Talk:List of Heroes episodes

Episode 402 - Jump/Push/Fall

1. From NBC: * Episode 402 | Season 4 | 09/21/2009
2. Jump/Push/Fall is listed on the NBC site here: [1] as Episode 402 with a desription of the Episode
   
3. Jump/Push/Fall is listed as an episode with an original air date: 09/21/2009 on the NBC Episode Guide here: [2] Included is a desription of the Episode.
4. NBC has a 2 minute preview of Episode 402 Jump/Push/Fall here: [3]
5. NBC lists Jump/Push/Fall at the media center for the 2 hr premier here: https://www.nbcumv.com/mv/ ... then follow the links... Programs/NBC Entertainment/Primetime/Heroes/Upcoming Episodes/See all Episodes.... There the premeire is listed as 09/21/2009 08:00 PM ORIENTATION / JUMP, PUSH, FALL
6. Listed as Jump/Push/Fall episode highlights are here: [4]
7. On NBC http://www.nbc.com/heroes/ ... page they have a link from their ABOUT tab to...http://heroeswiki.com... there

Jump/Push/Fall is listed: http://heroeswiki.com/Season_Four ... as Chapter One, Part Two — Jump, Push, Fall

1. On our own article page we link to most of the above pages
2. We also link to www.tv.com [5] where Jump, Push, Fall is listed as Season 4, Episode 2 – Aired: 9/21/2009
3. And we link to www.imdb.com [6] where we have Season 4, Episode 2: Jump, Push, Fall - Original Air Date—21 September 2009

• The most basic premise for Wikipedia is Verifiability [7]
  

Jump/Push/Fall should be included in our list as Episode 402 | Season 4 | 09/21/2009 as per the official NBC Site - Thank You —  MateyAhoy  07:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but we won't have a link on the title because just like putting a link on Eclipse Part 2, it would be considered over-linking, or whatever it was Edokter said.
 Snake Chess5 12:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable! Thank You —  MateyAhoy  20:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are rehashing your old arguments. It is not going to change anything. Please accept you have no consensus for your changes. You are beating a dead horse. Plaese stop. — Edokter • Talk • 14:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your contibutions and enthusism for this page but As an Admin you should be encouraging Discussion not Discouraging it. Also you should read: Don't revert due to "no consensus" [8]. Thank You —  MateyAhoy  20:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

We could put "Jump, Push, Fall" as an alternative title. Resulting in this:

#	Title	Director(s)	Writer(s)	Viewers (millions)	Original airdate	Production code
Volume Five: Redemption
1 (60)	"Orientation" "Jump, Push, Fall"	David Straiton & Edward Bianchi	Tim Kring, Adam Armus & Kay Foster	6.02 / 5.77	September 21, 2009 (2009-09-21)	401 / 402
Claire starts as a freshman in college, but cannot fully leave her old life behind. Peter returns to his job as a paramedic, saving people with the help of Mohinder's abilities. Hiro and Ando have started a "Dial a Hero" business, but Hiro is not in control of his power and believes himself to be dying. Angela is worried about Nathan, who is starting to display Sylar's abilities. Samuel, Lydia and Edgar use their abilities to find other Heroes. Tracy continues to hunt down former Building 26 employees, including Noah and Danko. Sylar's consciousness manifests itself inside Matt's mind. Hiro accidentally time travels 14yrs into the past, and decides to undo his wrongdoing. Noah convinces Peter to help him, buts ends up injured. Sylar escapes Matt's mind, and Nathan starts feeling not quite himself. Matt decides to use his powers again.

