoilers when it hasn't shown elsewhere yet. I say its fair game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.143.47.209 (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

I see the airdate in this section for Canada as Sundays at 9:00.Can anyone confirm whether or not it was a one time thing with global airing the episode early?Rodrigue 17:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

IT IS OFFICIAL! as of 3 seconds ago according to the tv guide channel thing we have up here in Canada, Heroes will be playing at 9:00 pm sunday on global, theirfor its ether a 2 time things, or a whole new constant thing. Toxic Ninja 01:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cont'd. Yep it played as scheduled, and it's a damn good episode. Toxic Ninja 03:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this is not the case across Canada. Alberta stations still air episodes on Monday nights. --Kmsiever 20:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto Saskatchewan. Unless it's changed... Trekphiler 02:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

THE TIME has been changed back. The new episodes on Global TV are back to be shown on Mondays at 8PM. I changed the time on the main Heroes page. Lostguy 21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Heroes airdates

I've just confirmed that the next episode of Heroes will also air on Sunday on Global TV[[1]]in addtiion to last nights[[2]],so we can now say that it will continue airing before the US so the airdates are all in fact earlier now.64.228.70.208 20:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Or should be list airdates as they relate to a region? -- (Mrja84 20:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Because Global has 5 hours of programming that is normally scheduled to air in the Monday prime-time block (typically 3 hours long), the network has moved shows around on a regional basis. Most of the Eastern affiliates show Heroes on Sunday, while Western affiliates show The Black Donnelly's on Sunday. The stations that show Heroes on Sunday show The Black Donnelly's on Monday, and vice-versa. -- (bestlurker 5:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

Emerson lawsuit

The section states that there was an edited version released. In what way was it edited? Did they remove the scene, digitally remove the brand name or something else? EvilCouch 10:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Plot

I would like to discuss exactly what the Plot section should entail. Yes there are a lot of events going on within the episodes, but I believe the Plot Summary should be about what's going on currently and what the overall plot of Heroes (the series) is. -- (Mrja84 20:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

i must disagry i have used this page many timesto catch up on missed events. I Know 7

Then look up the episode that you missed, not the Plot Summary of the Main Page. -- (Mrja84 14:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

Indeed. The plot summary on the main page should describe the main themes of the entire series in about a word of 500-1000. There are episode specific articles if you need to know more. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Golfnut's edits

Golfnut's two recent edits were removed - nothing personal, just that the note about the Haitian's pendant was already in the list, and the note about Simone is speculation. As discussed previously here and elsewhere on Wikipedia, trailers and preview clips aren't a reliable source of what will actually happen in upcoming episodes. Events are often cut up, shown out of sequence and out of context, and manipulated for promotional purposes. The scene with Simone could well be one of Peter's visions, for all we know. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as the scene with Simone, it could've been Issac having a nightmare or dream from the guilt. We don't know that that's why I removed it. People need to be patience and respecting to what we've already done -- (Mrja84 16:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

The Company

Does any one think we should put in an artcle about "The Company"?- Red siderman 3/1

Are you referring to Primatech? Valaqil 15:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed with interest that the various fansites were calling it AWI or OWI (Agency or Organization Without Initials). After company man, and in view of the international scope of the Company I think we can agree it should be OWI as it is clear now that it is non-governmental, although it may be operating under government knowledge and sanction. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 17:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the characters themselves called it "the Company". - SigmaEpsilon ? ΣΕ 20:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Primatech, i'm talking about the Where Mr.bennet really works, run by (i think) tompson- Red spiderman 3/4

Until we know the true name, it's called "the Company". dposse 13:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

THE COMPANY V. Primatech

In quite a few entries and articles, for Thompson, Primatech and others, there is little distiction between Primatech (the front company who Mr. Bennet is employed by and poses as his legit job) and "the Company" (the covert organization who monitors, regulates and control the "special people." I feel there should be a greater disticintion made between the two. Currently, the only confirmed employ of both Primatech and "the Company" is Bennett, others are listed as members of Primatech, but there is no evidence on screen or otherwise that they are paper company employees (Eden, The Haitian, Candice, Thompson). The same argument would say everyone who works for Air America also works for the CIA, and vice versa. Front organizations do not equal their parent group. I feel as editors we need to start to make a distiction between the members of Primatech (whom Bennett is the only confirmed member) and it's parent organization (whom Thompson, Kaito, Eden, the Haitian, Candice, Claude (formerly), Hank and Lisa are members). The same could also be said for the above ground building and its lower levels, as well. 66.109.248.114 03:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's gonna be difficult to do, considering how little we know. dposse 20:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Production Notes: Japanese scenes

I'd like to expand the writing information of the Production Notes to include the Japanese scenes. If I recall correctly, critics have applauded the show for having scenes in Japanese with English subtitles. I've found sources about Oka and Takei translating their scripts from English to Japanese. (Oka: Super Hiro: Japanese nerd is hit of ‘Heroes’, Takei: JAPANESE AMERICAN SPLENDOR: TAKEI TALKS “HEROES”). The problem is I can't find sources about critic's approval or disapproval about the language usage now. Anyone got a source for me? - fmmarianicolon | Talk 23:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Niki vs. Jessica

i think niki might be a medium ,able to have ghost take over her (like in the Sixth sense), so it would be jessica withe the superstrenght, but died and some how got transfered to niki this also might explain the RNA symbol that appears when jessica is in control- Red spiderman 3/4 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.77.129.44 (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

That is total speculation for now though. ? Seraph 11:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what? RNA symbol? 72.1.206.17 16:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

i ment "the symbol"- redspiderman 3/5

redspiderman, instead of typing your name at the end of a comment, just put 4 tilde's (~)it will auto-sign you. Sumnjim 13:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm know going as RED- Red 3/17

If you want to go by "Red", you can sign your posts like this. It can still say Red, and it will link to your user page.--Lostcause365 16:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sylar

Shouldn't sylar be one of the main characters? i mean he is the one of the main villian- Red spiderman 3/5

Sylar is a recurring character, but not a "main" character. There is a list of main characters, and Sylar is not on it. He's definitely a villian, but powerful =/= plot-centric. Valaqil 17:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

ok- redspiderman 3/5

I disagree with this. I don't think it's reasonable to call Simone a "main character" when she really isn't the centre of a particular plotline. She's more a recurring part of Isaac/Peter's stories, but, at least at this point, doesn't seem central to any part of the overall tale. Sylar certainly is, even if we have seen his actions explicitly only recently - he killed Mohinder's father, bringing him to America and is now the major focus of the doctor's actions. He was a major part of many heroes lives even before the viewer met him, e.g. his hunting other supers is what brought Matt Parkman into the limelight and is a major contributing factor to the whole situation between Claire and her father. Not only this, but he has an agenda, backstory and presence all his own that Simone certainly doesn't have (at least at this point in the series), and is currently at the nexus of Peter and Mohinder's journies and is the key focus of Episode 18's cliffhanger. To say that he's not a main character while including Simone just seems silly to me. -Cinderelephant 10-03-07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.108.237.149 (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

In TV (at least American TV; I won't speak for other countries) a "main character" is one played regularly by an actor whose name appears in the opening credits. In other words, it's the producers who determine who the "regulars" are. Tawny Cypress (Simone) was listed as a regular in the show's cast, but Zachary Quinto (Sylar) continues to be listed as a guest actor. BobGreenwade 17:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

BobGreenwade has it right. Whether we agree or not, Zachary Quinto is, and remains to be called, a guest star. Check out TV Guide's listing of the cast. Tawny Cypress is "Heroes Cast" and Zachary Q is "Heroes Guest Cast". Check out NBC's cast page. Simone has a profile, and Sylar does not. It's the same everywhere. *shrug* We're not here to question reasoning, but to report facts. Valaqil 19:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

OK then, that's cool. I didn't realise "Main Character" had a specific definition :). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.108.237.149 (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Heores Project

Heroes Project? How come I haven't heard about this? Nocarsgo 00:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)NocarsgoNocarsgo 00:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It was started back in Janurary. I'm sorry you didn't see it until now. dposse 20:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about the 360 experiance?24.193.129.163 16:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

On Hiatus?

