Talk:Heroes (American TV series)/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Alejandro Herrera

Why was Alejandro removed from the Heroes template and his page redirected? We cant just redirect his page because he died. I thought things in wikipedia werent done with the attitude of what is recent, but rather with the idea that you are getting a full scope of the series. Just because Alejandro has been murdered, does not mean we have seen the last of him...it also doesnt mean his character isnt notable. This needs more discussion, because no one is questioning ted sprague or claudes notability and they were in less episodes. --Chrisisinchrist 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Alejandro was redirected, I'm assuming, because his plot is Maya's plot, sans death. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The redirect was removed because the issue of merging is still being discussed. Please go to that page to include your opinion on the discussion if you haven't already.--76.168.220.243 00:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Season 2 Over? Yep

Has it been officially announced that Season 2 is over? The commercials I've seen have just said it's over for the year, not that the season is finished. The only source for this is on the page says that the season might be over, not that it is. Next will definitely be Volume 3, but not necessarily Season 3. Ophois 05:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we need a citation that season two is officially over, but season one ended in precisely the same way; with the last few minutes being the preface for the next chapter (read: third season). Maybe allow for a bit of free-fall before tucking in. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because Season 1 ended at the same time as Volume 1 doesn't mean anything. Season 2 was supposed to contain Volumes 2 and 3. Ophois 06:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. While the strike has caused a change in how things are airing, there is no official confirmation that the season is over. This isn't speculation, or wishful thinking - just reality. We know that 24 were contracted, we know that 11 have been delivered, and we know that production has been halted due to the strike. What we do not know is how NBC will proceed when the strike ends. At that point, they will have to decide whether to continue with the planned order, to shorten the season, or to just call it "over" as aired. At that point, we'll be able to definitively say what happened. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was confirmed; the season is over. I mean, it wasn't like NBC wasn't hawking it as the season finale, but the man wants a citation, he gets a citation. there ya go. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that citation just reinforces the point I was making: that there is no definite answer yet. To quote, "the final episode of Heroes in 2007, and perhaps the 2007-08 television season." There will be no more episodes in 2007, although that isn't really news since there are only a few Mondays left in the year, and the Christmas pre-emptions are almost here. It also says that "although a winter hiatus was in the cards regardless, the upcoming break from Heroes is of an undetermined length thanks to the writers strike." Again, no definite "season is over" announcement. We'll just have to wait and see (or not see, as the case might be...) --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just saw your note re: cancellation on my talk page... thanks - I rechecked the Variety reference and changed the text to read "indefinite postponement" as per that source. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I imagine there will be something released soon enough relating the end of the season. I should have read the cite better, and saved you the trouble. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey folks, I'm trying to not get into an edit war with User Enigmaman over this, though he keeps editing the page to add that this episode is for sure the finale. What can I do, or can I have some help, to avoid getting blocked now that I've reverted at least once? I have asked politely for a reliable source. Thanks and I appreciate the co-editing done by all who regularly contribute! This show deserves folks like us keeping its integrity intact. Magkaz (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Presumed dead?

Here we go again! Same thing happened at the end of Season 1. We all assumed that D.L, Nathan, Peter, Sylar, Candice and Matt Parkman were dead...but they were not. And now we are doing the same with Niki and Nathan. We need to wait until this is verified before we make any assumptions. I mean, we dont know if they died...the episode never confirmed it. Secondly, we made this same mistake last season and look what happened. we all got a slap in the face because no one died. can we please wait until it is verified before we write off characters and say that they have made a final appearance? all the character pages for niki and nathan state final appearance...even monroes page...that is ludacris to me. Let verify...not speculate...thanks. I would really like the editors support on this one.--Chrisisinchrist 06:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, especially with the new found ability to bring almost anyone back from the dead... --FantajiFan (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I support as Kring told TV Guide that the fates of Nathan and Niki are "up in the air and will be determined when we come back after the strike." Although I do support listing "Powerless" as Adam's last appearance because Kring also said "We've given the audience no reason to believe that Adam can figure a way to get out of there. The fact that he can live forever makes this the most gruesome of internments. If this happened to any of us, at least we'd know we'd soon have the mercy of death. Not here." [1] –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding hat interview - I've used it to add some out-of-universe commentary to the "Powerless" article. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after finding this: [2], let's not list "Powerless" as Adam's final appearance either. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

refresh my memory is D.L. Nikis' husband? User:broncofreak12321 —Preceding comment was added at 18:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Unecessary Spoillers

The "First Season" and "Seccond Season" parts could be put each in a new topic, and locked there. People are using them only to tell about the last chapter. The eleventh chapter just aired yesterday and the text is telling it all, dedicating only a phrase about the ten previous chapters. It is a shame for we, wikipedia colaborators, to see this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.21.97.3 (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, guy. Wikipedia is now considered a complete spoiler zone. All rules regarding spoilers - except, for some reason, literary works - were removed a few months ago. Don't think you're the only one who hates this, too. 68.146.41.232 15:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such it is assumed that if you are looking up information on a T.V. show you will find information on that T.V. show. It may seem silly to some but that's the way an encyclopedia works. Fan sites warn about spoilers, encyclopedias present information, as unabridged as possible. Padillah 15:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

the whole 'spoiler' warning and not being added was silly. Who defines how long untill spoilers are added? a day? a week? until the dvd comes out? as long as the information can be verified (by having the ep aired) it should be included. If people are worried about 'spoilers' then they shouldn't look online for information about the show after it's been on tv. harlock_jds 17:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe his criticism was not simply that there are spoilers but that there is undue attention given to the end of a series. Given it probably is very important and may deserve to be elaborated a bit more than the rest but the way it's written right now the information about the ending is quite disproportionate to the rest of the season.FantajiFan (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dominican Republic?

I removed the reference to Maya being from the Dominican Republic as I can find nothing to support this and it's not mentioned in any episode. The series shows and she and her brother come from somewhere in Central America; there's been no reference to them having come from the island nation (if they did, why would they try to enter the US from Mexico when a boat trip tp Florida would be much more efficient). If there is an on-screen reference to them being from the DR that I missed, please feel free to revert. If this is something indicated in the graphic novels, then this has to be sources. There's nothing to support the DR connection in the article on Maya, either. 68.146.41.232 15:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Interview with one of the writers

Interesting, although Maya and Alejandro come from the Dominican Republic.

Padillah 21:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Molly's powers

Heroes Interactive, which runs on NBC.com concurrently during the episodes, stated that Mollys powers are Clairvoyance. Is this a verifiable source for us to use Clairvoyance as her abilities name, rather than remote viewing?--Chrisisinchrist 17:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a reliable source. Who is doing the commentary on that again? Official Heroes folks, right? Magkaz (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Heroes interactive runs on NBC.com and is designed to be watched concurrently with the episode. they ask trivia and give out show facts as you watch certain scenes. its official--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal/new placement of Simone Deveux as a main character

Wouldn't it be appropriate to remove Simone Deveux as one of the main characters, as she died a long time ago, and haven't been featured in in the show for quite a while? Wikiburger (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We aren't the ones who decide if a character is "Main" or not, NBC and the producers do that. She was listed as a main character in Season one so we have to list her as a main character, at least for season one. Padillah (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that this is an encyclopedia. Just because the character isn't on the show anymore doesn't change the fact that she was once a part of the show and was once a "main character" in the shows credits. dposse (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

FAQ section for this talk page?