But I don't mind it how it is right now, except for the "Production codes" being called "Episode #" again. To Mateyahoy; both imdb.com and tv.com are not considered reliable sources as they are mostly user contributed and anyone can add or change the info just like they can here. The episode itself is still a better source than a webiste, even if it is the official website. The next best step up is the DVD, but we will have to wait until it is released. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 15:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• If imbd & tv.com are unreliable we shouldnt be linking to them in our references section.
• Episode# is a better reference, it is what is on the offical NBC website and makes sense to a new reader coming here. A production code is meaningless except to wikipedia regulars. I was confused over that for a couple of days when I first came here, I am sure others are as well. We actually get the codes from NBC.com where they are listed as episodes, then we change the title to production.
• I agree having it consolidated isn't bad and having Orientation then Jump, Push, Fall as Alternate is good. I have seen it a Orientation/Jump, Push, Fall one or two places at the NBC website. Either way would be good :) Thank You —  MateyAhoy  20:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right we shouldn't put them in the references section. These are normally placed under "External links" as they are there for additional info, not a source for references. Back to the point; it doesn't matter if you are not aware of production codes, they are widely used. The problem with calling it "Episode #" is that they aren't, you use the parameter |ProdCode= (which stands for "Production Code") and name it "Episode #", which is incorrect. Independently of what you might feel is confusing or not. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 20:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but thats a technicality. We get the codes from NBC where they are called episodes. The original designer of this template could have put Episode# in the template instead of ProdCode. It was just a momentary decision by him. It was pointed out by U-mos they are interchangeable see Production code number. I just think Episode # is more clear to all the readers coming here. —  MateyAhoy  21:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not and they have, it's the episode number parameter: |EpisodeNumber=. Production codes can and often are completely different than the episode number and season number combined. Like most shows on fox, like Firefly or Arrested Development, they have a 3 letter code in them and the pilot is number 79. Shows often get aired out of order then they where intended or produced. In the case of Flashpoint episodes where even aired out of season in some the United States. That is why there is a |EpisodeNumber=, |EpisodeNumber2= and |ProdCode= to reflect those differences in production order, airing order, DVD order, chronological order or any other kind of order that can be different. In this case to show that the episode was produced as two episodes but aired as one. Besides the point but you make it look like some guy just came up with Template:Episode list, this template has already gone trough a bunch of iteration, changes and complete overhauls. If that was ever so then it would have been changed long ago. You seem to miss the point and meaning of production codes. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 21:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks for the clarification. I guess we have the wrong parameter on our page then because we are taking Episode Numbers from NBC asnd calling them Production Codes —  MateyAhoy  21:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No we don't, those are the production codes. I am going to point you to the beginning of the "one episode or two"-discussion some 8000 words ago, because you're just repeating the same stance on which other editors don't agree with you and have failed to reach a new consensus over the one that has stood since the series began. And lately shifted it towards the production codes. I think it has gone on long enough because it's getting pretty ridiculous. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 22:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

We take the numbers from The NBC website here: [9] where they are called episode numbers. There is nothing to indicate that they are Production Codes. —  MateyAhoy  22:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be! Gosh you are being so unbelievably stubborn! We are Wikipedia, they are NBC. Yes we source them, but to source does not mean to copy. Last time I checked, that's plagiarism. NBC web admins chose to list production codes on their webpages as episode #s, and they are certainly entitled to do so because it is their site. We are Wikipedia, we are attempting to be an academic point of reference with a certain set of standards in our practices. You are one person who has a belief. This is a belief that does not sync with your fellow editors, nor the standards and practices by which Wikipedia upholds itself. Get over it, move on already. We appreciate that you are doing what you believe is for the benefit of those who you think might be confused, but let me ask you this as an analogy: would you call an apple an orange just because someone doesn't know what an apple is? If people do not know what something is, they need to learn about it before they can go any further. We are an online encyclopedia, an academic arena, thus a place for people to learn things, including certain formats, standards and practices by which we use and function. Again, we appreciate your efforts but they are not achieving their intended effect will not, so kindly end this.  Snake Chess5 02:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You claim NBC web admins chose to list production codes on their webpages as episode #s You make this claim but do you have a verifiable source to back it up? I have provided a verifable source that shows them as Episode#'s. I am not stubborn I just believe we should be following Wikipedia guidelines. Right above the edit box it says Encyclopedic content must be "verifiable." This is the basic premise that Wikipedia stands on. If we dont follow the basic guidelines then what are we doing? —  MateyAhoy  04:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) You say you agree with Edokter, then let me repeat to you with what you agree:

“ Don't bother. You have made your point, but you failed to get consensus. Please understand that you will not obtain your goals by endlessly repeating your stance; it is more likely to get you a reputation as a compulsive debater that doesn't know when to stop, and not building a good standing among the community in the process. So please, accept consensus, even if we are dead wrong, and leave it alone, until you have new sources. I am closing this discussion. ” — Edokter, #Episode Numbers VS Production Codes