Just a question, why? It kinda sucks that we have to wait til' April 23rd for the next episode... Argh, I'm addicted to this show now! So not fair :( Can anyone tell me why its been put on hold? Thanks. JJMan 22:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Beacuse it takes time to actully film and edit the episodes. Though filming is probebly done for the next season, editing and advertising (for and during the show) are probably not finished.--68.192.188.142 01:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Plus even if they could keep going now, the season would be over first week in April (which people would also complain about) meaning they would miss May sweeps for the ratings. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Another plus: Even if they were continually filming as episodes aired and somehow stayed ahead of schedule, this heightens the hype via anticipation. Short bursts of high action, mystery, and plot with little breaks in between keeps excitement, and, thus, ratings high. Very smart from an business standpoint. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valaqil (talk • contribs) 15:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Oh, thanks guys, I was just wondering. I thought it might be something to do with the filming etc. And I agree, Valaqil, I guess it is a rather smart move to create maximum publicity and viewings! :) JJMan 17:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No offense but this talk page is really for discussing the wikipedia article, not for show gossip. tv.com has great show forums for this sorts talk if you're looking for a good place to go. Tarc 21:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Like one of the banners at the top says: "This is a talk page for discussion of the article about Heroes (TV series). It is not for discussion about the program itself" --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree with TheDJ, this has been the only quick reference for me to get the exact date of the new episodes--Lostcause365 15:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, doesn't it mention in the article that the show has been put on hold? So technically, we're discussing the content of the article :). JJMan 16:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, the hiatus hasn't anything to do with the production schedule, or they'd just go to repeats. (Recall, shows aren't usually taped months in advance, except game shows, where shooting goes so much faster.) It's the network, probably due to sweeps, or scheduling conflicts with sports, or something. Trekphiler 03:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Stan Lee

Stan Lee is affiliated right? Mathiastck 19:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

no... -Xornok 19:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

He made a cameo in one episode (Unexpected) but I'm not aware of any connection past that.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Heroes Main Page

I am wondering if anyone else feels that the main page is a bit bloated. Things like the Emerson Lawsuit need to be tidied and some of the info could be set up in linked separate pages. Just a thought, not trying to complain. I'd just like to see the best heroes source on the web hosted by Wikipedia.--Lostcause365 15:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Symbol

Would anyone object to putting in a line about how the symbol is a nucleic acid strand and a wikilink to DNA or RNA?RogueNinja 22:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that a mere speculation? You need to prove that it's a fact in order to put it in the article. -- Lyverbe 11:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was a combination of 2 japanese characters? It does however represent 1/2 of a strand of RNA. As a piece of wild speculation, probably the section of RNA that is modified to give the Heroes their powers, and the thing that Sylar is able to replicate.--Lostcause365 14:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It is meant to appear like a peice of RNA, I'll find the link, but the crew call it the "Single Helix" I believe, which alludes to it. Jacobshaven3 15:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That bit was in the article before, however without any citation, it was deemed original research and chucked. EvilCouch 15:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Could we not get around the whole WP:OR thing with saying that "It resembles a strand of DNA/RNA?--Lostcause365 14:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really - it's still implying a connection that we cannot confirm without a suitable reference. However, there is a note at the Heroes Wiki article "The Symbol" which says that the symbol is called the "single helix" in the "Company Man" commentary. If someone could verify that statement, it might give us a starting point from which to craft something appropriate. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

During the episode 17 commentary writer Brian Fuller refers to the symbol as "one of our little hidden half-helixes." - SigmaEpsilon ? ΣΕ 17:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't really thorough with my post, I meant say resembles and either show or link to a pic of DNA/RNA. Sorry if it seems like I'm riding a looped coaster, but judging from interviews and just general talk on the series, its widely agreed upon that the symbol is genetics related in the least.--Lostcause365 06:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the major editors of this topic tend to be reactionary to the point of stasis. But get them proof of the obvious and it will probably stay... at least for a few weeks! ;) WookMuff 09:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Character articles

I read the article about Hiro Nakamura and Peter Petrelli. I haven't read the others, but I feel they will have the same point I'd like to discuss. These articles should talk about the characters, period. From what I've read, they describe the entire friggin' show. My point of view is, for example, that Peter's "Character History" section should not exists at all because it doesn't say much about Peter himself, but rather describe what happens in episodes. We already have episode pages for that.

Does that mean that after every new show, about 10 pages will need to be updated to describe in detail what that specific character did in the episode? That's silly! -- Lyverbe 12:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Symbol Characters: hanzi (Chinese) / kanji (Japanese)?

I was going through the history of this article and it seems like the part Kanji / Chinese characters (in the Symbol part) was changed quite a lot. I don't understand neither Chinese nor Japanese, so I can't decide it, but why are you so sure it's in Kanji? --Have a nice day. Running 23:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in this dispute, but it seems to be that in the shows universe, the Kanji terms were used to define the symbol, but because the Kanji characters were borrowed from the Chinese, someone believes they should go down instead. Personally, if I have gotten the above view points correct, it should be the Kanji used, simply because they were used in universe, and are directly verifiable. Although the Chinese characters may have been the original characters, in this instance anyhow, I think it's best if we go by the show rather than what we think is right. Jacobshaven3 01:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. In case I did misunderstand the different viewpoints, sorry.

The sword is Japanese--the characters are kanji. If something is written in English, it is literally written with the Roman alphabet, but it still isn't considered Latin.--hypercritic 06:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, as I said, I don't know the differences and commons between Kanji and Chinese, but what hypercritic and EvilCouch below writes makes it pretty clear. (AND I'm a little bit smarter about kanji.) --Have a nice day. Running 12:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It was originally stated as Japanese characters, then changed to Chinese, to reflect that they're not originally Japanese character, but Chinese. Then I changed it to Kanji, as it accurately reflects that they're the character set used in Japan, that was borrowed from Chinese. It should be left as Kanji as it is the most correct way to refer to the characters in the context they're given. EvilCouch 08:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree. Borrowed from Chinese or not, they ARE characters used in Japanese. The sword is Japanese, as is the character translating it (Ando).--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Precisely so. The best analogy I can think of is that the English language is made up of words borrowed from many languages but that are part and parcel of English. If it was an English word on an English sword with a German rootword, being translated by an English person, you would not say it was German. WookMuff 22:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a moot point. Kanji are Japanese, without a doubt. Although the characters themselves--"ji"--come from a Chinese source, they aren't the same as the characters used in the contemporary Mandarin or Cantonese dialects. The people that post more contradictions should read-up on the difference between kanji and hanzi.--hypercritic 23:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm just like I said in my moot point analogy? German =/= english, hanzi =/= Kanji. WookMuff 01:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

With all of the changes being made by GIPU's, should we consider semi-protected status? Valaqil 12:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so - they also made a lot of positive work on this article. --Have a nice day. Running 12:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Potential Jewish Connection?

