Talk:Hiros

Article title

Should the title of this article be "Hiros (Heroes episode)" for consistency with the other episode titles?

I made a change to the Peter Petrelli page last night to "fix" the episode title, and I found out this morning that I pointed it to a page that doesn't exist. Rather than just creating a redirect from (Heroes episode) to the plain title, or moving this page to that one, I though I'd ask here what is more appropriate in this matter. --Psiphiorg 12:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The only reason we've used "(Heroes episode) up until this point is because there were other things with the same name. This one is unique.--Ac1983fan^{(yell at me)} 12:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I was Bold and moved it. I think we should have (Heroes episode) On all of them so that on the off chance we need Hiros in the future we have it. Plus it being a constant makes it look better IMHO. EnsRedShirt 14:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I just finished bypassing all the article's that link to Hiros. I am ready for the redirect to be put up for deletion as well because the unrelated (to Heroes) article Hirsch Does link to Hiros as well. But I thought I would make sure everyone here was okay with all my bold moves this morning before finishing it off. EnsRedShirt 14:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the few shows that even has separate articles for every episode. And frankly, your moves were a little "bold". I'm afraid one unrelated link from another article isn't enough to warrent otherwise unnecessary disambiguation. For most intentions and purposes, title "HIros" is not in use. Trying to add "(Heroes episode)" without reason is pointless and makes pages harder to link, find, et cetera. I'm not going move the page back and change some links. Please consider asking in the future, or at least giving moves like this more thought. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I also did it on other naming conventions of other shows. What real point is it having a show have some episode with (Show Name episode) and some throuhout. It's DANG confusing and it looks down right horrible. We need to follow the SAME naming convention for ever show, If some one is to lazy to (Heros episode) into a wiki link, it's pretty dang lazy... EnsRedShirt 22:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

How is it confuing? And again, these conventions only applied to shared names. A name like "Sevem Minutes to Midnight" need not be disambiguated, and neither does this article. Disambiguation is for other uses or ambiguous names, not something to be done in excess as lame attempt at consistancy. It's not our job to need the episodes, so if we can place them at the appropriate domain without a disambiguator, we will. I fear you have a scued idea of how disambiguation works. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Two more things.. I did the hard work by moving all the links to the show manually to the (Heroes episode) version, and I also think it pretty short sighted to say we won't need a Hiros page in the future. Why lock ourselves into it now, when we may just need to do the page move later?? It's much easier now, and all the hard work has already been done. EnsRedShirt 22:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation isn't pre-emptive, for the last time. We act based on the now, not speculation about the future. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Precidents for my way of thinking: Children of the Gods, The Nox, Wormhole X-Treme! they keep the same naming convention without the entire 204 episodes so far, even when Disambiguation is not needed. So I say move it back to (Heroes episode) and leave the redirect. I think it is important to have the same naming convention on each page, as it looks better, and makes the reader of wikipedia think we are better organized. EnsRedShirt 22:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

We're not doing this based solely on your POV. In fact, if anything, all the pages which you've forced your POV on should probably be changed. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