Hey folks, I was wondering if it is Wiki-appropriate or even possible to put a header at the top of this talk page that mentioned some of the more "frequently asked questions" that we tend to get here? This main/sub characters issue and season 1 & 2 issue is going to drive me batty... Thoughts? Have I just been up too late on Wiki and the upcoming lack of heroes is making me antsy...? Thanks! Magkaz (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing myself and have the same question about wiki-ness. Thanks for putting it into words. Padillah (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:IINFO. "Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s)." dposse (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not the article, this talk page. So that when people start to post questions about main characters they'll see what the criteria is and not bother. It'd be nice to have the several different types of criteria we have for article inclusion posted somewhere that we can refer occasional contributers. Padillah (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd object to a lengthy thing, like was recently done for archive 8, but if one wanted to state as an intro section something to the effect of:

(Title) Commonly discussed topics:

Some topics have been discussed before, and reading the appropriate archived material may answer your question. Sections on the symbols can be found link link link. Sections on the article's cast list are link link link, sections on reporting of powers link link link, and of plot reporting link link link.

In fact, I think those pretty much ARE the repeating topics, aren't they? How would that be. Add an out-comment that the section should not be archived, but instead, updated at each archiving, and we'd have it. It looks like it would be about four lines, all said and done, and would give new editors, and new project participants, a cribnote for getting up to speed. ThuranX (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Great, so do-able, yes? Is there anything I can do? My wiki-formatting skills aren't as great as some of yours, though I'd be happy to contribute... It, in fact, does seem to be just a handful of constantly repeated topicsMagkaz (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to follow Talk:Arrested Development (TV series)/Archive index. thedemonhog talk • edits 22:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I help...? I know we're all busy, so I'd love to do my part! Magkaz (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Milo Ventimiglia: 'We ran out of stuff to shoot'

[3] I found this news article that says that the ratings of the finale were low and that they "ran out of stuff to shoot". I suppose that it goes in the Ratings section, but i'll leave it up to you. dposse (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for Episode Summaries

How does everyone feel if the episode summaries were condensed into a list, rather than prose, basically listing the major plot points of the episode, rather than having them as detailed as they current are? Example:

Powerless

• Peter and Monroe head to Primatech Paper in Odessa Texas, to steal the virus strain 138, and destroy it. Hiro attempts to stop them, but is outpowered by Peter.
• Angela Petrelli reveals that she didnt betray Monroe at first, but that Linderman, Arthor Petrelli and herself beleived in Monroe. She learns of Victoria Pratts murder and that Peter is alive. She tells Matt how to kill Peter if he becomes too dangerous.
• Peter realizes that Monroe murdered Hiro's father. He is convinced by Nathan that Monroe is evil, and that his true intent for the virus is to release it.
• Monroe reveals to Hiro that he beleives he is a God and that the world needs to be washed clean.
• Hiro, releazing that Monroe can not be killed, teleports Monroe and buries him alive in a Japenese cementary.
• Peter, Nathan, Matt and Hiro sucessfully stop Monroe from releasing the strain 138 of the Shanti Virus.
• An assasination attempt is placed on the life of Nathan Petrelli by an unknown shooter, after Nathan attempts to expose the Company and reveal his ability to the entire nation. His fate is unknown
• Monica is capture by a gang after attempting to recover Micah's stolen comics and his father's metal. Monica is locked in an abandon building, which is set a fire by a gang member.
• Niki rescues Monica from the building, however, she is unable to escape herself. The building explodes while Niki is trapped inside. He fate is unknown.
• Claire attempts to expose the Company. West does not support her plans. Fearing exposure, Bob Bishop makes a deal with Noah Bennet to keep his family safe and protected. The deal is Noah must come back to the Company. The Bennets discover that Noah is still alive.
• Mohinder is taken hostage by Sylar, who has come to Suresh for help in getting his powers restored. Maya discovers that Sylar used her and, with the help of Molly Walker, she also discovers that he murdered her brother Alejandro. Sylar shots Maya in the chest, and killing her. Sylar then prompts Suresh to use the mixture of Claire's blood and Mohinder's blood to regnerate Maya, which he does.
• At the Company, Bob is disappointed in Elle. In an effort to get abck into her fathers good graces, Elle goes on a mission to stop Sylar.
• Elle chases Sylar away, but not before he steals Mohinder and Claire blood mixture, thus curing himself of the virus and restoring his abilities introducing Volume 3: Villians.

What does everyone thing of this method? If you dont like it, we still do it in prose, just make the articles less detailed, because they are currently very long.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This proposal belongs on the WP:HEROES talk page, not here. Frankly, I think that even less than that is needed, but I think many will find that a good compromise. ThuranX (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree re: the proper location for discussion, disagree with the structure. The plot summary should be written as prose, not point-form notes. (It might be useful for discussion purposes, however, to use such a format on the talk page to reach consensus on what the key points are.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere in the manual of style guidelines, it says to use prose when possible. The plot summaries for numerous pages of Heroes WikiProject should be condensed and those of episode articles should generally be under 450 words. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has also been added to the wikiproject page for those who are more concerned about where the discussion is taking place rather than what is being discussioned. smile...life is short people--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You owe three editors a swift and clear apology here. CKatz, DemonHog and myself all respected you, you did not respect us with your reply. All three of us complimented and took seriously your efforts, all three of us also mentioned that you should move it for wider response from the project. To assert that we don't care about content, just formalities is dismissive, snide, and insulting to all three of us. Consider this a formal, personal [[WP:CIVIL}incivility]] warning from me to you. ThuranX (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize that you interpreted my sarcasm in the way that you did. I apologize that you took my comment so seriously. I apologize to those who are reading this apology, because it probably would have been more appropriate on my personal talk page, rather than in this public forum, seeing how this was a personal message to me that is now being posted for all the users to read. ThuranX, I have to utmost respect for you. I think you are great at what you do here at wikipedia, and you are top notch when it comes to editors. So, I apologize if you were offended. I am also sorry if this apology seems a little condescending. I am also sorry that you misunderstood my comment. I placed the information on this discussion board, as it relates to Heroes...and this discussion board is a lot more active than the one on the Project page, which has been a dead discussion board for some time. The wikiprojects discussion page goes weeks sometimes without anyone posting their points of view or opinions. So, I placed it here. I also dont feel that it is necessary for three people to tell me to repost my discussion on the project page. One person can suggest it, and that should have been the end of that...but I am not an idiot and I dont need all of you to repeat the same thing to me. So, I apologize that you felt like I was an idiot. I also aplogize for your confussion because you seem to think that you can tell me what I owe...that seems to be a violation of WP:Civil and you should be checked on that as well. You used to word assert in your above statement, which sounds very speculative to me. Has that assertion been verified? Also, for you to threaten me and say Consider this a formal, personal warning from me to you that sounds like a violation of WP:Civil as well. Please consider that and lets get back to the process of improving this article. If you want to send me a message the next time, please send it to my talk page as it states in the WP:Civil policy. Also, please do not attempt to interpret my tone of voice in my writting...you simply can not do that. --Chrisisinchrist (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Survival of the fittest

