Talk:Heroes (American TV series)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Merger proposal

All of the information on Primatech is redundant to other articles. Unless there is a reason that the information cannot be included in this artcle, shouldn't we just merge it? --In Defense of the Artist 16:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should merge it, but to Heroes 360 Experience. That covers the "Alternate reality game" part of Heroes. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 18:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It really covers more than just the game as well, and does have a direct relationship to the TV series. Pushing this content into another article which isn't directly covering the TV series seems like a good way to lose track of the information, and making navigation of what information there is about this fictional company even harder to find. BTW, on a slightly unrelated note, is Primatech going to be in season #2 of Heroes? If for some reason this article is split up chronologically by season instead, perhaps the information about Primatech could be merged into a detailed discussion of season #1 instead. Just a thought here. I caught Mr. Bennet in one preview of season 2 but it seems the story line may be moving out of Odessa, TX. --Robert Horning 00:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the latest graphic novel, it seems that Primatech may still be in the storyline. And though it's speculation at this point, it looks like Elle may be an employee. Ophois 23:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe if Primatech is important enough for NBC to center an ARG around it it deserves its own article atleast for now. It's obvious that NBC didnt just make an ARG on it for no reason so we are too assume that its eventually going to have a bigger role in Heroes.FuzionZero 18:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Primatech does relate to HEROES, but having all information for the HEROES series on one page would undoubtedly clutter the page and render it unreadable. If it were to be merged with anything, it should be merged with The_Company_(Heroes). Keldon85 20:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be merged with The Company. Ophois 22:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If any merging is to occur A agree with this more. But the fact that it has its own ARG based off it makes me suggest it deserve it's own article since it will eventually become a key item in the plot. Yamagato Industries itself has yet to do anything significant besides the CEO of the company being affiliated with "The Company". Primatech on the other hand has done things like abduct several people with abilities and run tests and implant tracking devices in them, aswell has hold Sylar captive and run in-depth tests on him. I still think that right now it still deserves its own article and as the plot unfolds will further merit its own article. FuzionZero 04:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Primatech has done all of that under the Company's orders. It's not as if Primatech and the Company are completely different entities. Primatech employees are employees of the Company. Ophois 04:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes but neither "The Company" itself nor Yamagato Industries has done anything directly to effect the plot. I am aware that The Company is what ultimately ordered Primatech to do the things that were related to the plot but Primatech not only has directly done the things, but NBC also so it an important enough element to do an ARG based on it. And that is why I think it deserves it's own article. FuzionZero 04:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Has it been confirmed that the next ARG will be centered around Primatech? Ophois 04:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In the Heroes 360 article it says that this was an experiment and that they have an even bigger experience coming next year so that could mean either a more in-depth ARG for Primatech, or an ARG covering more of the Heroes universe, which is what I think. FuzionZero 15:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Then Primatech may not have much of a presence in Season 2. Ophois 21:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly but looking at things as they are now, with its directly involvment with the plot and the ARG based on it, I believe it deserves its own article. FuzionZero 16:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it safe to assume now that we will not be merging Primatech into the main article? If so we should remove the merge tag FuzionZero 23:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging with the Heroes (TV series) article ain't a good idea IMO, but I don't think it qualifies as an individual article either. Merging with The Company (Heroes), is IMO the way to go. Infact - a Primatech passage has already been created in that article. Pjär80 22:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Peter Petrelli's power

I don't like the recent addition to Peter Petrelli, but it is correct. It's more the format that is incorrect. Unless someone has stated (in a referenceable source) that he is an "empath", I think that we should change his power to "mimic" or "copycat". — Val42 21:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's stated in an episode. Also, there is nothing about him being an empath that is incorrect. Empath deals with those who are sensitive to others. Peter is sensitive to other's abilities. How is that incorrect? Also, the statement has been removed. PureSoldier 21:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually an empath in the case of comic-like subjects are those who can read and manipulate the emotions of others. I don't think Peter is an empath for that reason, I think he is a mimic.--Dil 21:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

On his own page, he is described as a empathic power mimic. However, this isn't a comic, and as he was described in the show as an empath and with the definition of an empath "a term coming into common usage to refer to a person with a feeling expanded sensitivity or clairsentience", it's an inclusive term for Peter's ability. PureSoldier 22:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Please give a specific reference for the episode in which his power is named as "empath". — Val42 22:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"The Fix" PureSoldier 22:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added it to the article. — Val42 22:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Main Cast list

I think Santiago, Tawny, and Leonard should be taken out of the main list now that they are no longer main cast. Obriensg1 21:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obriensg1 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

They are still part of the main cast for season 1. Just because of how the season ended, doesn't change season 1's main cast listing. PureSoldier 21:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No I know that. I mean the listing under the title card picture. Obriensg1 23:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit, per Wikipedia custom with regards to the infobox. It is not intended to be a snapshot of a particular moment in time; instead, it reflects a overview of the production. Cast members may come and go, but they are still a part of the series as a whole. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with PureSoldier and Ckatz. The infobox should include all regulars regardless of current involvment in the show...what would you do if the show ended? show nobody? It may get problemanic if the show goes on for 5 seasons and keeps adding regulars at the rate it currently does but we have a long time before having to think about that. Rekija 23:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, some of the articles about shows with large casts get around the problem by removing the actors altogether in favour of a link to the "Character" section of the article. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually many shows on here use what's under the infobox to have a list of the current cast, while they have seperate listings below with specific mentions for an actor's time on the program. See 24, Shark, Alias, Numb3rs, Brothers and Sisters Obriensg1 04:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And The Dead Zone (TV series) Ophois 05:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, so why can we not change this?! There will still be listings on the page that detail former cast members. Obriensg1 04:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Per a discussion on the talk page for the infobox, the intent is to list the cast in an out-of-universe manner, reflecting the body of work as a whole. That is to say, all main characters are listed, regardless of whether or not they are currently on the show. If the list gets too long, replace it with a link to the "Characters" section. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