True, and personally I think we should just stop at the moment and wait for other people to join in this conversation before we decide anything further.EnsRedShirt 22:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems only logical to be consistent by appending (Heroes episode) - wether for disambig. or not. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as my preference goes, I'd like the consistency of them all having the same naming scheme as one another. This would allow someone to easily create a link to any episode without trying to remember whether the title has the parenthetical or not, without running into needless redirects along the way. But if more people chime in preferring the other way, I would support the concensus. --Psiphiorg 22:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't need it to disambig until there's a competing 'Hiros' page for some other subject. I think it's resource hogging to find 8 to 10 variants on the title and waste time. Odds are great that the page will be accessed 999,999 out of 1,000,000 from either the list of episodes page or other links presented on more readily searchable pages, such as the Show's main article, or those about the character. Finally, the fact that one fan, or group thereof, did it to SG-1 isn't precedent for doing it to all shows. Leave it alone until needed. ThuranX 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Make it Hiros (Heroes), not Hiros or Hiros (Heroes episode). It's the way things are done. It's best to name the article that way even though there's no need yet in accordance with WP:NAME. The Duke of Copyeditting, Bow before me! ^{You can't control me!} _{I'm a P. I.!} 07:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No. The only reason to use (an extension) is when there are other subjects with the same title. there's no other article titled Hiros, and I will estimate a 99.99% chance against another one being created.--Ac1983fan^{(yell at me)} 11:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not true - we are dealing with a series, a collection of similar-themed articles. If you were talking about a single article, then yes, disambiguate when needed. We are not, and most TV episodes disambiguate consistently, not piecemeal. Having some of them the episodes titled as "X (Heroes episode)" and others as just "X" is confusing to the reader, and makes the episode "project" look disorganized. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm kinda new, but if I may jump here...well...okay...here I go. Ckatz, I'm afraid that the point you bring up is more a shared POV than a policy or even policy-worthy method. Some articles have "(TV show/series)" disambiguaters; others do not. Should all the fictional characters of the series be listed as "(Heroes character)"? Should every single article existing as extension of information offered by the series have "(Heroes)" at the end of its title? I'm very sorry, but your logic, no matter how popular, just doesn't hold up. Izhmal (User page | User talk page) 22:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood what I said... you are correct that some shows use disambiguators, and some do not. My point, which others have also made, referred specifically to the episode articles for this show. It doesn't make sense to have some episodes with the disambiguator and others without - it is inconsistent, and makes things more confusing for readers. I have no real preference as to the style, as long as it is consistent. (By the way, welcome! Glad you decided to jump right in - the more the merrier...) --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't misunderstand. You insist for a "consistancy" which cannot happen and isn't a general practice. Who is confused by, say, the fact that most, but not all G.I. Joe characters have ambiguous names and have "(G.I Joe)" at the end of their article title? By your logic, they are all part of the "G. I. project" and should have it in their titles regardless, right? No? Well, how is this different? It isn't. Please follow and accept the existing policies. This is the first use of "Hiros" and that title would redirect here anyway. A perceived—read: non-neutral POV—consistancy gained by doing what you suggest isn't a good enough reason to excessively disambiguate. The standard practice works for everything but episodes of TV series? I find that hard to believe. If anything, this sort of "consistancy" would only confuse readers who would normally assume a disambiguated title meant there was more than one use.

And thanks for the welcome! I really appreciate it. Izhmal (User page | User talk page) 23:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Layout

Should we start designing the articles as they go along instead of what happens to each character? Eventually they'll all meet up and Nathan's met Hiro and Niki, Peter met Mohinder and Isaac, and talked to Hiro, and D.L. finally showed up. I think it would be better. Please leave feedback and if there are valid reasons I won't change it. BioYu-Gi!. 15:58, 24 October 2006.

They're supposed to be in the order they're shown, not person by person. This article needs a reorg, so It has the events in the shown order.--Ac1983fan^{(yell at me)} 20:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll expand it...I just watched it for the second time today. Toquinha 02:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If anything, the article needs to be trimmed of its fat. A synopsis should only focus on the major plot events; 5-6 paragraphs should suffice. That's the usual length for the plot summaries of featured (film) articles (V for Vendetta, Casablanca, Jaws etc.) --Madchester 04:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...haven't the previous eps been detailed synopsises from beginning to end? I attempted the character-by-character approach when I tackled the pilot episode, which ended up being out of viewing order, and someone went ahead and expanded it to viewing order. Anyway, I can't get to it until tonight...damn dayjob... Toquinha 14:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Screencap

I added a screencap to the infobox for this episode. Its the same one as they had for this episode on the List of Heroes episodes page. If anyone could think of a caption to go along with it, go ahead and add it. --GhostStalker 21:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The screencap seems really dark on non-descriptive. I have to look at it carefully just to see that it's a vague image of a man. Got something easier to see? SnappingTurtle 21:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Turt. Could we get something a little lighter? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is very non-descriptive. There should be something posted that is major to the plot line as well. --Pinkkeith 13:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The pic does some something major to the plot... Its D.L. Hawkins's second (or first, I dont remember) appearence and it shows his power, phasing. Also, the fact that he's in Nikki's home is big as well... --GhostStalker 23:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis Correction (Hole in the Chest)

I removed part of the description of Isaac/Peter's painting in the second-to-last paragraph. It would appear that the cheerleader has NOT a hole in her chest; it's just the school logo.