Take a look on nbc.com at Episode 13, ("Distractions"), part 2. I don't know if there is anything to this but I noticed some connections to "Jewish numbers" and I wanted to see if anyone else sees anything in this: Mohinder, who lives in apartment 613, which corresponds to the 613 Mitzvot in Judaism, mentions that his father found 36 people with hidden talents. In Jewish mysticism there are 36 people, lamedvavnikim, who have hidden talents and are the reason for earth's survival, acting as its superheroes. Is there anything we can research about the show's intentions or is this just a coincidence? Valley2city 19:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Humm...I wouldn't put in an article without some sourcing, but that is very interesting. It is pretty common for writers in this sort of show to use that kind of hidden message, either as hints of things to come or just for fun. Of course, there is also the possibility its just a coincidence.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You'd need sourcing to put it in, but it's probably on purpose, the writers keep hinting in interviews that there's a lot of spiritual history and mythology hidden in the series. Jacobshaven3 20:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. ThuranX 20:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I completely agree with your assessments. I'd love to learn more about it. It seems a lot like Neil Gaiman's Sandman series in terms of its peppering in various mythical tidbits. Valley2city 21:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that I want to be "that guy", but you'd have to be very careful about putting a religious spin on any article. Judaism can tend to be a very polarizing issue. I personally feel that if you can source the article, by all means put it in. Anything that adds to the mythos of Heroes is a positive addition IMHO. I've always felt that there was a very Brahman/Atman cadence to the episodes, but that's all it is, a feeling. After all, it's entertainment. There is such a thing as looking too deeply.Lostcause365 23:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Put it in. Along the way, you can mention the influence of Jews in Hollywood & in comics, including the suggestion I've heard Superman was (in effect) "Superjew" (special powers, but nobody recognizes him, even without a mask), including references to Jerry Siegel, Stan Lee (né Leiber), Selznick, et al. Trekphiler 03:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (BTW, if this makes me sound like a bigot, I'm going on the basis of a serious documentary that chronicled it sympathetically.)

The part about how many aspects of the Superman mythos is based upon aspects of Jewish heritage is well documented. You left out how his real name, Kal-El, is a take off of the Hebrew language. See also: Superman#Influences. --Reverend Loki 17:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. It sounds incredibly sarcastic, and yes, bigoted. And no, it doesn't belong in. Inference isn't implication. ThuranX 22:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that kind of info doesn't belong, but Thuran is wrong. It didn't sound sarcastic or bigoted to me...but yes, I think this is notable enough to mention that 613, Mohinder's apartment number, shares similarity to Jewish beliefs that very much hold a similar theme to Heroes. Even if the writer's didn't intend this, it's a neat little easter egg. Specusci 12:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How does some random number of a apartment suddenly link to Jewish beliefs? How is this an easter egg if no one intended this to be true? No, this fails notability and sounds like someone's strange opinion or theory. dposse 20:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not attributable,however if thre was a citation for it, I'd include it. The writers have repeatedly said that they have included various religious themes and have used spiritua history before. Their choice of Uluru was on purpose, as well as the fact almost all the main characters have biblical names. So I'm sure the choice of room number and number on the list are intentional. However, without evidence you can't put it down. Though since the original posters already agreed with this, seems this post is like flogging a dead horse.Jacobshaven3 20:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Uluru? When I mentioned Uluru everyone beat me down... whats this about Uluru? WookMuff 09:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This bit of info is either an interesting easter egg, or an odd coincidence. I think we can all agree that, without a citation, we won't know which, and in that case it doesn't belong in the article. If there is a vaid source for this, then by all means, it belongs. --Reverend Loki 17:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Be cool

Someone added Niki in the list of those who have the scar and it was removed with the comment "Revert vandalism". It looks a lot more like a mistake than vandalism. Don't scare people who are only trying to help. -- Lyverbe 12:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well what else are you going to do? Leave the mistake? I seriously doubt they were scared off...Specusci 12:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the comment of the fix, not the fix itself. "Niki has the helix, not the scar" would have been enough. A vandal is someone who does malicious acts to ruin/destroy something. I wouldn't want to be called that if I just wanted to help out. -- Lyverbe 16:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, its important to assume good faith. An edit can be incorrect without being vandalism.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to emphasize this request. I have the Heroes page and talkpage in my watchlist and the stuff that flies by at times is seriously unrespectful. Please try and keep a cool head when editing the page. Not everyone is a wikipedian for years and years, not everyone watches the show as closely as a couple of people here, and not everyone is 20-25 years old. Take all that into account whenever you edit this page. It's just WP:CIVIL and Good Faith. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"An edit can be incorrect without being vandalism." Quoted for truth. I just saw an edit that probably wasn't actually vandalism, but simply incorrect. Let's not call it that unless we're fairly certain that it is, eh? Valaqil 16:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of scars, shouldn't Sylar be listed? Mr. Bennet wouldn't have held him and forgotten to tag him, plus his chart in the Assignment Tracker at the Primatech Paper website reads, "radio isotope injection upon delivery"... http://www.primatechpaper.com/images/C004_chart.jpg Goroliath

Yeah Sylar took out somthing out of his head in "Distractions" when Mr. Bennet got threw back by Sylar- RED 4/5

Languages

Any info about non-English dialogues in this series? Why do the Japanese speak Japanese but the South Asians speak English among themselves? In Episode 18 we get to see the Haitian speaking French on the phone and also with Mrs. Petrelli, but there was no subtitles! Any external info we might able to add a sentence or two in the article? --Kvasir 04:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Some relatively educated Indians who come from different regions of India, and don't otherwise share a language in common, do sometimes use English as a means of communication. AnonMoos 04:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hiro and Ando's japanese conversations were important to the storyline. The Haitian and Mrs. Petrelli's french were not. Simple as that, i suppose. dposse 16:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it more that Hiro's communication is meant to be understood by the audience, since it's one of the Main characters. However the other conversations (Mr. Bennet thinking Japanese, The Haitian speaking French et al) are meant to be not understandable, since te Heroes can't understand it. Jacobshaven3 17:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What are "South Asians"? Technically, that includes areas such as Indonesia and Singapore. Anyway, did you know India is the country with the most English speaking people? English is one of their official languages (see India). This would explain why the Indians are speaking in English on the show. — hippi ippi₊₊⁺⁺ 12:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a friend that is from Japan and she said that Ando (Hiro's friend) does not speak Japanese well. She said that he has a heavy accent and mispronunces words. Even though Japanese is her native language, she has to read the English subtitles in order to understand what he is saying.

FYI, South Asians do not include indonesians and singaporeans. In any case, the Indians in the show speak English with an accent which implies English is not their first language. At the university i can understand the academics speak English, but the Suresh's speak amongst themselves in English, why? Even the young mysterious boy Sanjog speaks English, maybe it's because of his powers? Ando is played by a Korean-American actor, blame him or the dialect coach for the bad acting i suppose. George Takei doesn't speak Japanese well either.

There are over 22 different official languages in India. Also, the English colonised India. Not to try and build up my cred, but all of my south asian friends learned english while in their home country (those that were born there), and the majority of their family that remains in India/Pakistan does too. It remains the language of businessmen and scholars, while in Japan, the Japanese language is primary in higher circles.--Lostcause365 06:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC) _{One minor thing, Please sign all posts.}

Time to split off recurring elements?