David Anders shouldn't really be listed. In the first episode of the second season, he's credited as a guest star. --220.233.124.201 09:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Molly Walker should be moved to the main cast list now. She's not an "other" Character anymore.Spread The Word 17:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

She's not a main character, either. If she's in a couple more episodes, she'll probably be moved to the recurring section. Ophois 17:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Helix

I believe it also shown in the pool, on the episode where Matt Parkman is at the little girl's house when he first starts to hear thoughts. I'm not sure if that's the right episode but I'm pretty sure it's shown in a pool in one of the earlier episodes. Just thought I would put this up in discussion before adding it to make sure I'm right. I'm not able to check for myself at the moment but if someone would like to check up on it and add it in that would be great. FuzionZero 20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Only plot-important examples of the helix are to be added. Ophois 21:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the pool thing was mentioned in the Heroes Unmasked "making of" program, but the person that said it seemed pretty embarrassed about it. — PhilHibbs | talk 08:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In the "It Takes a Village" comics, it's shown that the Helix to the Haitian represents a snake that gained the wings of a crane after eating it. Should this be added to the Helix section? Ophois 04:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a very interesting fact. It should probably be added to help shine light on the meaning of the Helix. Any information about the Helix is needed right now because 1- we have no real reason as to why the Helix is displayed in Heroes and 2- to the casual viewers of the program i am sure they are confused as to why a seemingly random symbol is continuously displayed. So anything about the Helix itself (not its appearances except for plot-important instances) I think should be added. FuzionZero 15:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good addition. The fact the helix is actually mentioned rather then just being appearing is quite notable. As long as it's not implied that it is the solo meaning of the helix...it could mean many things to many people. Rekija 22:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read the whole story in the comic, the snake sounds exactly like Sylar. Strange...Ophois 23:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well well well... S02E01 had some very interesting plot-important examples of the helix. It was actually spoken about, which is a first for the show I think. It had only been mentioned by characters in the graphic novel mentioned above. Fine with those additions in there. Rekija 23:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I recently made some changes that brought in the "It Takes a Village" information - [1] - which have been, for the time being, reverted. Most of this information comes from "Heroes Wiki" [2], I merely copied the factual and verifiable information and linked back for the remainder of the original material. Would you like to see this included? Brion.finlay 07:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A little confused

Im a little confused on Heroes Origin. Is it considered the 2nd season? Is it the one starting this month? If it only has 6 episodes wont it be over after like a month and a half or is it going to have longer intervals inbetween the new episodes. I looked on the Heroes Origin page and it said it starts in April and goes well into May. Was that this year and I just completely missed or is it next year or is the article wrong? Im just confused with what exactly is Season 2 going to be and when, since the Heroes article calls the season thats starting this month Season 2 and then in Plot theres Heroes Origin which the article for it says it starts April. Can someone just clear this up for me. Thanks. FuzionZero 14:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Heroes Origin will air during Season 2's midseason break. Ophois 22:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Origins is a spin-off. Featuring new characters. As far as I understand each ep will be a standalone episode, each about a new hero. Popular ones may cross over later...but the main point is to be able to tell different stories in the same universe. Season 2, if it goes by any other name, will be Generations...although that title may not last the entire season. Rekija 02:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

So the Heroes that will begin airing this month is going to be Origins, which will be an inbetween series that does not deal with the plot that occurs in Season 1? Then after Origins will be Season 2 of Heroes which will continue the plot from Season 1? If so, when will Season 2 begin? FuzionZero 03:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, Origins will air during Season 2's midseason break (around January). Ophois 03:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahh OK. I think it might be a good idea to include in the article how Season 2 and Origins are seperate, and similiar. Aswell as how they will tie into Season 1. FuzionZero 15:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Added that origins will debute April-May (according to comic con, if someone could source it would be great) which should make things clearer. Origins does have its own page which explains the difference more. Rekija 00:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ckatz for cleaning that up. There we go that should prevent confusion. Rekija 00:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The wikipedia style is to keep the main article short, so that squeezing things into the main article is undesirable. DaveBurstein 05:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

On that subject why is there still a list of characters on the main article if there is a sub article covering all of that? FuzionZero 16:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

One small correction/clarification about the Origins being a spin-off. It is, as has been stated will be midseason, and each of the 6 eps will be standalone. From what I have read so far from press releases and what not, the viewers will have the chance to vote on one of the six storylines as their favorite and the winning hero's story will be incorporated into the third season.Jjkayes 18:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

EW ranks the first twenty-three episodes

• Dan Fierman. "'Heroes' Report Card: We Grade All 23 Episodes". Entertainment Weekly.

Something to establish notability with for each episode article. Alientraveller 19:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Emerson Lawsuit

Does this section really belong in this article? It seems really out of place. The scene that gave rise to the whole brouhaha was in the pilot, and it seems like an issue that would be better dealt with in that episode's article. Blackeagle 06:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's notable enough to be mentioned in the main article, since the lawsuit went against the parent company and received significant media coverage. More to the point, in the current climate on Wikipedia individual episode articles are being deleted at the drop of a hat. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It received media coverage back when the episode originally aired. The entire thing is resolved now, and it's really of no ongoing interest. As far as the episode page getting deleted, if it is, the section could always be put back in this article. Blackeagle 07:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Recurring elements section

I think the Cockroach should be added, it's obviously an important element, as seen in the ending credits of the unaired pilot. --Caligvla 18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I second it! mohinder made a speech about cockroaches and sylar fits into that speech really well!69.118.144.236 22:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I third the motion. I don't remember where I read this, but Tim Kring himself said that the cockroach wasa an important recrring symbol in the series. Specialk22 14:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In order to add it, we need references to back up the claim. It cannot be because Wikipedia's editors want it. If you can find the Tim Kring statement, that would help. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's him mentioning it at ComicCon, though I don't think it's a direct quote: http://www.heroesrevealed.com/news/sdcc-2007-heroes-panel-report/ Ophois 18:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Unaired pilot episode

The DVD release contains a bonus of the unaired pilot episode. Should there be a section on that? I am not sure if enough reviewers have seen it enough to render a citable review. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely you can just use Template:Cite video? As long as you just cite the facts and not actually review it I think you're OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry W. Schmitt (talk • contribs) 20:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, i was referring to the integration of the characters into the cast list (with the notation that they only appeared as main cast in the unaired plot), or were you thinking that it needed to be an encapsulated section, without bleed into any other part of the article?