The teacher in episode 2-1 says the phrase "survival of the fittest" is from Darwin. That is wrong. It is from Herbert Spencer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest). I wonder if they really didn't know or wanted to bring Darwin for any cost. How can we put this info into the page? I didn't find a section for errors and trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.55.115 (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This information is better for a fansite such as the Heroes Wiki and should not be added to Wikipedia. Sorry, –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Characters section

....before you get all mad thinking this is another suggestion stating a way to change the characters section, think again. I just really wanted to say that it looks GREAT with the table. Good job. (Wikirocks2 (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

Thanks...I worked on it this afternoon. I saw the format on the LOST page and thought that it would look really great on the Heroes page. I just reformatted it to fit the heroes info. i am glad you like it.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this. There was a lot of discussion long ago to get rid of the tables, as that's not the preferred format for Featured Articles. Prose is preferable. We need some consensus about this, as such charts are ugly, and rapidly distorted when people seek to add more and more details. This leads to either OWN attitudes about the layout, which precludes evolution of the article or a huge, bloated chart, neither of which is a viable result. ThuranX (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary (again)

Now that season two is over, I've gone ahead and attempted to make a concise synopsis, wanted to get your opinions before it goes live.

The second season's story begins four months after the events of "How to Stop an Exploding Man". The characters deal with the upheavals in their lives as a result of the first season, and are now trying to adjust to their new lives. For example, the Bennet family is forced to move to evade the Company; Peter is left without his memories; and Sylar has lost his powers.

A central plot in the first part of the season revolves around an unknown person who is attempting to kill the original founders of the Company. Eventually, it is revealed that the killer is Adam Monroe, and that he intends to release a virus that will destroy a majority of the human population. In "Powerless", the season finale, several characters join forces and successfully stop him from releasing the virus.

I think specifics are best handled in the episode articles, so I tried to avoid those for the most part. Thoughts? --iTocapa ^t 06:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I say post it...its great. but, we still need to touch on hiro and maya...maybe a few more specifics and some more about the company, as they seemed to be central to the story this volume.--Chrisisinchrist 06:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the last paragraph of Generations plot summary, but I'm sure it will be reverted. I did it because the summary is too spoiler like, and it seems that is has been written only to state the season conclusions. Genisis has a great summary because even though it describes the season, it does not say exactly what happens. I think that is the kind of summary we need to achieve for Generations. (Wikirocks2 (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

You should probably discuss this before you make the change. I see someone already reverted it back. I like it the way it is...wikipedia policy on spoilers is that we dont place spoiler warnings. it doesnt mean we are supposed to post conclusions, it just means that we dont have to warn people about it. i think if you are looking up heroes and the season 2 volume 2 is over, you should expect to find definitive information, including the end result. --Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually Wikirocks2, you are right. the season one doesnt really have spoilers, but it is more so an overview of the season. i think for the sake of consistancy, the season two section should give just an overview as well, instead of a complete plot summary and conclusion. so yeah, i think we should format the season two section the same as the season one, giving a brief overview of what the characters major trail is for the volume.--Chrisisinchrist ([[User talk:Chrisisinchrist|talk]]) 05:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I'm shocked! Someone agrees with me for once! lol, im joking and being serious at the same time....anyways I'm glad to see someone acknowledges what I have to say. I know about the policy on spoilers, but I don't like it when they are uneccessarily used. The plot summary of Generations hasn't been changed yet, and I would do it, but I think it would be reverted by someone saying it isn't good enough. The first paragraph is fine, but I think it would be better changing

Though the primary story arc of the second season is not touched upon until the seventh episode, the plot mainly focuses on the Company, the Shanti virus and its potential effect upon the world's population. An amnesiac Peter inadvertently travels to the future and makes a horrifying discovery: in one year, 93% of Earth's population will be dead, due to the Shanti virus.

to

Though the primary story arc of the second season is not touched upon until late in the season, the plot mainly focuses on the Company, the Shanti virus and its potential effect upon the world's population.

Just a trim down, otherwise I'm not too sure. (Wikirocks2 (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

Massive Merging of Character Articles

I disagree with all the massive merging that is taking place for all the recurring characters. Most of their pages are being merged without concensus. Eden's page was merged and only two users discussed it and made the decision. Why are these articles being merged? I thought this was a encyclopdia where a complete scope of the series was to be presented. We cant delete articles because a character is dead...no one remain dead on the series anyway. We cant continue to edit the Heroes pages based on what is happening in the moment and what is most recent.

Someone has attempted to Merge Molly Walker, Ted Sprague, Claude, Alejandro Herrera and Eden McCain to the List of Minor Characters page without enough concensus to do so. I strongly disagree with that. We cant just scrapped their articles because the characters are either dead or not current on the series. Users worked very hard on those character pages and they are important to whomever created them. This issue need to be discuss more before pages are redirected and merged. Redirects are often time just a sneaky way to delete an entire page. Those five character pages need review by a wide scope of people dedicated to the Heroes project, rather than a few users.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I honestly agree. No one is talking about deleting Angela Petrelli or the Haitian's articles because they are still alive. I think everyone just wants to delete the articles of the characters whom are dead. I heard one editor say the word recentism and I totally think that is the case here. We shouldn't base the articles on recentism because at some point we did feel these characters were notable, and now that we have not seen them for a while, We want to delete them. I say leave Ted, Eden, Molly and Claude alone. Alejandro too. I kinda agree. This may be against Wikipedia policy, but some users did spend a lot of time putting those articles together. Why should we delete them? I thought at Wikipedia, you could write about anything that people cared about, as long as the information could be verified by an outside source. Those articles are sourced and some user cared enough to create them. I say don't merge. Wikipedia policy says articles can be as long as they want to be as long as the information is true. They are all notable characters. Also, I looked on the various pages for these characters and none of them seemed to have enough concensus to merge if you ask me. Eden's talk page doesn't even have any discussion at all.--Twrighto2o (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, i just took the time to replace all the caps you used in every word of your post. i am not sure why you did it, but please don't do it anymore, as it is simply too hard to read. You'll find that your words are taken more seriously when you simply write what you want to say instead of trying to make it different from other folks'.