The list in the article is getting a little unwieldly, IMHO. There's a similar article for Doctor Who which covers recurring elements in that series so it's not without precedent. I think the lists are notable but in the main series article, it feels like fancruft. What does everyone else think? 75.162.21.161 18:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It would have to be expanded ALOT and meet all wikipedia guidelines, like WP:N, WP:A, ect. It would take alot of work to make it into prose and then create a nice sized article from it. dposse 13:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to split the full list of the recurring items and leave, in the main article, only the items which reoccur. -- Magioladitis 10:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

recurring characters

I'm unaware of Wikipedia policies for this, but do you think we should have a section for prominent recurring characters.Tuesday42 22:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

we do... on the character page... its not needed for a main portal page... -Xornok 01:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

France

Someone who nows a peson that can under stand french ask them to tell us what the Haitian and Angela (Peters and Nathens Mom) are saying in Parasite- RREDD13 02:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Red 4/3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.89.117 (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Please sign your posts--Lostcause365 23:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My french isn't that good, especially when spoken.... I can't fully understand it, but this is what I can understand: "now will you [try to] ensure her safety?, it is your ..." "Listen, i ... ... .... ... goodbye". --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

From tv.com

Angela Petrelli: (in french) Au moins maintenant elle sera en sécurité... et pas grâce à vous ! (Translation: At least, now she will be safe...and no thanks to you!) Haitian: Ecoutez j'ai fait tout ce que j'ai pu... elle aurait bien fini par trouver sa propre voie ... (Translation: Listen, I did all that I could. She would have ended up well finding her own way.) --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That last part is not the best translation btw. i think it's intention is more something along the lines of: "In the end, she would have been able to find her own way" --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I'm impressed, guys =) Kudos to both of you! Although I'd have to side with TheDJ on this one, since there seems to be an emphasis on her "ending up well" ("bien fini"). Homologeo 07:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks FOR FINDING OUT- RREDD13 02:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)RED 4/4

wizard World

On part.2 of the wizard world talk, the produces say that Peter has all of sylar's powers now also on part 3. they say Hiro doesn't need the sword, its useless, but it gives him courage and convences him that he has regain his power- Red 4/3

What?--Lostcause365 23:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

He's referring to this interview which states:

Another attendee asked if Peter Petrelli could absorb all of the powers that Sylar currently possesses, and Pokaski responded with a resounding yes....Kring said, in short, “The truth is, [Hiro] doesn’t need the sword.” Moreso than anyone else, Hiro looks at his as a “classic hero’s journey,” and those traditionally had “sacred objects that gave them their strength.” —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SigmaEpsilon (talk • contribs) 00:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks- red 4/2

Much clearer. By the way, "Red", please sign your posts like this. You can even make it say "red", we would just like to know who you are.--Lostcause365 16:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok- RED 4/4

Control

Sould we add to Claie's and Micah's page that Claire so far has been the youngest Known SUPERhuman too have powers, fire (by her biological mom) at her house and not a scratch on her and for Micah has been the youngest so far known to have a power and control it- RED- 4/5

Micah might have competition in Chandra's daughter, but she failed the control test, didn't she? --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 17:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Claire didn't survive the fire because of her healing ability, she survived it because Mr. Bennet rescued her. Here. And in Company Man, Mr. Nakamura told Bennet that if she manifests that the Company would take her, so she didn't display an ability as an infant. 67.167.127.178 20:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's true about the fire. However, she may have manifested her ability as an infant but Mr. Bennet didn't tell. We know that he knew about the tapes but didn't tell Claire or who he works for, so it may have happenned before. We just know that Claire didn't know until she tried to kill herself. Val42 19:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ando Mashashi

Why was the character addition I made fore Ando removed? He is way more important than Simone - she is dead

• Ando Masahashi (James Kyson Lee), The friend/sidekick to Hiro Nakamura. Ando has no powers but is a loyal friend and is willing to follow Hiro into danger.

67.62.234.213 17:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Ando question was me BTW Spandox 17:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ando is not one of the 12 main characters as stated by NBC, see the explanation on the page at Heroes (TV series)#Characters. --WillMak050389 17:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So what?. He gets way more screen time and lines of dialogue than Simone, and has even had screen time separate from the Heroes. Simone, however, only appears in the company of other heroes. (I'm referring to the scene where he talks to Missi Pyle).--Lostcause365 21:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we think. It matters what the writers and NBC put down as fact. dposse 20:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

the fuse

Someone deleted most of a section today without any prior discussion (at least none that I found). I do not believe this to be very responsible. You should at least attempt to discuss with the author before you delete as "spam". Did someone at Wikipedia make you God? -- Jane Q. Public 20:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, hold your horses! Try to be civil, ok? Now look, i reverted it without seeing your edit. I reverted to remove the spam to the helix section. Now that i check the logs, your edit wasn't a whole lot better. "The fuse"? Where did you hear about this? What sources do you have for this? Not only was it not written in a formal tone required for a wikipedia entry, it sounds alot like original research to me. Sometimes push pins on a board are just pins and string is just string. dposse 21:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoa yourself. I retract the God statement, because mistakes do happen. So, let's discuss, okay? There should have been discussion before deletion, which was my main point.

Now... first off, some of the other deletions you made (not my contributions), were incorrect. Why did you delete the mention of the geometry book? It was accurate. That is why you should discuss deletions before you make them! Second, while I am going in to edit the addition I made, because you have a point about the tone (which I realized myself afterward, before I saw your comment), I have reverted the page because you did not discuss the "merits" of your deletion before you did it. And third, if you had bothered to look at the scene I mentioned, and if you had ever actually seen commercial cannon fuse, you would not be disputing this entry. When something is that obvious, "original research" does not apply. You might as well say the same thing about the hose in the swimming pool. Sometimes string is just string... but not in this case. -- Jane Q. Public 21:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(LATER NOTE) Dposse, I have personally messaged you about this subject and also explained my position here. If you continue to edit in the manner you have, without taking the time to discuss the issue here first, I am going to report you for vandalism.

I removed the geometry book because there was a consensus before to keep the list to only those events which are important. A doodle on a book is hardly important to the main story. Second, i watched that episode three times. I am an active member of forums which discuss this kinda thing, and the writers and producers discussed symbolism at Wizard World. Not once have i heard about this "fuse" or that Mohinder's board is somehow a large symbol for New York being blown up. You might believe it to be true, but without some sources, it sounds like original research. We have sources about the helix because the writers consider it to be important. I find it odd that you are the only one to suggest that this "fuse" is even remotely a symbol. THird, please leave my talk page alone. If you wish to discuss this, please do it here. Oh, and would you please stop attacking me? Seriously, one mistake and you come down on me, calling me a vandal. I could easily report you for not being civil. dposse 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I have several things to say about this so far. First, as an exercise in civility, I have already apologized for the God statement. So go ahead and report if you wish. You are apparently fishing for me to apologize again, but I shall not do so. Second, your edit here in the Discussion page was inappropriate; it was under the wrong entry with inappropriate indentation. I have moved it where it belongs. Third, your talk page is Wikipedia's official method by which people are supposed to be contacting you... it says so right on the page. Fourth, I messaged you personally because you were making inappropriate edits without bothering to discuss them first. Fifth, it was not "one mistake", you edited the page at least twice... now three times I see... again apparently without bothering to discuss your plans first. Sixth, I am not "attacking" you, any more than you are "attacking" me. I am simply pointing out that your behavior has been inappropriate. Seventh, who decides what is "important" to the story line? Is it you? On what basis? For example, what is not important in the first season might link to something later. How do you decide about that? Also, the topic says "recurring elements", not "recurring elements we feel are important". Eighth: so... you discuss this series with others a lot. Are you then claiming to be an expert? If others notice something that you do not, then it is up to you to decide whether it is accurate? Without even bothering to check the evidence first? I repeat: your behavior has been inappropriate. I believe you are acting as though this were your personal web page, and it is not. Ninth, I repeat... just because nobody has pointed this out to you before, does not mean that they have not noticed it. Do you think that everybody edits Wiki pages? Further, I referenced a particular scene... go look at it, preferably with someone who knows what fuse looks like, before deleting something as spam! Or, I repeat, I will report you for vandalism. You are apparently deciding that something is false without bothering to check first. That is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work! I could cite all the appropriate WP issues... but I think I have made my point. -- Jane Q. Public 22:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You're name seems awfully similar to User:JohnQ.Public - s/he liked using the word "God" as well :-\. Matthew 21:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is my legitimate unique Wikipedia username, which I have had for quite some time. Wikipedia username John Q. Public has no relationship whatever to me. -- Jane Q. Public 21:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I find this seeming insinuation offensive. I am neither of the mentioned editors, but it seems like you are implying straw men or somesuch, John Q public is a common saying and substituting jane to change a male to a female is reasonably common such as in Jane Doe, GI Jane. Jane Q. Public is just an example of said same, or so it seems to me. WookMuff 23:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