I don't think we need the cast list to be any bigger then it is, given that the pilot was never aired and the cast members never became regulars I don't think they would have been added to the cast section. It would be like having Ando or Syler on it in season 1. If it was to have its own page then go wild, but not on the main page Rekija 22:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it belongs on the main page, but not a lot about it, and I guess its reasonable that the cast that didn't translate into the second pilot not get added to the cast. As it was, the missing cast members' powers were integrated into other cast members. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Multiple references

Do we really need two citations for statements in the article? I say we pick the one that works the best and trim out the other. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Trimmed a dead link out, leaving one reference. Seriously though, we should probably cull a lot of the redundant citations. For example, I removed two vestigial citations from the Lead that talks about the renewal of the show for the second season. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is generally considered good practice to have several references if they are available, especially given that some can (and do) go dead. Otherwise, what is properly referenced material today may become uncited, deleted text a few months down the road. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can see that. It just seems cluttering and distracting.

On a side note, what is up with the black-colored text box at the bottom of the article. Is that a wikiproject template gone wild? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Title sequence

Can someone grab a screenshot of the title card without the NBC watermark?-Wafulz 23:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I got rid of the watermark. I also uploaded the logo for the show. Which should be used? The title card or the logo? I don't believe the title card with the eclipse has been used in the second volume/season yet and could be obsolete...Fancypants09 20:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The eclipse title card has been used in Volume 2. --GSK 00:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Season Two Cast list

I'm new here to Wikipedia. However, I would like to add information regarding the new 5 characters that have been released as entering the cast for this Second season. In Entertainment Weekly's new September issue they have a "New Heroes" page with brief bios, names, and a new cast photo. I would like to include bits of this information by adding these characters to the season two cast list in doing so keeping it up to date. I would like some information on what I need to do to get this done, thank you. Learys 00:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Much of what you added was already in the article - Anders, Davis, and Ramirez - but in the standard format (by character, rather than by actor). Some of the others - Ortiz and Bell - are not main characters, and as such not covered in that section. As for Cabrera, Cypress, and Roberts, they're already mentioned in "Season One". If you can provide a source for Anders' quote, I'd like to work that in. Hope this helps. (Welcome, by the way, and thanks for the contribution.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious though, because as it stands the way it is shouldn't the 5 new characters be listed in a new character section for season two. They may not be main characters but still merit being listed. The list formatting I proposed and put up for this looked great and had little information for each, its more confusing the way it is up as now. It lists Sylar and Ando again as a character as if they are new and lists them again in the description part. But then lists other characters who actually are new in the middle. But doesn't list 2 - 3 of the new 5 I have information on. So i'm just curious why we can't either make a New character section for season two - only show the new characters in the season two listing as the season one characters will be returning. The quote from Anders comes from the Entertainment Weekly article. So what would you like from me to source it as? I have the EW website where it states all of the info from the article. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20058002,00.htmlLearys 01:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Three of the five you listed are already in there; the other two are not main characters, and as such are described on the "List of characters" instead of here. Sylar and Ando are in the "Season two" section because they are now main characters; they did not have that status in season one. As for the reference, if you can provide the URL, I can write up the reference coding for you (if you want.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The URL is listed above and here again, http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20058002,00.html Thanks. Learys 01:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see how that could be confusing, and I think there is a lot of room for improvement. The cast list is only regulars, and Sylar and Ando (despite being important characters with plenty of screentime) we're not regulars in the first season (they are listed as guest stars). I would not be opposed if it was done in a way such as "Regulars introduced this season" kinda thing, so that Ando and Sylar got mentioned in season 1...they wern't regulars then but they are a regular in the series who was introduced that season. I don't think it's as confusing as what we currently have, but also a lot more verifable then simply adding who we think are important, or adding everyone with a speaking role. Rekija 01:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If the season-based list is too confusing, then drop it and just list the main characters alphabetically, making sure that there is no doubt about when they became main characters. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

David Anders was listed as a Guest Star in the premiere. Should he be removed from the cast list? Ophois 01:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should err on the side of caution - after all, its just the first episode and none of us here have a crystal ball. Let's wait and see? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In addition, there are several references that indicate he was upgraded from recurring to main cast, including one that has Anders himself stating that he is a regular. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Dave Anders is listed in Entertainment Weekly to have powers that, when reveiled will affect ALL of the Heroes world. So we will certainly see him in some form of a large recurring role in the season. Learys 01:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

From an interview with David Anders (ref. #23): "I will guest star in the first couple, but then will be a regular for the rest of the season." --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(repeated from #28 below) As it relates to Sylar, [main/recurring] is a minute and uninformative distinction to hang one's hat on. Ando is supplementary, agreed. But placing Sylar's short character bio under Season Two is just dopey. I would suggest that someone take a look at how the Fonz is listed on "Happy Days" for an instructive example.208.120.227.63 00:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Cockroaches - Recurring elements

hi, im not sure how many times but i keep seeing cockroaches in some episodes. The two i can remember are when sylar is on the floor in a cell and on the season 1 finale crawling over the drain which sylar's blood is flowing into.
im not sure if this truely is a recurring element but thought id ask ahref 15:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Kring himself said cockroaches were a thematic component to the series, or at least to the first season. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Santiago Cabrera and Tawny Cypress

Shouldn't they be removed from the cast list now, as they both got killed in the first series? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepmix (talk • contribs) 20:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No, as they were cast members in the firt season (American show, American terminology - series in the US refers to a program, whilst in the UK, series refers to a specific season). Btw, we don't use spoilers, either here or in the articles, as WP is not a forum. That's why I removed the space-using spoiler warning from your post. When people come here, they are aware that they are getting into article construction, and that the facts of the series are value neutral: nothing is a spoiler, and the criteria is reliably cited or non-reliably (or non-) cited. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed Section