That said, one of the main rules of Wikipedia is that is you cannot take being ruthlessly edited, WP is not the place for you. As well, while WP is big enough for all materials, there is a standard size for most articles. There's more to say, but I will let other editors pipe in at this point. Fixing your post rather tuckered me out. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol...you are funny user:Arcayne. Just for future reference, next time copy and paste into a word doc and then go to format and they have a function that says change case. i dont kow if mac have the function but i know PC does...--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Online Show

Why is there no info on the creat a Hero show that will be an online show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.237 (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That's in the article. It's under "Other promotions". dposse (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Symbolism revisited

I'm going into this discussion with some trepidation, though I was wondering if the "now-deleted-and-redirected-here Symbolism/Recurring Elements/ Mythology page ( List of elements in Heroes ) " could be re-instated? It was swiftly deleted and redirected to this main page in November and I just didn't have the energy to argue it. To clarify, I think the section on this main page looks great and uncluttered, I don't think that should change. However, I am now noticing that some folks are now re-adding the deleted info to this main page and are starting to mess with it's pretty little format, thus giving us more cleanup to keep up with. I'm wondering if it isn't too much to re-instate a separate place for them to add that info (in an encyclopedic and verifiable way of course) so that those who are looking for it, have a reference and an outlet. I personally like having a separate article available as a reference. Thoughts? Thanks. I will drop this issue if I'm outvoted. I've also posted this to the Project page. Magkaz (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I will support this based on the arguement above--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we just have one place specified to discuss issues? Duplicate topics are being posted here and there and replied to everywhere. Anyway, reinstating the article does not seem to solve the problem; it seems to avoid it. As it has been said before, lisiting every appearance of the helix is unnecessary. We know that it appears a lot and that is good enough. If people want to re-add the deleted info, then revert it and direct them to the archived discussion, WP:WAF or WP:NOT. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the reason why the user titled this discussion "Symbolism Revisited" because it was an old discussion that someone wanted to reopen. Key word: revisited.--76.168.220.243 (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yay! So my carefully chosen words did get across my intent! Yes, I'm well aware of the archives, as I am one of the contributors to the archived discussions, and I know that directing well-intentioned folks there is the action I should take. However, I maintain my 'one side of the bell-curve' stance of including the recurring symbolism in the show on wiki and I respect 'the other side of the bell-curve' users who don't want it cluttering up the main page. I think having a separate page, that dedicated editors who support this (such as Chrisisinchrist and myself) could really flesh out and make wiki-appropriate could keep everyone happy, as those who don't want it on the main page don't have to monitor it, though it provides a page for the good-faith contributors who continually add info to the main page. If you don't like the page, don't watch it, though don't take away the opportunity for others to really try and make a good article out of something we see potential in. It seems like a 'middle of the bell-curve' option. Also, now that we're in hiatus due to the strike, a lot of more interviews explaining such references seem to be popping up and I think we may have an opportunity to really provide some depth to these recurring elements. (Excuse me while I step off my soapbox...!) Magkaz (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

edited to add: I understand that discussions shouldn't be all over the place; I was just attempting to avoid the slight conflict we experienced on this talk page this weekend. Magkaz (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not an editor user:magkaz; just a simple dedicated contributor. second, i completely agree with you. If the recurring elements section is something that people care about, why cant their be a seperate page for it, as there was in the past. I totally agree. Those who dont love it, just ignore it and let the rest of us continue to make good faith edits to the page. There are so many interviews and statements about the different recurring elements, that a really great page can be created for the information with tons of out of universe information. i support it. --Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I get in the bad habit of calling all of us who 'edit' on here, 'editors'. I meant 'contributors'. Didn't mean to offend anyone. Thanks for the support! Magkaz (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) I oppose this. All this stuff about splitting the articles is getting us into fannisms and cruft. This article, like all Fiction articles, should focus specifically on 'meta-information', that is, real world content and connections. There is no particular value to adding all this listing of instances and appearances. Ths section should mention the multiple items and their symbolism as per citations of the writers, like the cockroach, or the importance of the helix as per origins and so on. That's all this article needs, not comprehensive lists. We should focus on a lean article, rich in substance, not style, not lists and hypothesis. As discussed at the project talk page, in multiple sections, there is a need to cut DOWN the content, and improve the quality. While it is possible that genuine improvements to the quality will ultimately result in a bigger main article, that's welcome if it's an article rich in the real world content. We're lucky with this topic - there is extensive media coverage, many interviews, and lots of reviews and so on. We don't need to pad it with junk. We're not writing the newbs guide to heroes, we're writing the encyclopedia article about it. Let's focus on that. ThuranX (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - it there really was so much out-of-universe information about the symbols, we'd have incorporated it by now. The reality is that a standalone page serves only as a magnet for non-encyclopedic sightings, theories, and the like. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

About the eclipse symbol: It's not an earth eclipse. It's a lunar eclipse seen from the earth. It's the same eclipse that Hiro saw when he went back to medieval japan the first time (when he stopped the rain of arrows). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.193.162.129 (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary (again) (again)

Please read the discussion above before reading here.

I am still a bit frustrated that the Generations plot summary hasn't been changed. But I understand that the conversation was really on between Chrisisinchrist and I, and two people isn't enough to make a decision. Are we going to change the plot summary? (Wikirocks2 (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

Taking elements of the above, I've tried to hash something together. How would this work?

The main plot arc of volume two deals with the Company and its research on the Shanti virus. This research is explored through the company's founders, whose identities are revealed, as well as through the effects of various strains of the virus on the Haitian, Nikki Sanders, Sylar, and others. An amnesiac Peter Petrelli observes the potential devestation of the virus in a future New York City. The heroes ultimately come together to stop the release of a deadly strain of the virus and avert a global pandemic.

Interwoven with the main plot are several secondary plots. These include Nathan Petrelli's recovery following the events at Kirby Plaza; the journey of new characters Maya and Alejandro from South America to the United States, and their interaction with a powerless Sylar; Claire and her family adapting to a new life in southern California, and her relationship with boyfriend West; Monica Dawson discovering her powers in New Orleans, with the help of her cousin Micah; Matt Parkman's discovery of and relationship with his father; and Hiro Nakamura's journey to Feudal Japan, where he meets his childhood hero, Takezo Kensei. Kensei is later revealed to be the volume's main antagonist, as the 400-year old Adam Monroe.

I think I hit everything of importance. Thoughts? We really should get this up today, since it's been a week - I've been mucking about clerking the election, or else I would have pitched in sooner. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's really good. How about:

Season 2 began in the United States and Canada on September 24th, 2007 and has thus far featured 11 out of the planned 24 episodes. It aired on Mondays at 9:00pm. The season was broken down into volumes, and the first volume completed its finale on December 3rd, 2007, followed by a haitus until the end of the Writer's Strike. The second season of Heroes begins four months after the events of Kirby Plaza. Peter Petrelli, Matt Parkman, Nathan Petrelli and Sylar have all survived the events of the season one finale, and are trying to return to ordinary lives despite their extraordinary abilities. The main plot arc of volume two deals with the Company and its research on the Shanti virus. This research is explored through the company's founders, whose identities are revealed, as well as through the effects of various strains of the virus on the Haitian, Nikki Sanders, Sylar, and others. An amnesiac Peter Petrelli observes the potential devestation of the virus in a future New York City. The heroes ultimately come together to stop the release of a deadly strain of the virus and avert a global pandemic.

Interwoven with the main plot are several secondary plots. These include Nathan Petrelli's recovery following the events at Kirby Plaza; the journey of new characters Maya and Alejandro from South America to the United States, and their interaction with a powerless Sylar; Claire and her family adapting to a new life in southern California, and her relationship with boyfriend West; Monica Dawson discovering her powers in New Orleans, with the help of her cousin Micah; Matt Parkman's discovery of and relationship with his father; and Hiro Nakamura's journey to Feudal Japan, where he meets his childhood hero, Takezo Kensei. Kensei is later revealed to be the volume's main antagonist, as the 400-year old Adam Monroe.