'The Fuse' strikes me as OR as well, and should be out. a\A Cigar's just a Cigar sometimes. ThuranX 23:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hate to agree with ThuranX but yeah, without relevant citations (other than the scene in question) it seems to like OR. WookMuff 23:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Unless I see the right citations, this "fuse" should be removed ASAP as original research. Just what's so great about pins and strings? :( Tohru Honda13 00:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the difference: I have presented evidence in the form of a direct reference to demonstrate my point, while you have presented nothing but phrases like "seems like" and "what's so great about that"? (Reference the comments above.) While I do not claim to be an "expert" myself, it does not take one to see that what I have stated is true. In regard to the mentioned reference, just FYI: (1) The visible outside of the "string" in question is tightly woven. String is not woven. That is too expensive. String is twisted or braided. (2) The "string" has a shiny coating. Useful string does not have a hard, shiny coat. That reduces its flexibility, which reduces is usefulness as string. Commercial cannon fuse, on the other hand has just such a waterproof coating appearing exactly as this appears. (3) It is EXACTLY the same color as commercial cannon fuse... a very unusual color for string. (4) In the mentioned scene, it exhibits the same stiffness as that kind of fuse... again very unusual for string, for the reasons already mentioned.

Further, statements like "without relevant citations (other than the scene in question) it seems to like OR..." are kind of hypocritical. A citation was given. This should be sufficient (see below) to convince ANYONE with a passing familiarity with the subject matter. I find it pretty damned hard to accept that a citation is being asked for, but NOBODY has even bothered to research the one that was given. There is a citation. But you feel that "seems like" overrides that? That is pretty weird.

You can hide behind the rules if you want, and call it "original research". But that is all you are doing: ignoring the facts, and hiding behind the rules. You have not bothered to look into any of it yourselves, but just judged it on "seems like" and "I don't think this is important". (By the way... this is not a scientific entry, but just an entry about a TV show! Do you really expect an expert to show up and corroborate this, or disprove it? You are dreaming! Because of that, your claims of "original research" are so much hogwash anyway. That rule is aimed at repeatable scientific experiments, not television shows!) Once again (and I challenge anyone to dispute this in a reasonable way): you could say exactly the same thing about the symbol being represented by the hose in the swimming pool. It is obvious to anyone who knows what to look for... but I am sure there are an awful lot of people who did not notice it. Does that make it an invalid entry??? Of course not. You are being discriminatory, without foundation.

Just as with law, Wikipedia rules have a spirit behind them. You are ignoring the spirit, and hiding behind the letter. I might not be able to do much about that. But that is not what the spirit of Wikipedia is all about. Shame on you. -- Jane Q. Public 07:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No need to jump down my throat personally, by seems like I was trying to say that maybe it isn't OR, but you need to provide backup. Maybe lots of people didn't see the symbol in the pool, but a whole lot of people did, and thats what consensus is all about. Go find a picture of fuse, a picture of string, and a screencap from six months ago, and we'll all go "ah, I see it now", I am sure WookMuff 08:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My comments were about your own comments, not about you. The statement "shame on you" was not aimed at you personally; it was meant to include others. Apologies for any misunderstanding there.

My point was that perhaps you should find a picture of a fuse, and some string, and examine the reference that was cited, before you jump down my throat, and knee-jerk delete my posts. First people demand a reference (which I had already given at the very beginning), then they tell me that it isn't good enough because they don't want to bother to check it themselves??? There is a word for that but I would rather not repeat it here. In any case... all of the items mentioned are easily available on the Internet. In fact, since Heroes was on broadcast TV it is legal to copy it and distribute clips (and even entire episodes), as long as it is not done for profit, and many people have done just that. You can find them anywhere. Why not go look? Oh, right. I forgot. Too much trouble to actually check the references that are given. -- Jane Q. Public 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything, I was just agreeing that it seemed like OR, and I think that when it comes to citeability wikipedia is of the opinion of Guilty until proven Innocent. I think that the onus (sp?) is on the contributing editor to back up their edits. Also, :P, I am not too lazy to check the facts, I am too lazy to check the facts then add them into the article ;) WookMuff 22:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines against original research and the guidelines requiring citations apply to all articles. Otherwise the Wikipedia wouldn't be qualifyable as an encylopedia. Additionally, you should use '''' to emphasize points, instead of [[]], which just makes silly wikilinks. EvilCouch 11:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is questionable whether a lot of things in this article are worthy of an encyclopedia. Case in point: a list of "recurring elements that we feel are important"?? Based on a completely subjective consensus about what people (who are not even connected to the authors or producers) feel is important this particular week? You really feel that is worthy of inclusion, but it is not worthwhile to check facts before deleting entries? Hmmmmm.... looks to me like the rules are being followed, but selectively... only when certain people here feel like doing so. Anyway, my point was that rules, like laws, have a purpose and spirit behind them. Following the letter of the rule (or law), while ignoring its spirit, will bring bad Karma. :o) Especially when even that much is being done selectively.

Here is yet another example of twisted logic: People here call the recurring symbol "the helix", yet refuse to acknowledge that it is obviously a piece of DNA or RNA. If that were not so, there would be no reason whatever to call it a "helix"!!! It could just as accurately be called a sine wave! Yet "helix" it is, but apparently its identity as DNA or RNA is "mere speculation". What a crock.

For a mere TV show, I think the standards of "evidence" being called for are artificially (and hypocritically) high, as evidenced by the person above stating that something must be "proved" before putting it in the article, while other things that are so obviously true have been left out. There are a great many statements in the article, as it exists, that are not proven and have no citation whatever. Also, there are a great many hard facts in this world that are not provable, but are facts nevertheless. (As any competent scientist can tell you, theories can never be "proven". They can only be disproven. Even so, some of them represent hard facts... otherwise your computer and CD player, among so many other things, would simply not work.)

If you are going to enforce rules, then you are ethically bound to enforce them equally rather than selectively. That is not exactly the case here, and I am phrasing that mildly.

By the way, to EvilCouch: your point about the emphasis is taken.

I am not going to beat my head against a wall and argue this issue any further. I have made some valid points, even if others refuse to see them. My intention was to help educate people about a subject that I find interesting and entertaining. But to quote WookMuff above: "... the major editors of this topic tend to be reactionary to the point of stasis. But get them proof of the obvious and it will probably stay... at least for a few weeks!... " If others insist on keeping their heads buried in the sand I have no reason to strain myself while trying to get them to pull out. -- Jane Q. Public 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jane, I can understand your frustration. Is it a fuse? Perhaps - I don't know either way. You might be able to make a case for the physical aspect. Is it a symbol, on the other hand - now that is a completely different question. Keep in mind that - as you said - this is a television show. Presuming for a moment that it is an actual fuse, there are many other variables that we just don't know about. Did the producers say "let's use a fuse for the symbolism"? Or did the art director - asked to connect the pins with string - decide to use it as an in-joke, without telling anyone? For that matter, the props people could have used a fuse for its physical characteristics - stays straight, no sagging, without requiring too much tension that might pop out the pins (and thus create continuity issues). Another consideration - given the safety requirements on a major production, I highly doubt that they crew would even be allowed to use a real fuse because of the fire hazard. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

None of this matters, whether you show proof with examples from the series. It would still be original research, which is not allowable in wikipedia. Have some citations and we can add it. ({SPOLIER} For example: in the graphic novels, Austin can heal people. There is a citation that shows that Linderman can heal people. Until it was revealed that Austin WAS Linderman, it was original research to state it.{/SPOLIER}) Oh, and I'm not saying this "seems like" original research. It is.