I have removed this fromt he article to here. It seems fairly complete, but it needs connection this particular article in the form of citation connecting the two series. I cannot see it returning without it:

Inspiration to Heroes

In 2003 a twelve-episode miniseries was aired in Sweden, "De drabbade" ("The Affected"). The series main theme was about how different Scandinavian persons from all walks of life suddenly find themselves in possession of supernatural powers. The background story is different; the powers are not attributed to genetics, but to an ancient prophecy. The struggle between good and evil use of these powers is similar, as are the powers themselves (e.g. precognition, telepathy, healing, persuasion, invisibility). According to the creators' webpage, "De drabbade is a series about human strength and weakness. About the choices we make and their consequences. It deals with what happens if we, in the midst of our daily lives, discover that we suddenly possess supernatural powers. It is about free will and what we make of it... How will we steer our free will when we have the possibility? Towards the light? Or towards the darkness?... We want to tell what happens when somebody like YOU wake up one morning and [you] realise that you with your will alone can do impossible things. Things you did not believe possible... What will you do?" The obvious similarities betweeen Heroes and De drabbade have been noted by Swedish television journalists. Although there are huge differences in overall quality and budget, many believe that Heroes has borrowed and been inspired by De drabbade.

Here is a list of things in De drabbade that Heroes probably has borrowed:

• One female character is a web stripper. There is a web strip scene. She kills an unpleasant guy. An obvious inspiration to the character of Niki Sanders
• A recurrent graphical symbol (seen in books, old manuscripts, dreams, house façades, etc.), cf. the Heroes helix.
• A homeless man uses his invisibility to steal food and eavesdrop. Cf. Claude (Heroes)
• A precognitive person sees the horrible future and kills himself. Similar of Isaac Mendez’ failed suicide attempt.

and its revision:

Similar series

The 2003 Swedish series "De drabbade" ("The Affected") involved Scandinavians from all walks of life who suddenly find themselves in possession of supernatural powers. The series shows the struggle between good and evil use of powers such as precognition, telepathy, healing, persuasion, and invisibility, although the powers are attributed to an ancient prophecy rather than to genetics. According to the creators' webpage, "We want to tell what happens when somebody like YOU wake up one morning and [you] realise that you with your will alone can do impossible things. Things you did not believe possible... What will you do?" Swedish television journalists have made comparisons to Heroes, with some claiming that Heroes has borrowed and been inspired by De drabbade.

-Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

'The Helix', revisited

I just removed the no-wiki caveat about entering in non plot-specific helix sightings. Since we don't know what the helix specifically represents, either symbolically, literally or thematically, I think we might be in crystal ball territory in trying to to exclude some as non-relevant.

I am thinking that perhaps a sub-page might be in order or some notation in the episode guide for each instance where it occurs. When and if the true meaning comes to light, we can then collate these into something nifty.

As well, in order to prevent all the cruft in the word to flood the article, we should set a 2 or three editor confirmation on each instance of a helix appearance. This means that every instance of the helix is backed up by three editors saying 'yup, I saw it too'. If we only have two, it doesn't go in. If three or more see it, in it goes. This seems to me to be a good way to verify each inclusion, and we can retroactively apply that to the ones already in the list.

Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a lot more information about the Helix that is interesting and verifiable beyond mere sightings. I recently expanded the section significantly by illustrating the Kanji characters, providing support from the episodes Godsend and Landslides, providing support from the canonical "It Takes a Village, Part 3" online comic book, and supplemented the references to interviews with references found on Heroes Wiki (http://heroeswiki.com/Symbol). In your revision note, you indicate that you would like to discuss the edit on discussion page: "07:00, 1 October 2007 Arcayne (Talk | contribs) (46,297 bytes) (yeah, perhaps you could discuss your edit on the Discussion page first?)" What would you like to discuss? Brion.finlay 07:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Brion, I don't think we know enough to draw conclusions. I reverted your edit not because it was inaccurate - for all I know, it's right on the money - but you don't know, and we haven't been given a crystal ball to know for a fact. Therefore we cowboy up and avoid drawing our own conclusions from it. We don't know, and guesswork is prohibited in Wikipedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that principle, but I'm not sure what you thought was speculation in what I added. What did you think was speculation?Brion.finlay 17:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, that was a bit unclear wasn't it? Sorry, Brion. I was referring to this edit, where you set up a new heading called 'explanations' - the one thing which we don't have. Setting up a section that implies that we have them is OR. Trying to categorize the currently undefined is fraught with peril. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I think we should talk this through a little bit more, though. I'm certainly open to changing the word "explanations", but it seems like that is probably not the core of the issue. If the additions were not supported by and verifiable in canonical materials or interviews with the creators, I would agree with you that this is original research, but I don't think that is the case.

First, I don't think this is original research. The "No original research" policy Wikipedia:No original research says that original research refers to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, theories, or the synthesis of arguments, concepts, theories. In addition, the policy is a corollary of two others:

• verifiability - information and views are drawn from appropriate sources. In this case, all information is cited from one of three sources: the television show, the accompanying online comic books, or interviews with the creators. Since this is a work of fiction, I do not believe that there are any more appropriate resources.
• neutral point of view - undisputed, unbiased facts. I presented two explanations. Both of these come directly from the television show and comic book and are backed up with interviews with the shows creators. I placed citations in the material. So far, we have been presented with a number of different explanations. They are all equally verifiable and undisputable. Looking at verifiability, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I would argue that all of the explanations are equally true and that the symbol has many different, equally valid explanations and purposes, but that's irrelevant to the encyclopedia page - each of the explanations is verifiable and that is all that matters per Wikipedia's policies and a good encyclopedia entry that addresses all points of view equally.