Mines basically the same is yours, but I removed some things that are too "spoiler-like" if you know what I mean. And I know about the policy on spoilers, but I think that sometimes they aren't needed. (Wikirocks2 (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

Good! I can live without the Adam Monroe reveal, though he should be mentioned somehow. I'd still like to keep the global pandemic line, especially since it does not actually reveal whether the heroes were successful. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's change that line to "The heroes ultimately come together in an attempt to stop the release of a deadly strain of the virus and avert a global pandemic." ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, cool. I agree (Wikirocks2 (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

Emerson Lawsuit Removal?

Does anyone else think its time to take the reference to the Emerson Lawsuit off of the main page? It's not that important to the whole show.

Alank47 (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving it there until the episodes are reviewed. It really belongs in the episode article, as that constitutes Real WOrld notability, and might be enough to validate a short separate article about that episode. ThuranX (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Rating section removed

I see this section has been removed. I am assuming it is because no one listed references? true?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The person who removed it had some vandalism in their 'contribs' history. I don't know how well intentioned it was... Magkaz (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am going to put it back until someone can get to the bottom of this--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Mythology section Complete

I have finished the Mythology section. I sourced everything and I hope everyone enjoys it. Please, Please, Please take some time to go over to the page and shred through it. It needs some work, but I think I laid a good foundation. It will need to be checked for verifiability, OR, POV, spelling/grammar and all that good stuff. Some sections may not have enough wieght or too much wieght. please help improve that too. Please take some time to help improve the article and place any tags that need to be placed. Dont just go and start deleting some stuff, like some users do. Rather, go over to the page and improve it!! Lets all work together. Also, I dont know how to cite ref correctly, so if anyone wants to fix all the lazy refs I did, that needs work as well. I hope it is a qaulity article. I tried not to put any OR or POV in it, but it happens. Its all in good faith of course. Enjoy the page and please take some time to help make improvements! Mythology of Heroes--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean the mythology article. Glancing over it, it appears to be quite comprehensive and has many sources. A note for future edits: names of television shows should be in italics, e.g. Crossing Jordan not Crossing Jordan. You may find citation templates (specifically, {{cite web}}) useful. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn thedemonhog. I had just finished writing my post, when it said that it was an edit conflict! Anyways I was going to say that we should make a new subheading for Mythology for this page, and include a few of the points on that page. Then we could have a link to the main page of mythology by saying: see main article: Heroes Mythology or something like that. ЩіκіRocкs^(talκ) 04:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK...I never saw that section. I guess it's already been done. ЩіκіRocкs^(talκ) 04:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The section was made while you were typing (and retyping—sorry). Editors may be able to use good article on the mythology of Carnivàle as inspiration for the Heroes mythology article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

I think it is time for a peer review. It would be nice to get some outside views on the page from other editors and admins. I am going to nominate this page today. The page has changed so much since the last review. It would be good for everyone to give their direct opinion on the page in a set forum. I hope their are no oppositions to this.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have transcluded the peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite to PR. I'll start on it later today. It'll be my first official wikipedia one, so i'll probably be a bit slower than some others! Ged UK (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A start... the automated peer review script says:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• The script has spotted the following contractions: aren't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've let the script clean up a number of technical issues... for some reason, it has altered the Hollywood Reporter URLs, so I'll fix that next. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It also changed a couple of single brackets inside quotations into double brackets, resulting in erroneous article links. I think I fixed all of those but it's hard to be sure, since there were so many changes in that one edit. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 12:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to move this infomation to the peer review page.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My view on it

Overall, its made some pretty great strides (thank jeebus for the writer's strike, which allowed for a breather!).

Lead

• The use of italics in the lead (" thought they were like everyone else... until they realized they have incredible abilities"), presumably to address a direct quote from the series, simply doesn't belong. It's in-universe, it isn't marked with quotation marks, it isn't cited - the list goes on, but the main thrust is that it does not flow with the lead. it needs to be removed, to my reckoning.
• the sentence right after that ("These people soon realize they have a role in preventing catastrophe and saving humanity") is also in-universe and inaccurate. Some heroes end up as fueling sites for Sylar before any role is realized, and Sylar is certainly not into preventing catastrophe or saving humanity. A better way to phrase this sentence is to address the main thrust is how these people deal withthese new abilities and how they act upon them.

Main characters and Cast

• I am going to renew the objection to the connecting ofthe characters' abilities with the list of superpowers from Wikipedia. It is, be any definition of the word, synthesis. If it has not been defined via cited reference, we should not be able to use our judgment to assign the ability ourselves. This is something that will come back to bite Wikipedia on the ass, as some wiki-lawyering dope is going to insist that this sets a precedent for synthesis. When i first brought the matter up somewhat privately with another, more senior editor, he pooh-poohed it as not all that important, but at this point, i am not so sure.

Mythology

• "Kring has used volumes to wrap-up ongoing plot lines, rather than carrying storylines over long periods of time, as in Lost" Why does this require no less than six citations? Is this statement really so controversial that we cannot pick the most durable and illuminating of the citations and use that one all by its lonesome?

Legal and copyright issues

• I think the Emerson lawsuit could be merged into a single paragraph and trimmed down drastically. I mean, if some moron sticks their hand down a garbage disposal, it isn't a tv show's fault - the dolt is just on the short list for a Darwin Award. The paragraph about the infringement with Crossing Jordan is fine the way it is, though.

That's my input. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Respond to the above post at Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2#My view on it. Can we stop with the duplicate posts and just have links instead, please? –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks user:arcayne for your comments. they were fantastic and have been moved to the peer review page. if any other heroes contributors want to add comments to the heroes peer review, please do it at this Link and not on this page. This will help us avoid confusion about the topics being discussed.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

my mini-review

• Why is the infobox yellow? Wasn't it purple a few months ago?
• Why is the article all jumbled? Why did someone decide to put production at the top when it was originally closer to the bottom? Now you have DVD releases and Heroes: Origins infomation BEFORE infomation about the plot for the first two seasons, and the characters. Seems kinda backwards, huh? I find this much harder to read and understand then what it was a month or so ago.
• Mythology of Heroes seems like an article that would be great on the heroeswiki, but is a completely unwikipedian page. We should delete it and condense the relevant infomation into the main article. dposse (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: the order - I agree. We need to know what the show is about before we learn how it is made. While I think the entire structure could probably be tweaked, I've just moved "Plot" and "Characters" up to #1 and #2 for now. This way, we learn a) what the show is about; b) who the main players are; and then c) how and why it is that way. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually for once I agree with you Ckatz. I never did like the order, I just never brought it up because....well I don't know why. But I don't agree that Mythology of Heroes is unwikipedian. Why delete it when so much work has been put into it. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 02:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ckatz too. Looks good. Ckatz, your arguement makes sense and I support you on this one. I also agree with wikirocks. I think we should keep mythology, but not because a lot of work went into it, but because it is well source and isnt a bunch of OR and POV. It is factual fictional elements of the series and it is well, well well sourced.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Before we all jump on the wagon, let's take a look at the format for some GA and FA articles about other shows, and note how they are structured, and follow that template. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