Are you sure? It looks like a hole to me. And also, did Matt black out? I thought he just ran out? Billywhack 06:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure; I freeze-frame-checked it. The paint used in the circle is different from the one used for the rest of the blood, and it's too even and round also. I'm not sure about Matt (I didn't write that part of the synopse, though). He seems to be falling over at the end of that scene, but it's not clear.

Episode title

As shown during the episode itself, the correct title of this episode is "Hiros", no apostrophe. My cable provider's guide mistakenly inserted an apostrophe in its guide ("Hiro's"), which may be where User:Shannernanner got the wrong title from. I have reverted the changes on this page and the episode list to the correct title. --Psiphiorg 10:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

NBC'S Website also had it as Hiro's. Over at 9thwonders.com they had it without the apostrophe, and they also commented on how that one apostrophe changes the whole meaning of the title. EnsRedShirt 10:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Should the copy/paste move currently found in Talk:Hiro's (from an older version of Talk:Hiros) be left as it is? This seems messy & confusing to have duplicated content in both places. Thanks -- 70.59.241.153 16:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It is messy, I think we just need to agree on a dang spelling, and some naming conventions (See above) and stick to 'em. EnsRedShirt 17:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well all of the internal links (outside of talk pages) are currently pointing to Hiros and not Hiro's (before they were about an evenly split mix). Consistancy seems to be useful while this is being sorted out. Thanks -- 70.59.241.153 17:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't say "thanks" all the time. We're not your lackies. Now, if we're all agreed on "Hiros", I'd say there's no problem. Just correct any other spelling as neeeded. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant no offence in using the word "thanks" in closing on my posts here; I thought I was just being polite. There is still the matter of the content, origionally taken from this talk page, that has been left at Talk:Hiro's. What, if anything should be done about that? <<Insert some form of polite, inoffensive closing phrase here>> -- 70.59.241.153 18:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry again, I see that Ac1983fan (talk · contribs) already took care of it here -- 70.59.241.153 19:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, just a little unnecessary.. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Plot summary cleanup

The plot summary does not seem overly long compared to One Giant Leap, so I guess that means it might be confusing or ambiguous. The internal link in the cleanup template message for "confusing or ambiguous" leads to a dead anchor (#Writing on fiction) - here's a link to writing about fiction - though I can't seem to find details there about cleaning up confusing or ambiguous plot summaries. Perhaps I'm just missing it. Regardless, I think it's a safe bet to think the plot summary can use some loving attention. Junior rookie | Talk 15:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The synopsis is far too long. It should be reduced to 5-6 paragraphs. See WP:NOT, since plot summaries are technically not allowed on Wikipedia. Also see featured articles on film topics, such as Casablanca or Dog Day Afternoon for appropriate length and content found in a synopsis. --Madchester 17:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

i think it's fine the way it is. it's not any worse than the episode summaries for House or Kyle XY. dposse 17:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

John Hensley

The creepy robber guy looks a lot like john hensley from nip/tuck, I thought about adding this, but wasn't sure. J-stan 01:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Las Vegas

When Nathan Petrelli signs the hotel bill, it has a Montecito logo at the top (32:55).

Summary

The episode summary was far too long so I did my best in shortening it. Still think it's too long but it's better then it was before. Lots42 12:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Two Hiro's on the subway

"When the camera is panning around the train at the "frozen" people one of the people is Hiro, reading a newspaper. This is 17 seconds into the episode." I didn't notice this, but if it's true, it doesn't make sense. 'Present-day Hiro' is in Las Vegas, 'Future Hiro' is speaking to Peter on the train, so who's this 'third' Hiro? Or is it just an 'easter-egg', not meant to be part of the story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.53.74.196 (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)