Second, a review of the points - I am not sure if there are any points that you specifically have trouble with, but I took the time to list each of my additions point by point

• Helix = Kanji symbol's YO + SAI = God gives natural talent. This information was present in the episode Godsend and in the episode Landslides. Furthermore, there is an interview at wizards something or other - a reference to which you even edited - where one of the series creators confirms the explanation that the Helix is a Kanji symbol with a literal translation. I believe this is not original research, it is verifiable, and it is undisputable
• Helix = Haitian story about snake and crane. This is a story from the online comic book. The online comic book is a canonical source, but its canonicity is probably irrelevant: it is a verifiable and reliable source of information.
• Notes - a list of interviews with series creators about the various explanations for the Helix. All of these were cited. The series creators are reliable sources. The interviews themselves are verifiable.
• Sightings - I left this section largely untouched, because I am not interested in the debate on what sightings should be listed, which sightings are plot relevant, and whether or not we should include all sightings or only plot-relevant sightings. Personally, I think the threshold is verifiability, which requires citation, and I agree with what seems to be your viewpoint, that it is not always clear if something is plot relevant. I did make two changes, though:

• Addition of statement that every episode contains a sighting of the symbol, except for the first episode where the symbols are present in deleted scenes on the DVD. This is verifiable by viewing the episodes, which are the reliable source.
• Addition of a link to Heroes Wiki, where they actually display verifiable screenshots of the appearance of the symbol. I think there is no more verifiable source then the screenshot and reference to the episode since this article is about a television series. It may or may not be appropriate to copy each of those screenshots to this section, but I decided link back instead to Heroes Wiki in support of their efforts.

I appreciate your request for a discussion. I think good content comes from merciless editing. I still believe this content is appropriate and we should restore it. What do you think?Brion.finlay 23:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent argument. My problem isn't with the arguments at all, but I think terming them explanations seems conclusive, and we should try to avoid that. Maybe another word would work better? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with using a different word. Do you have any suggestions? How about "Meanings"?Brion.finlay 02:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Season 1 Characters

Should the Season 1 Characters be updated with new info? It still says that Parkman is a cop and that Nathan is a Congressional candidate, among other old things. Ophois 14:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Parkman still is a cop - though detective might be more appropriate, given his "promotion". As for Nathan - "Drunk" just doesn't have the same flavor that congressional candidate does. We could put "former" - though, technically, he did win, and later resigned the office (per [3]). So maybe "Former congressman". ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers and Cleanup

Reasons for cleanup- Article Too bloated. Took me a whole 1/2 hour to understand / read!

Spoiler tags also added to "Plot" section (for UK and others on later timetable)

Request for Approval, well... requested :) --Leach139 18:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't use spoiler tags where it is obvious that there will be plot details. I've added a {{current fiction}} tag to the start of the article so that readerw will understand that this is new stuff that they're unlikely to have encountered already (as if that wasn't obvious already). --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The Helix needs some discussion

I feel like the editors of Wikipedia are making thier own determinations as to what appearances of the helix are plot significant and which ones are not. Seeing how none of us are producers on the show, I dont understand how we can make that distinction. We dont REALLY KNOW which helix appearances are significant and which ones are not. So, who are we to judge? I think we need to include all the appearances of the helix. Why? Becuase this is wikipedia and the information is meant to be encyclopedic. But instead, we are making SELF DETERMINATIONS as to what things are plot significant when in actuality, we have NO CLUE. I know this has been argued before, but I think I made a valid point.

Even if you dont want to ADD ALL the appearances on the main page, we at least need to have a link to a page called "Other appearances of the Helix and list them on the main page. Like I said, we are not the judges, yet editors and contributors are determining things that are or arent plot significant and i am sure that in some way that violates wikipedia rules. Lets think about it. Please add your opinions so we can get a census, because I know we have all been argueing about it since the show started. we listed all the appearances of the scar and the eclipse. why not the symbol. Wikipedia needs to be encyclopedic and list ALL THE FACTS, not just the ones WE think are important. WE DONT WORK FOR NBC or Tim Kring. If the sightings need to be verified, the heroes wiki has screen shots of tons of sightings of the helix and a link to an interview with tim kring saying that it would appear in places you might not notice the first time you see the episode --76.168.220.243 19:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. There is no reason to not add all of the Helix sightings to the Helix section. We can't assume that seeing it on Claire's textbook or at the pool is any less important than seeing it on Kenzei's sword (for example). The point of Wikipedia is to be as complete a reference point as any other reference materials, and if we haven't included all the information we've been given throughout the series, we are failing Wiki. It is not up to anyone but the creators of the show to judge which Helix sightings are more relevant that others. We are seriously in Crystal Ball territory when we omit any of the information we've been given, just because someone doesn't think it's relevant. I think every single Helix occurence is important and needs to be mentioned, otherwise, why would the producers have gone to all the trouble to include it in every scene it's shown? They took time, money and effort to include it, and we won't know until the series wraps which were crucial to the story. As far as I'm concerned, I want a thorough Wikipedia for myself and all the other brilliant Wiki users out there, and I don't like the idea that any one of us is choosing what's valid information for the rest of us. I want to be able to do a quick Wiki look-up for the Helix and see every single time this recurring element has occurred. That's my vote. Magkaz 00:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This issue comes up regularly. We have long since established that coincidental appearances in scenery are only in rare cases notable, but cases where the symbol is distinctly related to a character, such as the Haitian's necklace, Jessica but not Niki's tattoo, Hiro's sword, Takezo Kensei's banner, Isaac's paintings, it is only with exception notable. And no, Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of facts, as you assert. There was a LONG discussion about this, I recommend you use the archives to catch up on this, but to sum it up, the seemingly random placements that had no bearing on characters were unlisted, the cases where it recurred relative to a character stayed. ThuranX 00:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree with USER THURANX. This issue needs to be re-addressed. Who are you USER THURANX to decide what is plot significant and what is not? You dont work for Tim Kring or NBC. You can not decide what is verifiable and what is not. What harm does it do to list all the appearances? Its not like we are wasting a webpage of something. It doesnt harm anyone to list all the appearances, even in a seperate link. This issue needs to be revisisted. WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO DECIDE WHICH OCCURANCES ARE VERIFIABLE AND WHICH ONES ARE NOT. Heroes wiki has tons tons tons of screen shots to prove the occurances of this symbol. I think we need to go to comicbookresources.com and ask the producers if all the occurances are verifiable so that we can but this to rest. I am going to submit the questions for the producers weekly question and answer segment. I think those who support the inclusion of all the appearances should also submit it as a question so we can get this issue some attention. because it is obvious that the editors of wikipedia are not listening. I think we need to take a poll and let the users vote.--Chrisisinchrist 01:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed up the list's page, but I suggest we remove all the appearances and move most of the helix info from this page and rename the list page to just "The Helix (Heroes)". Ophois 02:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the page. That was the first page I ever created. I wasnt exactly sure how to do it. It looks great man. I think that page is a great compromise to everyone who wants to keep this wikipedia page verifiable and encyclopedic. I think it is fair. I hope the other wikipedia editors are satisfied with the way it was done so they dont delete it.--Chrisisinchrist 02:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, User Ophois, for the editing assistance and for taking your Saturday afternoon to do this. The new page looks great and should (hopefully) keep everyone happy! As for User Thuranx, I would recommend not accusing anyone of not doing their research before posting. I did, in fact, read the entire (lengthy) discussion regarding the Helix and have never agreed with the determination of omitting "seemingly random placements" of the Helix. I'm obviously not the only one who feels that way. The current discussion called for opinions to be posted so a consensus could be reached and I chose to contribute, to the Talk Page, where requested. Please refrain from assuming that a new opinion is not a researched one. It's a little insuting to someone who really cares about the validity of Wikipedia, even if their opinion differs from yours.Magkaz 03:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