funny you should say that user:arcayne, because that is just what i was doing. i just looked at all the featured articles under the television wikiproject and they all vary. some have cast first, some have production first, some have characters first and some have plot synopses first...it all varies, but their is no majority or standard that all the pages follow. if we want to follow the Lost module, we can revert it back, however, if you check all all the featured article, all of them are different and are organized differently. some are like the lost model, a lot are not. like i said, some start with cast, some start with characters, some start with plot, some start with production. you can review the list yourself of featured television articles if you need to ref for yourself. Click Here to review other FA television articles--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, i had already reviewed them, Chris. I just wanted someone else to do so as well. Why we chose a particular arrangement is going to come up in FA roundtable (and we should be aiming for FA; otherwise, we are simply wasting our time), so we should know why we are choosing one format over another. I think that the plot, then cast, then production seems to make the most sense. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, great!! I am glad a lot of users are on the same page about FA status. Yeah, about the same time you posted that message I was reviewing other FA articles under the Television wikiproject. So, yeah, you and ckatz make great sense about why the ordering is important, especially for a mainstream show like heroes, where a lot of new viewers are constantly being reintroduced. okay, yeah, i agree. cant wait until this article gets a FA star. we got lots of work to do to get there, but we all seem committed to the project and can do it.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I am moving this article to the peer review section. Please take all your talk to THIS PAGE--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Saving the World: A Guide to Heroes Book

Just wondering if this book is notable enough for inclusion in the article...maybe under promotions, fandom and pop culture. I have the book and read it. I do not like the book, as it is full of speculation and unsourced statements. And, none of the production crew or cast participated in the book. Most of the quotes are taken from other sources, newspapers, periodicals and television interviews. However, it still is the only book, unofficial or not, about Heroes and the series. So, I am not sure if it is notable enough for inclusion under the fandom section or if it should not be added at all. I dont think it should go under books and publications because it is not an official heroes release. Any thoughts?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For the reasons you just cited, I'd also oppose the use of that as per WP:RS. It's not endorsed nor participated in by anyone 'in the loop', and probably resembles what this page would become if there weren't so many of us fighting the crufties, but with better Graphic design and more pictures. I'd wager half of the citations it would have to show would go back to 9th wonder and other fan boards, and probably the history of this very article, LOL. For the same reasons, I agree with NOT including it on the page. That would be like remarking on every fan-calendar, fan forum, and fan-book for Star Wars, Star Trek, Quantum Leap, or any other such 'guide to' book. ThuranX (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

DVD released table (revisited)

I have been ignored in the previous post, so I decided to write again to gain attention. I don't know if you noticed, but I removed a bit of the table and changed it to prose. Do you like it? I'm thinking that we should take the dates of the complete season released, include in the block of text, and change the DVD table to the one like in LOST....see link in above post...not above post....above above post. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 14:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a good idea on improving the dvd sect, go ahead and do it. as long as the information is all there and encyclopedic, i dont think it really matters how you present it (prose or chart). alot of this page has been modeled after the lost page because the lost page is a featured article and similar in presentation to heroes. so, if you want to do something similar to what the lost page has done, then yes, i say do it and improve the section. i am sure if the other project members dont like, they will let you know how to improve it when you are done.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There. I think it looks much better. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

DVD cover

Could we get a copy of the DVD cover for the DVD section? ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 07:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, because they are almost always excluded under FU as decorative. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The cast image

Not really thrilled with it. I know we don't have an alternate picture, but the folk are so small in it that its essentially the eclipse image that is predominatant, and that's unsat. Can we try to find a better image of the cast where we can, y'know, see their faces and all? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If anyone finds one that is clearer, go ahead and upload it overtop of Image:Heroes.png. The problem with Heroes pictures is that the cast is so large. Which one of the following is best? [4][5][6][7][8][9] –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

are any of those images free images? i like them all...i think the page could honestly use a couple of them...i know if we ever try to go for feature article status, someone is going to bring up the fact that the page doesnt have many photos. i say upload a couple and place them on the page in sections were they are revelant to the information.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

None are free. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they are all suitable. but uploading pics aint my thing. i dont really know how to do that...but since you do, it would be cool to add one or two...this page needs something.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see it okay, but that might be because I'm using a widescreen laptop, so I have my prefs set to show images at highest possible size. That said, perhaps a higher resolution version of the same image, but with the eclipse cropped out, to either full body or possibly just upper body of the cast. As far as the other images linked above, number 3 would probably look best at low resolution, since the characters are arranged close together in a more square arrangement, only problem is no Sylar. I'm going to crop a high-res version of the one that's there now and upload it, and see how it looks in the article. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 11:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it turns out I'm having trouble with my photo software, so I can't crop it. The high-res version of the existing photo is here, though, so if anyone else has working software, they can try it. Based on looking at it, I'm reasonably confident that it would be possible to crop the image to include everyone head to toe and get none of the eclipse in the image. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 11:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Give me a minute, I'll upload it and replace the current image in the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, i think I might have cocked it up a bit. Could someone take a gander and retrofit? Sudden doings at work are impinging on my wiki time, the bastards. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WTH! What happened to it? ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 03:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Picture

Are you kidding? The caption is bigger than the picture itself. What happened to it? It has gone tiny. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 03:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

One again demonhog saves the day...but I still don't like the picture. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 03:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be expanded...but to get rid of it all together, I do not agree. You wanted a pic and now you got one...its the best everyone could do. like i said, perhaps someone who is knowledgable can expand or enlarge the pic. i do not know how to do images...so i cant...but like i said in my edit summary, it looks fine to me...i can figure out who is who.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Expanding it is easy, at least as far as how it looks in the article: in the wikilink code just change 300px to, say, 385px. (The full size of the image) It won't make things IMMENSELY more visible, but it should help those who are having difficulty making out who's who in the image, and for the price of 85 pixels of space that's a steal. I'm gonna be bold and do it myself; if there's issues it can easily be undone. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Character Information on the Main Page Only: Should it be a List, Chart or Prose?

Greetings wikipedians!! There isnt a wikipedia policy or standard for listing characterr/cast information on a television article. I reviewed all the featured articles for a television series, and noticed that all the articles present the character/cast section differently. Some have displayed it as a list, some as a chart and some as prose. We need to come to concensus, since their is no exact wikipolicy on how the information should be presented. Please list your thoughts and ideas on how the character/cast info should be presented. Currently, it is a chart. If you want feel it should be changed to a list, prose or remain as a chart, please explain your side so that the information can be presented. If you already discussed the issue in the heroes peer review, please restate your opinion here so that we can come to a concensus. Thanks! Also, we are discussing the character chart on the main page, not the character chart on the List of Heroes characters article--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the list is clunky. We should write it into prose, per WP:PROSE. However, we need to keep things brief and to the point. This article should act as a main portal of sorts with basic infomation only. Having long paragraphs will not make this into a good article. That's what their character articles are for. dposse (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I also support prose, or at least a list. –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You just contradicted yourself. If it's prose, it cannot be a list since it is already a list. dposse (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that prose is my first choice and a list is my second choice. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WOW! The new version is just....wow. I love it! ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 08:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Arrgh... didn't see your post here. Anyway, I've reverted the change, not out of a desire to retain the old chart, but because I really don't think the table (which seems to have come from List of Heroes cast members is appropriate for the main page. It offers no information whatsoever about the characters, other than how many episodes they have been in. There needs to be something that helps the reader to understand the series. (Yes, there are links, but it doesn't work if you have to click through multiple links and read 18 different articles when you just want an overview. Certainly, lets discuss the idea, and if there's consensus, make the change. Given the fact that it is such a radical change, however, I really feel we should discuss it first. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess there was no consensus, so you were right to revert it. I had not seen it in List of Heroes cast members, probably because I had never seen that page. Anyways at first glance, it looked really fresh and new. I really liked it. But I guess you are right in the sense that it doesn't presesnt "information whatsoever about the characters, other than how many episodes they have been in." It's a shame though, I really liked it. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 09:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