Also, if we didn't have the rules in place, people could put any random theory they believe is true and the pages would be so cluttered that we wouldn't know what is actually going on. No one is "hiding behind" any rules. We all just want to remain citable and clutterfree.PureSoldier 18:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, both of the above arguments are completely specious. You don't have anyone arguing here that the "wrench" being melted in Episode 16 is "really" a wrench... yet I have no doubt, given the evidence I see on the page, that nobody would call that "original research". You call the rules into play when you disagree, but put other things on the page without even thinking about it, because to you it appears obvious. Well, other things appear just as obvious to other people, yet you will not even lift a finger to check out the glaring evidence yourselves. As I mentioned before, there is word for that. Several, actually. One of them is hypocrite.

(I am adding this later, because it is relevant... but it the last I have to say on the matter.) By the way, I would also like to point out that no, it is NOT "original research". It is true that I have not proven that it is not original research, but that is not the same thing. Learn the difference.

As mentioned before, I am done arguing. I was not even going to enter this comment, but people apparently have insisted on beating this dead horse. I am done wasting my time here. -- Jane Q. Public 21:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I just HAVE to respond to this. One of the people's arguments here are being specious, and it happens to be yous. Your "glaring evidence" is nothing short of circumstantial evidence. There are other factors to consider, that were mentioned above. I checked out your "evidence" and it doesn't hold up. Just because people disagree with you, doesn't mean that people didn't check out your argument. Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified). You came up with new knowledge, not what has been shown or said in the episode. PureSoldier 20:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not think that *I* am the one who missed the point here. First, let me take care of your "argument": if you "checked out the 'evidence'", then where are your specific statements refuting the points raised? There are none, and you can't have that both ways. I don't give a damn whether people disagree with me. They are free to do so. But when they do so based on subjective evaluations and hypocritical statements, then I have an ethical obligation to defend my position. I will repeat what I have stated before (if you even bothered to look): There is much more material that has been included on this page that is based on evaluations that are much more subjective (and even less "reviewed") than mine. And any such review -- unless it was based on specific statements or observations made by the actors or crew -- would still be completely subjective. Apparently you are saying that a committee has more intellectual authority than an individual, and history just does not support that position. So... just what are the "authorities" cited here? Other people, making statements based on evaluations that are just as subjective. This whole argument is hypocritical as hell and that is why I gave up on it. There is no effective way to deal with selective and hypocritical enforcement of rules, when the "consensus" is against you. Having said that, I will also say that yes, I stated previously that I was done here. I came back much later just to look, and in the spirit of the above comment I just "had" to reply to a statement that was conveniently made after I said I was finished. -- Jane Q. Public 16:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Then, let's break it down.

"A recurring symbol that is powerful but perhaps seldom noticed is the string...” - Commentary, would require a reword.”Powerful" indicates a point of view. "Seldom noticed" indicates that people were polled regarding this "symbol".

"…used by Mohandir Suresh to connect the pins on his map of the locations of people with special abilities." - First section that we could actually keep, though Mohinder is spelled wrong.

"This is clearly visible in closeup at the beginning of episode ten (Six Months Ago), and at various other points in the series." - Is this necessary? "Clearly" indicates another point of view. This could be condensed and stuck in the previous sentence.

"When viewed closely, it is clear that the "string" he is using is actually commercially available cannon or fireworks fuse..." - "Clear", again, indicates point of view. There is no citation that it actually IS "cannon or fireworks fuse". Also, to quote another wikipedian editor - "Is it a symbol, on the other hand - now that is a completely different question. Keep in mind that - as you said - this is a television show. Presuming for a moment that it is an actual fuse, there are many other variables that we just don't know about. Did the producers say "let's use a fuse for the symbolism"? Or did the art director - asked to connect the pins with string - decide to use it as an in-joke, without telling anyone? For that matter, the props people could have used a fuse for its physical characteristics - stays straight, no sagging, without requiring too much tension that might pop out the pins (and thus create continuity issues). Another consideration - given the safety requirements on a major production, I highly doubt that they crew would even be allowed to use a real fuse because of the fire hazard." So, there are other things to consider.

"…which in this scene leads straight to New York City." Which scene? You've mentioned the beginning of episode ten, but what about "various other points in the series"? The use of "this" would refer to "various other points in the series" not, episode ten, so this phrase is ambiguous.

"It is difficult to imagine a more potent use of symbolism." - Screams point of view and commentary, especially, "difficult" and "potent".

So, there are several reasons why your theory does not stand up, it's uncitable, has a point of view, and is original research. PureSoldier 17:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You did indeed miss the point. Or the current point anyway. A long time ago I agreed that the part about symbolism probably did not belong because it is speculative. I am fine with it remaining out. Ever since then (about the first day of this whole discussion), the "argument" has been about whether "the fuse" exists at all. Please try to keep up.

Having said that, it is natural to assume that if it does exist, it exists for symbolic reasons. But that is sheer speculation on the part of everyone, as is the assumption that fuse would not be used on a movie set. It is actually a rather common item. Have you ever watched special effects? By itself a piece of fuse is not much more fire hazard than a cigar or cigarette, which have been used on movie sets since movies were invented. But that really does not matter, because the statement about fire hazard is even wilder speculation than that of which I have been accused. Once again, I call for the editors here to look in a mirror before they make accusations of speculation or assumption on the part of others.

As for the rest: while I did say something like "and others" (which is true), the ONLY scene I mentioned specifically was the beginning of Episode Ten. Therefore, "this scene" could logically refer to no other. Have you bothered to look at it? -- Jane Q. Public 23:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps your point was to "prove" your theory correct. However, your arguments were more about wikieditor's "hiding behind" original research. In any case, unless citable sources can be given, we must live without a fuse. I have been amused by this conversation, but since it seems that some cannot be swayed by logic, I take my leave of this section and will allow you to believe whatever you wish. Have a wonderful day. PureSoldier 06:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Save the cheerleader

Can someone explain "save the cheerleader save the world." I keep hearing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.195.75 (talk)

I see this like a forum request and a Wikipedia talk page ain't a forum. On the other hand, if the question is asked, perhaps it means that something is missing in the article. But the problem with this one is that it isn't clear yet what it means. Hiro came from the future simply saying to Peter Petrelli "Save the cheerleader, save the world" and disappeared. If you want to know what happened in the entire series so far, you can read Peter Petrelli's page (ugh!), or more specifically, the section ""Save the cheerleader, save the world"", but even that isn't clear. -- Lyverbe 14:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, when looking at the grand scope of Seven Minutes to Midnight and Homecoming, it appears that the importance of "saving the cheerleader" is due to Claire's rapid healing ability, and the fact that Sylar was after it made it a matter of grave importance. If somebody like Sylar gains borderline invincibility, all bets are off, and we're screwed. Windmillninja 19:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the newest graphic novel, you'll see that Future Hiro mentions that Sylar was the one responsible for the "bomb" in NYC. Hiro had tried to stop him, but unfortunately, he had gained Claire's healing power after killing her. Future Hiro then went back in time to tell Peter to save her so that Sylar would be easier to defeat when the time came. NKSCF 19:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree--Raymm 18:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible addition to the Links section

www.herosite.net

This website has gained enough popularity in the past few months since its inception to warrant a mention on Wikipedia. Herosite.net seems to get the latest news on the show before the other sites do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.72.25.65 (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Per Wikipedia policy on external links (items three, nine and ten) this site should not be added. As for notability, the site ranks number 54 in a Google search for "Heroes" and has an Alexa ranking of 2,899,748. As far as I can tell, HeroSite is not mentioned in any reliable sources and thus fails Wikipedia policy on notablity for websites. - SigmaEpsilon ? ΣΕ 20:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Rooftop

Sould we add the roof top in New York in Recurring elements, the building was owned by the Deveaux, where the Claire used to live with her biological Mother (in company man), claude's place for his pigions, where Peter learns how to control his abiliteis, where Hiro teleports 5 years in the future in PArisite and leading into 0.7%, and Issac in Distractions said the roof was imoortent (also he had painted 2 picutes of the roof)- RREDD13 22:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No. I don't see how that's notable. dposse 22:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the rooftop is an important recurring location, but I'm not sure that qualifies as a important recurring element of the show. It is important in the way that the Linderman Hotel/Casino and the Paper Factory are - in that significant events continue to occur at these locations.