First, "Chrisischrist", don't attack other editors. Second, I spent a lot of time helping construct this page, and to discuss and establish some parameters here. This isn't Heroes Wiki. Heroes Wiki has different policies and different goals. Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate bucket of facts, for one. Second, we as editors CAN wade through all the info about a topic and find the parts that matter. That you choose to go with an approach of 'list em all and let readers sort it out' suggests you may be better helping out at Heroes Wiki on this topic. This article is encyclopedic, not holistic. The goal of this article is to be clear. This page has gone downhill in quality in various places. At one point, long ago, the helix section held a clear statement making distinct incidental appearances and charater related ones, and then a listing of the character-related material was included. TO go through each and every one makes the information useless. Lists of generic facts could turn any aricle here into a cesspool. we organize it, and to do that, we must discriminate.

As for Magkaz, it's good to know that you're someone who really cares, whereas you apparently find me to be someone who doesn't care. Read up on WP:NPA, and our basic policies regarding editing and writing for an encyclopedia. This is not a fansite. ThuranX 05:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thuranx, I did not mean to imply that you don't really care about Wikipedia by saying that I do. You just assumed that was the case. I know how much you have contributed to this page as I did read the entire archive for this page. Please refrain from making assumptions about other users. I do not want this to be a fansite. I do not want this to be HeroesWiki. None of us do. Wikipedia is better than that. Information that others find more necessary to include than you do shouldn't immediately be dismissed because you made up your mind about the issue. That's why we are given the right to discuss these issues civilly. In regards to WP:NPA, please re-read it yoursef as you are starting to cross the line. "Every person who edits an article is part of the same larger community - we are all Wikipedians. Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." -WP:NPA. I hope the new page for the Helix satisfies all parties.Magkaz 17:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

To THURAN X. Is thier a link we can go to make a complaint against an editor? Because I would like to make a formal complaint against you, your style and the way you talk to the users of wikipedia. I am asking the other wikipedian editors to get THURAN X into check. I know you editors have a check and balance system where you monitor each other. And this editor needs someone to check him. Secondly, WHO ARE YOU? How dare you say it is your job to WADE through information and find the parts that matter? THAT IS NOT YOUR JOB. How can you decide what matters and what doesnt matter? YOU DONT WORK for NBC and you are not a producer on heroes. You can not decide anything. You sound like you are having an ego trip. And THIRDLY, I understand that you feel like YOU put a lot of work into this wikipedian page, but Wikipedia is created by contributions from ALL the users of wikipedia, not just you. And, if you feel like you have the right to power-trip on this page because you feel like you contributed the most, you are wrong. Someone help me please. I know THURAN X has to be violating some wikipedia rule. YOU CAN NOT DECIDE OR WADE OUT WHAT IS VERIFIABLE AND IMPORTANT AND WHAT IS NOT. You are just a wikipedia editor, thats it. You dont work for HEROES...Sorry. And how can you say that things on wikipedia are encyclopedic and not holistic when half the information in wikipedia is based on a majority vote rather than actual proven fact? If their is a vote, the winning side contributes, even if their are facts that say it is not true. that is how wikipedia works.--76.168.220.243 17:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(UNdent) yeah, try here; WP:AN/I. In order to write a better summary, you might want to avoid SHOUTING with your caps lock on. As for rules, nope, not violating any at all. I'm workig to establish a reasoned consensus to make the article better, rather than go in the direction of Heroes Wiki, which allows for a much greater latitude of fannish writing and speculation. I'm not sure what 'wade out' means, but no one here's discussing verifiable or not, simply whether or not it's relevant and useful to the article. I just read, elsewhere on WIkipedia, that Chicago and Rome are at almost identical latitudes, and that some teachers in the Chicago Pblic School sstem tach this to their students. Although this might be verifiable, it also falls into the category of trivia, which Wikipedia has a policy for, WP:AVTRIV. Similarly, an exhaustive list of every single appearance of the helix in things as ethereal (literally) as smoke would be a random trivia list. A section stating that 'although the Helix motif is found in the backgrounds and scenery of many episodes, it is seen repeatedly and in more significant ways in conjunction with some characters. Tim Kring has stated that it may have significance relative to some characters. Some of the more significant appearances are: X, Y, and Z. ' It's very easy to see a major difference in significance between the pool mosaic in episode one, and the tattoo which shows the audience whether Niki or Jessica's behind the wheel. Likewise, The Haitian's necklace, especially as a similar, or possibly the same necklace was jsut seen around Peter's neck, is far more significant than some of the other in passing appearances. and so on. An exhaustive list of where it snuck into each of 22 episodes isn't encyclopedic, it's trivial. How the symbol directly relates to the half-dozen characters it does relate to matters more. That distinction is important. ThuranX 18:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(moved from above; we were posting at the same time!) Thuranx, there was no reason for this to get personal and I'm sorry if it did. I have complete respect for the contributions and time and constantly-rechecking-of-the-watchlist you (and everyone here) makes to Wikipedia. That's why this awesome, complex system works. We keep each other in check through editing and make it better by doing so. I'm sure there are innumerable instances where articles get completely out of hand in length and detail and no one wants to slug through reading a bloated article. I hope this resolution works for everyone, as those who do want to provide a complete rundown on the Helix have an option for that, wthout cluttering up the main article. I respect your above point of view and understand that you are a significant reason why I love the content of this page so much. I guess I disagree with you in perspective on the importance and significance of the sightings of the Helix. It is purposely placed there by the production team and every appearance should be considered until we understand more why they happen. Do the appearances signify something? If it appears with the Haitian and Jessica and Peter, though doesn't surface with Micah or West - idoes that imply anything? I want to be able to get the information I am looking for here at Wikipedia, so I don't have to go to some poorly run fansite to postulate my own theories (sitting on my couch, away from my computer, not posting them here-it's not the place, thank you for maintaining that). Sincerely and gratefully, Magkaz 19:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everyone EXCEPT thuran X. Do you have to be so mean and jerk-like when you discuss something? Anyway, it doesnt matter now because the list if finally up on the heroes main page. So, I guess we got what we wanted because we have the list in its entirety. It may be linked to a seperate page, but i feel like that satisfies both sides of the arguement. It is not taking up space on the main page, yet, thier is a link for those who still want it listed. CASE CLOSED.--Chrisisinchrist 17:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again...