...but for now, I think it is a good temporary replacement. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 09:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree with ckatz. that chart is way to trivial and doesnt really offer anything. like i said, i still support chart #1 or prose as my number two option. i really like the prose character section on the lost page. it is simple and detailed at the same time. if we do decide to go with prose, something along that line would work. HOWEVER, like i said before, i support the chart...i support the chart staying--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate the chart. When it was first made, I really liked it, but now it looks akward and out of place. If we change it to prose similar to the LOST page, I think that would be fantastic. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 04:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys, the other chart was me. I know there should've been some kind of consensus before I just did it. Just wanted to apologize.The no erz (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No apologies necessary, and no harm done - you were just being bold. I was going to leave a note explaining my revert on your page, but then I noticed the chat here and got sidetracked. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:88wolfmaster stated the following The characters table bothers me I have created two different versions as suggestions to work off of (a prose version and a new table). You can find it here on my sandbox. I think he has two solid presentations here and if we could all maybe vote on one, we could include it in the article...what are everyones thoughts? Me, I like the users chart.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
moved from peer review page Thoughts from User:88wolfmaster

• Nice to see an article cited pretty throughly
• Synopses might be better organized by just Volume (and not by season then volume)
• The characters table bothers me I have created two different versions as suggestions to work off of (a prose version and a new table). You can find it here on my sandbox.
• The cast and characters section could use some trimming

--88wolfmaster (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at your sandbox. They both look great, and I would be happy with either. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 03:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, they are both FANTASTIC! Great work! Wow! I support both, but I really like the chart. It gives the main page some texture rather than a long long webpage full of prose. So, I will go with the chart because I like the aesthetic style and uniqueness of the chart...it is unlike a lot of character presentations in most television articles.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I like both, but prose is better. This way we can put the picture with the characters and not the casting section. And I removed the picture because you needed a microscope to see it. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 03:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm back to neutral. I'll make up my mind soon. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 04:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the chart in the users sandbox and I support chart. Who wants an article full of prose? This article is already pretty long. I think it looks nicer with a character chart, because you have a small area that is not prose like the rest of the article. I think a bunch of prose will turn people away from reading the article. Featured Television articles have charts and I support the chart. Also, I think the information is better organized in a chart, rather than prose. I love the chart in the sandbox and I support the chart.--76.168.220.243 (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to propose we remove the "Seasons" column altogether, as in this example. Seems to me that the consistent problem with all versions, past and proposed, has been that information. (In prose/list form, we've been using brackets, small text, etc. while in charts and tables it requires an entire column.) However, we describe the additions/changes in the paragraph immediately prior to the cast list, so... thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, a chart helps break up a page full of prose. Prose, especially with so many characters, is going to seem long, dry, bland, and dull. Ckatz, I fully support removing the seasons column all together. Ckatz Table --88wolfmaster (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Great job Ckatz! I also support. I agree with 88wolfmaster as well. This article has tons and tons and tons of prose...and the chart is a fantastic idea to break up all the text in this article. I also agree with you Ckatz that the season column is the main problem and should be moved. I support the version you reverted in your test edit and the idea you have to add the seasons information in prose in the paragraphs. Lets make the changes.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that i think about it, most of the information about starring/recurring and main/guest is already in the para proceeding the chart...so, yeah Ckatz, I support the changes you suggested.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but the table has no clear end, it just stops. Could we have a blue bar or something showing that it has finished. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 06:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Done--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ratings section

i would like to nominate the following paragraph for deletion and removal from this article: 'Heroes also airs in Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Guatemala, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden and Turkey.

this information is so trivial and is getting out of hand...everyday someone is adding a new country and more and more unsourced information. this information doesnt have a verifiable source, let alone a source period. it is getting out of hand...this week alone 3 countries have been added...i think this is ridiculous and take the articles quality down. i think the sourced info we have under the ratings section is enough information to present this article as a international article, without adding all this trivia. I compared this to featured television article in wikipedia and none of them have a trivial list such as this. thoughts?--ChrisisinChrist ^{comments and complaints here!} 18:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove it. I know where to get Canadian ratings and will provide them in the future. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Writer's Strike

I hate the writer's strike, because I miss new episodes of Heroes!!! However, this strike has given a lot of editors the chance to step back and really look at this article and improve it. Before Heroes went off air, users were just rushing to put up-to-date episode information into this article. Now that the show is off air and we have no in-universe information to add, a lot of editors have finally added to the quality of this article by researching and finding the best out-of-universe information on the series. So, congrats to everyone for your improvements to this article. It was well needed. Heroes should be at feature article status in now time. We just need to get those references cleaned up and do some small expansions. I love Heroes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.220.243 (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if that was approriate, but thanks anyways! ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 06:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember this section? Why was it removed? JUST WONDERING!

Heroes is broadcast on the following stations around the world.