KatzztaK 04:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As Katzz has said, it's an important recurring location but not an element. Those two are different. Berserkerz Crit 09:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok so whats create a recurring location section- RREDD13 00:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen Wiki pages that say "Spoilers coming" in a little banner before hand but not just shows that haven't aired in some places shows that are years old everywhere. Stargate SG1's page is a good example of this. ? Seraph 15:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Heroes?- RREDD13 16:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And furthermore, if you see unnecessary spoiler tags, why not just remove them?--Lostcause365 17:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have said they were unnecessary spoiler tags, it's still spoilers for people who haven't seen it. ? Seraph 14:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. However, there may be support for changing the constitution of Heroes; see further discussion at Talk:Heroes. Dekimasu?! 00:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

---

• Heroes (TV series) ? Heroes —(Discuss)— The TV show is by far the most common internet search result and is quite popular --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 14:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support" --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 14:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Heroes already redirects to this article (Heroes (TV series)). Searches would not be improved by moving the article. ChazBeckett 14:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the same reason above. (I didn't know it did before.) PureSoldier 14:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Heroes does not redirect to this page it goes to the Hero (disambiguation) page --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 20:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Is this TV series really that notable? When I think of Heroes, it's the plural of "hero" or the David Bowie album or song. I'd prefer Heroes to redirect to Hero (disambiguation). Markussep 14:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Absolutely oppose. Heroes probably should redirect to a disambig page, but I'm ok with it redirecting to the TV show article (at least until the first season concludes).?NMajdan•talk 15:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• I must oppose this. A series being watched by lots of Americanlanders doesn't make it the most notable worldwide. "Heroes" is too general a term. Matthew 15:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, for same reasons given above.--NeilEvans 15:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, no need to move because you are too lazy to put tv in the search title.--Lostcause365 16:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, the show is new, use of the word has been around forever and will outlive the TV show. it's silly to have Heroes come directly here. Harlock jds 17:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, many uses of the term other than the series. I would support moving the disambiguation page directly to Heroes. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose move, but support redirecting Heroes to Heroes (TV series) (per the discussion there: Talk:Heroes). Justen 00:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Matthew --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 00:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - General use of the term "hero" is much more notable than the TV show. --Kmsiever 01:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose TV series doesn't far outweigh other uses. Joeldl 04:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it's more likely that someone typing "Heroes" is looking for the general concept of a hero. TJ Spyke 07:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - in the long run, people will not want to be redirected to Heroes (Tv Series) page. Especially when the series ends. I also support a "Heroes" disambig page. — « hippi ippi » 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - as stated below, I have created a temporary disambiguation page at Heroes/temp to show a seperate one might look, as opposed to all the "Heroes" and "Hero" articles being mixed together. Crazysuit 19:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, there are a lot of notable Heroes, so disambiguation in title is necessary. However, Heroes should be the disambiguation page, not a redirect from it. --soum (0_o) 22:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose; given the number of different articles, I'd say it's clearly not the absolutely dominant use of the term. Making it a dab page to shrink Hero seems a good idea. --DeLarge 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the reasons given above. --Careax 19:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Should link to the many items listed on the dab page, not just to one. Bolivian Unicyclist 16:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Also vote on whether or not to redirect Heroes to Heroes (TV series) at Talk:Heroes#Survey.

Discussion

I was going to support this, seeing as Heroes is currently a redirect (never hurts to trim off an unneeded bit of disambiguation from a title), but if that redirect is so disputed, maybe that should be settled first? Maybe get another (third, actually) survey on Talk:Heroes with some more participation? Because much of what I'm seeing here would call in to question the redirect at least as much as the page move, if not more.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Keep the redirect and the article as is, at least until someone complains and makes a good argument why a change should be made. ChazBeckett 16:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

By definition, if there are several articles with the same title (Heroes), then a disambig page is needed. So, there is no reason that any article should be title Heroes. I believe that Heroes should redirect to the TV series article until after the season is completed and then it should redirect to the disambig page.?NMajdan•talk 16:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon further reading of this, Heroes should be the disambig page.?NMajdan•talk 17:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of reverting the change to the redirect temporarily. Given the low participation in the discussion, and given this discussion, I think it is worth waiting for this process to complete as it may well affect the outcome at Heroes. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Hero (disambiguation), I saw that there are several pages with the title "Heroes (...)". Wikipedia:Disambiguation indicates that, in such a case, "Heroes" should redirect to disambig. - SigmaEpsilon ? ΣΕ 19:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment, as this request seems to be my "fault"! I noticed that Heroes was changed into a redirect to Heroes (TV series). I suggested on Talk:Heroes that it would be preferable for Heroes (TV series) to be moved to Heroes if this is to stay. Whether or not the re-direct was the right thing to do is another question, but IF it is, moving the page is far more preferable than having the Heroes remain as a redirect to here. -- Chuq (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've seperated the articles titled "Heroes" and listed them to give a clearer indication of how many there are:

• "Heroes", an album by David Bowie
• "Heroes" (song), the same-titled single from a David Bowie album
• Symphony No. 4 (Glass) or "Heroes" Symphony, by Philip Glass, inspired by the album
• Heroes (Cash and Jennings album), a 1986 album by Johnny Cash and Waylon Jennings
• "Heroes" (Elena Paparizou song), the official song of the 2006 European Athletics Championship
• "Heroes" (Shinedown song), a single by the hard rock band Shinedown
• Heroes (Mark O'Connor album), by Mark O'Connor
• Héroes del Silencio, Spanish rock band
• Heroes of Sand, a song by the Brazilian metal band Angra
• Heroes (TV series), a 2006 American television series on NBC created by Tim Kring
• Heroes (film), 1977 comedy film starring Henry Winkler and Sally Field
• Heroes (comics), a comic book limited series from Milestone Comics
• Heroes (book), a short novel by American author Robert Cormier
• "Heroes" (Stargate SG-1), a two-part episode of Stargate SG-1
• "Heroes", an episode of CSI: NY
• Heroes of Might and Magic, dubbed simply as Heroes by players, a series of turn-based strategy games

I created a temporary disambiguation page at Heroes/temp to show how it might look - no specific order though. There are so many articles named "Heroes" that Heroes could be a disambiguation page in itself, rather than just a redirect to Hero - it would make it easier for anyone looking for a "Heroes" article than if they had to search through a list of mostly Hero-titled articles, as they currently have to. Crazysuit 19:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Heroes/temp looks good. I approve. lol. Yes i totally agree with 2 disambig pages. I mean, look at Beauty (disambiguation) and Beautiful. Hmm not sure if that was a good example, but yeah. — « hippi ippi » 10:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Another vote of confidence for Crazysuit's proposed new disambig page. May want to include a note at the top "Heroes is the plural of Hero" or similar. -- Chuq (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. "Heroes" and "Hero" should each be seperate disambig pages. Good idea, Crazysuit! - SigmaEpsilon ? ΣΕ