I was part of the original discussion on this matter months ago, and it appears that it's time to discuss this again. I've read the discussion on this page. I should remind those editors seeking to add this information that Wikipedia is not a list on indiscriminate information, nor a list of trivia. There are other wikis better suited for that purpose. There are a small number of occurrences of the helix which directly affect the plot (the symbol on the photos of Mrs. Petrelli and Mr. Nakamura) or are directly tied to a character (Nikki's tattoo, the Haitian's necklace). Appearances of the helix in a pile of rocks or in graffiti are, until shown be otherwise, irrelevant to the story. These secondary occurrences exist to please the fans and while they may be interesting they are not deserving of mention on Wikipedia. Once again, there are better places for an exhaustive list. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 03:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion...but it is a little too late. Like the user above said, CASE CLOSED. A solution has already been created to satisfy users on both sides of the arguement. Case Closed. Thanks.--76.168.220.243 04:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand about Wikipedia there is never a state at which the case is closed. Any situation is up for discussion and any article can be edited. As SigmaEpsilon stated, there are better places to note every last detail of this series. Heroswiki is dedicated to just this type of information. It has no need in Wikipedia. The CASE is most definitely NOT CLOSED. Padillah 04:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should have someone start a vote and see what the other users think. We need to vote on whether to keep it or not keep it because this discussion is getting really hot and sometimes personal. this might be the most fair way of doing things. --Chrisisinchrist 16:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't. Wikipedia is not for voting. There's clearly a lack of consensus, and unless you con convince us to include all incidences, then the old consensus stands. ThuranX 16:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the current format is fine. If early, seemingly innocuous or incidental sightings of the helix are later shown to be significant, great - we can add them then. For now, the format notes that the helix has been seen in association with multiple characters, and lists the most significant, and I think that's fine - it defines the scope of the list and keeps the list small. The Helix is not notable in and of itself, and an article focusing on the helix would simply be deleted (rightly so) for lack of notability. See also WP:NOTE. If the helix becomes a notable element outside of the series - in popular culture, other series, etc. - then an article might work. In the absence of consensus to change it, then the current version remains. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I was of the opinion that these minor references should be allowed to stand subsequent to connection, but ThuranX (while unnecessarily edgy and brusque) is completely correct; its inclusion is a crufty disaster in the making. When and if some grand over-arcing connection is made somewhere down the line tying the appearances of the symbol to events (or types of events), then we include a citation to connect these instances, which is what Ultraexactzz just said. And since they are on a wiki somewhere, we don't have to worry that these instances fade into the background hum of previous edits. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

crew

would it be okay if i added a heroes page about the crew? like the executive producers, producers, directors, writers, etc. just the main crew of the show. is anyone opposed to me doing that? or, since i am new and dont really know all of the editing functions is thier someone who wants to do it? u can reference all your info from nbc media village website. just click on heroes and it list everyone on the production team.--76.168.220.243 20:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Other than showrunners such as Tim Kring (Who is mentioned in the article currently), do the crew members change for each episode? I know the director and some of the cinematographers rotate regularly. It might be sufficient to note who directed each episode on the list or on the article for that episode. Good idea, though - the crew deserves love as well. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that here those who are persistent creators/crew belong. For example, if there's a standard director, and guest directors, a statement here that XY has directed # of the episodes, while guest directors make up the balance. Then note guest directors at their episodes, or in the episode list article. ThuranX 01:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Episode 14 - Star Trek reference in car plate

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

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

Volume 3

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

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

Planned or spontaneous?

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

They claim to have the general idea of five seasons planned.[4] –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

??? How can this be happening ???

Please check these two pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroes_%28TV_series%29: [[5]]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroes_(TV_series): [[6]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

out of universe information

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

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

Mythology

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

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

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

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

Any thoughts on adding a mythology section to this page about the elements of the show that make up the overall mythology of the show? I was thinking of some of the in-universe mythological elements of the show, and here is what i came up with...