International broadcasters

Country or Region	Network(s)	Series premiere	Weekly schedule
Arab world	Showseries 1	April 4, 2007	Wednesdays 11:00 p.m.
Asia Bangladesh Brunei Hong Kong† India Indonesia Macau Malaysia Maldives Mongolia Nepal Pakistan Singapore Sri Lanka Taiwan Thailand	Star World	January 24, 2007 (India)	Wednesdays 9:00 p.m.
		January 31, 2007	Wednesdays 8:00 p.m. (THAI/WIB Time) 9:00 p.m. (HK/SIN Time)
		September 2007 (Philippines)	TBA
Australia	Seven Network	January 31, 2007	Thursdays for NSW and QLD, Wednesday for all other regions. 8:30 pm.
Belgium	VT4 (Dutch)	March 5, 2007	Mondays 8:30 p.m.
	RTL-TVi (French)	April 22, 2007	Mondays 9:10 p.m.
Brazil	Rede Record	July 3, 2007	TBA
Canada	Global Television Network	September 25, 2006	Mondays 8:00 p.m.
	NBC		Mondays 9:00 p.m.
Denmark	Canal+	February 7, 2007	Wednesdays 10:00 p.m.
Finland	Canal+	February 7, 2007	Wednesdays 11:00 p.m.
	MTV3	Fall, 2007	TBA
France	TF1	June 30, 2007	Saturdays 8:50 p.m.
Germany	RTL II	2007	TBA
Hong Kong	TVB Pearl	June, 2007	TBA
Hungary	TV2	March 4, 2007	Wednesdays 10:00 p.m.
Iceland	Skjár 1	January 2007	Mondays 9:00 p.m.
Ireland	Channel 6	March 1, 2007	Thursdays 9:30 p.m.
Israel	yes stars 2	March 6 ,2007	Tuesdays 9:30 p.m.
Italy	Italia 1	September, 2007	TBA
Latin America Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Ecuador Mexico Panama Peru Venezuela Dominican Republic	Universal Channel	March 2, 2007	Fridays 9:00 p.m.
Mexico	Universal Channel	March 2, 2007	Fridays 9:00 p.m.
	Canal 5	May 14, 2007	Mondays 9:00 p.m.
Netherlands	RTL 5	June 21 2007	Thursdays 09:30 p.m. Sundays 11:30 p.m. (R)
Norway	Canal+ Film1	February 7, 2007	Wednesdays 10:00 p.m. Saturdays 10:30 p.m. (R)
New Zealand	TV3	January 15, 2007	Mondays 9:30 p.m.
Philippines	RPN 9	March 11, 2007	Sundays 8:00 p.m.
	Crime/Suspense	May 28, 2007	Mondays 9:00 p.m.
Poland	TVP1	May 17, 2007	Thursdays 8:15 p.m. and 9:20 p.m
Portugal	TVI	April 14 2007	Saturdays 2:00 p.m.
Puerto Rico	Televicentro	May 27 2007	Sundays 8:00 p.m.
South Africa	SABC3	May 23, 2007	Wednesdays 8:30 p.m.
Spain	Sci Fi	February 1, 2007	Thursdays 10:00 p.m.
	TV Canaria	February 28, 2007	Wednesdays 9:00 p.m.
	AragonTV	March, 2007	Sundays 09:45 p.m.
	Telemadrid	February 15, 2007	Thursdays 10:00 p.m.
	7RM	March 15, 2007	Thursdays 10:00 p.m.
	TV3	May 2, 2007	Wednesdays 9:40 p.m.
	Canal 9	March 21, 2007	Wednesdays 10:00 p.m.
	TVG	June 14, 2007	Thursdays 9:40 p.m.
	RTPA	April 12, 2007	Thursdays 10:00 p.m.
Sweden	Canal+	February 7, 2007	Wednesdays 10:00 p.m.
	TV4	Autumn 2007	TBA
Switzerland	TSR1	June 19, 2007	Tuesdays
Turkey	CNBC-e	March 4, 2007	Sundays 9:00 p.m.
United Kingdom	Sci Fi Channel	February 19, 2007	Mondays 10:00 p.m.
	BBC Two	July, 2007	TBA
United States	NBC	September 25, 2006	Mondays 9:00 p.m.
	Sci-Fi Channel		Fridays 7:00 p.m.
United States Military overseas	AFN-Prime	January 2, 2007	Tuesdays 7:00 p.m.

--ChrisisinChrist ^{comments and complaints here!} 05:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It was probably removed because Wikipedia isn't a TV guide, and it's not particularly notable as to WHEN the show airs. Surely it airs at SOME time, but what makes that airtime particularly important? Can't we just say that as of 2007, Heroes was being broadcast in X nations? It's far more of the important content, without the minutae of broadcasting rights and channel guides. Our goal in re: International should be discussing the spread and breadth of the appeal and audience, not the 'when it's on for the world traveler. Surely there was a more tactful way to ask this? ThuranX (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to make that collapsible? My wiki kung fu is not strong when it comes to the coding.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to start expanded, but I know how to make it start already collapsed. Add {{Hidden begin|titlestyle = background-color: colour; text-align: center;|title=International broadcasters}} and {{hidden end}} to both sides of the table, replacing colour with a colour. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me how, D. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Season Three

Season Three has been confirmed to start in autumn, the beginning of volume Three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.47.61 (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Website

This webstie is pretty old, but it has some ok stuff on awards and ratings: http://dvd.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1323601.php/NBC_Universal_launches_global_promotional_campaign_with_%93Heroes_World_Tour%94 * ₩іκіRocкs/Love$ounds ♥ talκ 23:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Character Chart

I like the whole page of what I've seen, I love how you all have the character chart, except that you have it in Alphabetical order by last name and Syler/Gabriel Grey is not in the G's it may be because you placed him as Syler but I myself believe he should go in as Grey But other then that amazing job you all and thanks to chrisinchrist mazel tov ya'll --Spread The Word (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The chart is organized by the characters common name, not by thier complete name. For example, Matt parkman is his common name although he is really Matthew Parkman. Same for Nicole Sanders and Daniel Lawrence Hawkins. Sylar is his common name, so the chart is organized in that respect.--ChrisisinChrist ^{comments and complaints here!} 16:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

How can we get this article to FA status?

I think the Heroes article is fantastic. It has improved much. I think it we want to elevate this article to a featured article, we need to try to do it before the new season begins, because a lot of porject users will come back and contribute to this page, and they might take the quality down. anyway, we need to probably work on a few areas before we can reach Feature status. maybe firstly we could try to be nominated and listed as a good article. also, we need to work on the following:

• The refs...need I say more? really messy...lol
• The DVD section...needs clean up, expansion and refs
• A good copyedit. I am trying to get the LOCE to copyedit, but they are busy and so backed up. Maybe a really good editor like Ckatz or soemone on his or her level could really come and do an expansive Copy editing. Thoughts?

--ChrisisinChrist ^{comments and complaints here!} 07:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this article will become the one to be compared to in the future (i.e. "I am nominating this article on x TV show and modelled it after that of Heroes…). –thedemonhog talk • edits 09:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Any Verifiable Sources to confirm season three start date?

Lots of fans site are reporting that Heroes will return on September 8, 2008. I am not including it in the article because I cant find a source. I checked NBC and Media village....I couldnt find a press release or anything. also, most networks dont release schedules in american until the end of may. so, if somoene has a source that is from a verified news source, please post it...otherwise, it is just speculation...right? yes.--ChrisisinChrist ^{comments and complaints here!} 07:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That speculation does not even make sense. September 8 is considered part of the summer TV season and the regular TV season (where episodes aired during this time count toward the year-end ratings charts) does not begin until September 24. –thedemonhog talk • edits 09:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

See Effect of the 2007–08 Writers Guild of America strike on television#Shows postponed. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 19:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Chris is asking the specific date that it is returning, not if it is. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that table it says "Fall 2008" so if 9/8 is considered part of the summer season, then well... it's some info *shrugs* Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 07:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The information is coming from Zatta Chris Zatta via places like this topic on the 9thwonders.com message board. Probably doesn't meet Wikipedia's strict guidelines, but it's reliable enough to find on some other sites. --Centish (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Chris Zatta. I couldnt remember his name. He is a writer on Heroes. I think he wrote PARASITE. Anyway, yeah, I dont know if that meets verifibale guidelines. thoughts?--ChrisisinChrist ^{comments and complaints here!} 05:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically, I think that it is verifiable, but I say that Zatta doesn't know what he's talking about. There's no way NBC is going to throw orginal episodes of their #2 show into the summer schedule. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters now. There's six months to go. Even if we do find the start date...big whoop! Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 06:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too sure, thedemonhog. The strike is an abnormal occurrence and since the writers are already working on new scripts we may find the networks accelerating the schedules in order to get the new content on the air more quickly. I wouldn't base this year on past years. Just my opinion. In any event, the fact that he's a writer and not speaking on behalf of NBC probably means it can't be considered a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. --Centish (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)