This is excellent. Nice work. 71.214.252.215 23:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Attempt to create precedent disallowing individual episodes

There is discussion at WP:AN/I#Fancruft_issue_again, and an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man that is attempting to create a precedent disallowing individual episodes. Matthew 18:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Peregrine Fisher and User:Matthew are attempting to vote stack this AfD by telling other users that this AfD will effect unrelated episode articles. This AfD is only about this set of articles, and stands on it's own. AfD is not a vote. Editors coming here to support a different show's set of episode articles should take the time to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man situation individually. -- Ned Scott 18:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confusing "vote stacking" with informing wikipedians about a situation that could affect alot of articles on wikipedia. dposse 19:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think deletion of episodes of The Adventures of Cody and Zack or whatever its called is really going to have an affect on deletion of Heroes, Lost, Jericho etc episodes. I think using the "attempt to create a precedent that will affect Heroes" angle is just a scare tactic. -- Chuq (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I oppose this deletion anyway (for the reasons I've said there), but I don't think a precedent is too much of a concern. Some folks may try to use it as such, but I think Wikipedia's editors/admins will be wise enough to see that for what it is.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeigarnik effect

should it be mentioned, how the series uses the Zeigarnik effect consistently throughout the series —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aaronpark (talk • contribs) 22:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

How has Heroes used that? dposse 00:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"The Zeigarnik effect states that people remember uncompleted or interrupted tasks better than completed ones." Yeah, I'd like to know how Heroes has used this. — « hippi ippi » 09:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

By consistently leaving lots of tasks unfinished. Onyl a couple of questions have been answere,d and theres never a point where "Ok, everything is finished, everything is answered". I guess thats what he means... Jacobshaven3 13:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

But plenty of shows/literature have used that. Lost, 24, Law and Order, any anime on the planet, The DaVinci Code, Harry Potter, ect. It's not notable at all, though. dposse 13:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Heroes as allegory for Hindu Myth

I don't know where to post this, so I hope you'll excuse my edit. From the reading I've done both at university and in the four years since, it is clear to me that Heroes is a very specific type of allegory, and Five Years Gone only confirms this for me. A few terms to consider: Rama, Ravana, Navratras, Akashic Records, cosmic involution, Chakra. There are two moments in Five Years Gone which are absolutely convincing for me: first, the fact that Niki Sanders and Peter Petrelli are romantically involved, five years later; second, and most importantly, that when Sylar and Peter Petrelli meet in the hallway at the end of the episode, Sylar invokes Manipur Chakra and Peter Petrelli invokes Svadhistan Chakra to counter it.

On another random Heroes blog, I mentioned that it would be quite useful to attempt to categorize the heroes into sub-classes based on the elemental manifestations of their powers; I'll finish this edit by listing the six Chakras, into which each hero we've seen can be classified:

• Muladhara: earth element, associated with the number 56
• Manipur: water element, associated with the number 52
• Svadhistan: fire element, associated with the number 62
• Anhata: air element, associated with the number 54
• Visudhi: ether element (think Hana Gitelman, Micah), associated with the number 72, and
• Ajna: mind element (think Matt Parkman, The Haitian), associated with the number 64.

The numbers associated with the elements are said to be the number of cosmic 'rays' necessary to cause that element to invoke its cosmic involution. How many rays are there in total? 360. Like a circle. It's the universal sakti -- the number of creation.

I made an edit regarding the similarity of the plot and structure of Heroes to that of the Hindu myth of Navratras -- it's not some crackpot theory, as Greg Beeman has confirmed at least part of it. Where do I put it? Whole new page? 70.130.218.139 22:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is complete OR and cannot be added. - SigmaEpsilon ? ?? 22:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate, if you can find reputable published sources which offer this type of information (for example, an interview with a producer who says that the characters are based on chakras and that Peter's marriage to Niki was included because it's a [term], or a book (from a real publisher) critically analyzes the show in this context), then you can include that information to Wikipedia. However, you would be limited to what is in the source, so using the example of the interview, you wouldn't be allowed to specify which chakra goes with which characters if the producer didn't mention it in the interview, since that would be your synthesis of original ideas. --??org 23:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It was actually two of the writers, when discussing the significance of the number 9. You might call it a "theory" or a "conjecture", but I call it the 800-pound gorilla in the room. I mean, there's even a princess who has two "selves": a demure, shy girl and a powerful witch-like woman. But Heroes is not founded solely on Hindu myth; the other piece in the puzzle is the Australian aboriginal concept of Dreamtime and Waugal the rainbow-serpent, which seems to be the realm of Charles Deveaux. And the same Dreamtime concept is closely related to the plateau-mountain in aboriginal Australia called -- wait for it -- Uluru, a place said to have been a battleground for many serpents, and which is cursed to this day. The curse was breathed into a mud statue, according to legend, and embodied as a dingo. Sorry for all of this, as I'm approaching Heroes with all of the maniacal fervor I used to reserve for my homework! 70.130.218.139 01:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The zeal you confess to is part of the problem. I think I speak for more than just myself when I say I'm glad you recognize that you are devoting such levels to the idea, because it means we can discuss it. To you, this is a hindu based story. To me, a probably Hindu character is in it, and might use some terminology, but I could equally choose to see Arthurian overtones, or Campbell's ideas about the journey ofa hero in Hiro's tale, including such things as a character with a doom (I won't SPOILER that, those who saw episode 20 know who I mean), and a quest for a sword. However ,I cannot cite my theory either. Ultimately, many viewers will see many different themes in the story. As viewers, we can do this. As Wikieditors, however, we have to hold to 'just the facts', or that which we can cite. Your assertion that the hindu parallels are "the 800-pound gorilla in the room" is a significant sign of bias. That you're aware of it means you also know that such biases are dangerous here. However, without independent confirmations from the writers admitting that it's intentional, we'd be merely looking at inferences, not implications. I personally admit that your theory is interesting, and if you can find a suitable venue/forum to expand the theory, please leave me a talk page message. ThuranX 02:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternate Future (Heroes) : Nominated for Deletion.

See also: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alternate_Future_(Heroes)

This article has been nominated for deletion. Please discuss it at the AFD page. Thanks. dposse 19:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

ASCII

I can't believe what I'm seeing, but how can you say that the symbol floating in Chandra's computer screen isn't ASCII art?--Lostcause365 16:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever it is, people must stop edit wars. It's childish. But might as well state my opinion on this; it is indeed ASCII art. -- Lyverbe 16:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not art. It's ASCII characters that happen to form a helix pattern. If it were intentional, then it would be ASCII art. - SigmaEpsilon ? ?? 16:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That is an In-Universe view of the facts. Do you really think that the ascii is a coincidence that the creators of heroes were lucky enough to film? WookMuff 11:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"I don't know if it's art or not, but I know what I like." --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 18:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Voice of...?

I've seen a credit to someone as "and the voice of..." but I don't know who that is or what character (if any) does he voices. Any help would be greatly apreciated.Vicco Lizcano 22:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC) ^{(Hey! Listen!)}

Do you mean "the voice of Shenkar"? I think that's the person who does the chanting/singing in the opening. - SigmaEpsilon ? ?? 22:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the one I meant... so, that's a "title song" credit? Thanks for the info. Vicco Lizcano 18:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC) ^{(Hey! Listen!)}

Production

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

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

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

Main Character Chart

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

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