• The Company and its founders
• Number 9
• Character connections and cross overs
• The mythology of Takezo Kensei
• Super powers
• Family Connections
• Time travel
• Prophetic paintings
• Uluru not sure if this will qaulify as a mythological element since it has been discredited by tim kring

Users have suggested

• The virus
• Activating evolution

I was kind of modeling this after the LOST mythology page. these are kind of the elements that make up the shows overall mythology. if you agree that this section should be added, please add other mythological elements that you think should be added. Please do not add recurring elements, as that is a totally different thing. if you disagree with adding this section, please discuss it. thanks...thoughts?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey all. =) I think this is a lot like like The Helix situation we saw a while back as QuasiAbstract points out. My suggestion would be to deal with it in the same way. I know at some point the list of helix appearances was spun off into a separate page, but I don't know if that page survived or not. Another point to consider is that listing all occurrences of the number 9 and attributing them to an intentional act on the part of the writers could arguably be OR except for the instances where the writers confirm that a particular example was intentional. I wouldn't be surprised if some examples of the number 9 slip by unintentionally and then would it be appropriate to claim that it's a significant instance of it? Just some food for thought! (edit: Reading the discussion again it looks like this is exactly what's already being proposed already, so count this as support for the idea. =) --Centish (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Yeah, the real topic is not the number 9, because we have already established that any info on the number nine will be from a well sourced third party source and absolutely will not be a list full of random occurances and fan cruft. what really needs to be discussed is a mythology section similar to that of the LOST page, with various mythological elements from the show (listed above) and discredited theories. Any thoughts on that?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of a Mythology section. It kind of reminds me of the Mythology page on the Lost article (since everyone seems to be comparing Lost and Heroes nowadays!). Yeah, I support it. I like the ideas too. I think Activating Evolution should be included as a part of the Mythology too, and not the Elements section. If Mythology relates to the fictional elements of the series, then the list if good. I think the scar, the eclipse, the cockroach and the symbol should be in the elements and symbols section and Activating Evolution should be included within the shows Mythology. Oh yeah, the Virus too. That is a huge part of the shows Mythology. Okay, I am rambling. Gotta Go!!!--76.168.220.243 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your thoughts about it. i have been doing some research and i think uluru has been discredited. i found an interview with tim kring stating he will only live in the comics and not within the series...i am going to keep researching that...other discredited stuff i found is the lost and heroes connection theory and the theory that peter and claire will hook up within the series. so, these could be possibilities for the section. i have great sources for all three of those discredited theories. i removed uluru from the mythology list and added the virus and pop suresh book. uluru may still be included in the mythology section if he is notable enough. anymore thoughts?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not really sure what you mean by "mythology of Heroes," but I do support its inclusion because I love reading Heroes content and some of the ideas listed above I do not have a fair amount of knowledge on.

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [7]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. What does all this mean?--75.28.139.135 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Improvements and Changes to main page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow! Lots of activity over the last couple of days! Wow! Well, I agree with Chris. I don't see a problem with the paragraph. If dumbo users want to vandalize the section, then it can easily be reverted. I support adding the paragraph because it highlights the most notable characters in the series. I think the changes to the mainpage are very good. The "conception" and "casting" sections are good.76.168.220.243 (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

...--75.28.139.135 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry about that. I'm kind-of new to wikipedia.org. I really only come to the Heroes page and I don't usually come here to the talk page. On the contrary, I wanted to say that I support the inclusion of the paragraph about "supporting characters." I think it is a good solid paragraph. I also think the Heroes page looks much better than it did the last time I saw the page. I do not use wikipedia frequently, but I do love the Heroes television series and enjoy reading this page.--75.28.139.135 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Book

I saw a book at Barnes and Noble. I think it was called "Save the World a Heroes Guide." Can that be included somewhere in the article? I do really know how to include the information in the article. I think the book may have been written by someone involved with Heroes or maybe a fan. I don't remember the arthors name. I think it was something like Lynette Potter.--75.28.139.135 (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked out this book's page on amazon.com (Saving the World: A Guide to Heroes), and, from the looks of it, it falls more along the lines of "unofficial guide" type books. If this is indeed the case, then it probably doesn't really fit in the article. I'm sure we'll see a lot of media coming out that tries to capitalize on the success of Heroes, but isn't really a part of the Heroes universe. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, how much stock can we put in such things as sources? I'll try to review this one and see what it actually offers. ThuranX (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

i remeber reading that books when i was at the book store. i glanced through it. lots of fan speculation. i remember reading a section in the back about the characters abilities and it said something about mohinder suresh possibly having a dream type power, similar to one sanjog used to show him his fathers murder. that has been discredited of course by everyone from heroes production. but, it may have some good stuff on the conception of heroes and all that. i am going to take a look at it tomorrow and see if i can find any useful verifiable info. maybe for now the book can be listed under fandom.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Heroes Mythology

This weekend I will be starting some work on "The Mythology of Heroes." I have been working all week to find verifiable third party sources to support the things that will be included. If you have any opposition, please state so. I will be tagging that section so that their wont be any edit conflicts until it is complete. After it is complete, anyone who needs to go through and improve the section should feel more than free to do so. I will be semi-modeling the section after Mythology of Lost article. Please check this article out so that you can have an idea of what I want to do. I will only be including themes and elements in the mythology section that have been confirmed and verified by someone on the production team at heroes (kring, beeman, loeb, etc.). If you have any thoughts, please include them here. I would hate for the mythology section to be full of cruft. thoughts?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 18:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a question not regarding this. Why has QuasiAbstract just signed his/her name? I don't understand. ЩіκіRocкs^(talκ) 04:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Check the edit summary for QuasiAbstract and thedemonhog's messages and the joke should make more sense. =) --Centish (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

OK...lol. Now I got it. I previously only saw QuasiAbstract's edit summary, and I thought he was being a ****head, but now that I saw thedemonhogs's summary, I see he was trying to be funny. And it was...in a way. ЩіκіRocкs^(talκ) 06:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the talk page disruption. I was suffering from a lack of sleep at the time. Moral of the story: "You shouldn't edit Wikipedia while sleep deprived." ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 09:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)