Now can we move along? Thanks. Besides that during a discussion one should not repeatedly change the main article, to try and push trough his or her stance, as this is the beginning of an edit war which others who engage in the discussion try to avoid in a civil manner. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 11:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What I said was I mainly agreed with Edokters latest edits and am supporting them. You are the one editing away Edokters edits. I only put back Edokters edits after SnakeChess5 edited them away. Please read your talk page for further info. Thank You —  MateyAhoy  11:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You can call an apple an orange if you find a reference for it, and you would have a point in adding it. But you will find it hard to reach consensus about it and have it stay on the page. "You have made your point, but you failed to get consensus.", "So please, accept consensus, even if we are dead wrong, and leave it alone". _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 11:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok I will accept "YOUR" concensus and leave the edits as is. However the page no longer meets the qualifications to be a featured list.(Not sure how Edokter feels as it was his edits I was supporting) Verifiability is the mainstay of all pages here. I will give you some time to reconsider otherwise I will nominate the page to be removed from the featured list category and the admins there can figure this out. Cheers —  MateyAhoy  12:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw the discussion of this elsewhere and can see where the problem lies. As is often the case, the editors involved here don't know the difference between episode numbers, production numbers and production codes. I'm looking at the script for an ER episode called "TIme of Death," which displays Production Number 1106. Time of Death ran as the sixth episode of their eleventh season and was the sixth episode of that season to be filmed. Episode numbers are based on the order shows are broadcast and tend to be shorthanded as 11x06 or 11.06 but may be identified as 1106, production numbers, the order they are filmed and are shorthanded absent punctuation: 1106. Now I shift to the script for an episode of The Closer called "Mom Duty." It was the second episode of the second season, but has a production number of 203, a production code of 2T7653 and is listed as episode 202 on the TNT web page for the show because it was FILMED third, but BROADCAST second that season (202/2T7652 was shot second and broadcast third). It's not unusual shows do not shoot entirely in order for a variety of reasons: availability of locations, decisions to rearrange episode order after production begins and cast needs being the most common reasons. Unless you are privy to a show's filming schedule or have actual scripts, it's pretty difficult to know their production numbers. Once an episode is finished, the studio (in ER's case, Warner Brothers) assigns a unique production code that is displayed at the end of the credits. The production code for ER is 177856. So, to hopefully help settle the squabble, what you're displaying are episode numbers unless you can source order of production from something more reliable than a spoiler website, and then you have production numbers. You do not have production codes, and as such, the table is mislabeled. Drmargi (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank your very much for that great explanation. We are definatly using Episode Numbers as per the NBC website and not Production codes. And you are correct as such the table is misleading. Thanks again thats a great imput for a difficult subject! —  MateyAhoy  14:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I never doubted any of what Drmargi (Drmargi.. have we met?) said above. But the point is these are prod codes/numbers, or there would be no point in them as we already have an episode number column. I cannot attest to where the format etc. comes from originally, but that's no reason to remove it. And as for the order of production, there is no doubting this particular show was made in order of broadcast due to it being a continuous story, unlike say The Simpsons. U-Mos (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

We get the Episode Numbers from The NBC website . Where they are Plainly Called: Episode Numbers. They are not Production Codes. —  MateyAhoy  02:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

We've been through this, let's not do it again. Big red text is helping no one. U-Mos (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no investment in this other than uninvited peace-keeper, so from that POV, let me say that Matey is right. What you are posting are episode numbers, as can easily be sourced by links back to NBC. The problem is the shorthand for production numbers and production codes are sometimes the same -- it makes sense when you're running around NBC but can be misleading to the untrained user. Production codes are much more complex, as illustrated above, and as stated above, are available at the end of each episode. By identifying the numbers in the final column as production codes, you've got an error. If you mean production number (identifying the sequence in which the episodes were shot) you must have a reliable source such as a script or access to the production schedule - otherwise the numbers are pure conjecture. So you've got a problem: you don't have reliable production numbers, you have mislabeled what NBC identifies as episode numbers as production codes, and can't source any of it.

But there's a bigger issue here: what's the point of the second list? They're just episode numbers in a different format. They don't add anything new. Production numbers are only interesting when they allow the reader to contrast order of production with order of broadcast, and production codes are esoteric at best. I'd get rid of the column altogether and stop squabbling about it. (U-Mos, to answer your question, your ID seems familiar; we probably were involved in some shared editing at some point, although I couldn't say where.) Drmargi (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but something new is now added with Orientation, as it has two prod codes due to being made as two episodes. U-Mos (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. The point of the second list - at least in the case in dispute - is that it's different from the first list, which is of the chapter numbers as prominently displayed at the beginning of the episodes. "Ink", for example, is the third episode (403) but was labeled as "Chapter 2". (Compare this with "The Eclipse, Part 1" and "The Eclipse, Part 2" in volume 3, which got their own chapter numbers.) Somewhere amidst all the reverts the first column was listed as "Chapter #" instead of just "#", and it's seriously worth considering putting it back. —Korath (Talk) 23:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Not all shows have elaborate production codes, especially serialized shows, for some shows the episode number, production number and code are nearly the same. Serialized shows like Heroes use a simple one because they have to be aired in order and the production code is the same as the production number, unlike other shows where it doesn't matter and the episode number (airing) differs to the production number/code. Before episodes air, episode numbers are often referred to as their production code. For example; the script of The Message, an episode of Firefly, states: "Episode #: 1AGE11", which is clearly the production code. The episode number is a digit referring to only the episode not the season. So episode 4 of season 2 is 4 not 204. Or the number overall so if season 1 would have had 20 episodes it would be 24. That is the counting method that has been used since the series beginning and the creation of this episode list.

The production codes had no use before since there was nothing special about them, that's why I wanted them removed some two months ago. But others found that hey should stay. And now they are useful. They indicate that Orientation was produced as two separate episodes but aired as one, which is the counting method that is used until the DVD comes out. If it appears different on the DVD then a list is changed or expanded. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 02:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You can call them production codes until the sky turns green, but it won't make it so. What you have are either unsourced production numbers or episode numbers. If they're useful, fine, but at least know what you have and label them correctly. The irony is thick, given the level of verifiability of episode titles being demanded below. Drmargi (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, based on the latest in discussion posts above, I am changing my stance on this in favor of changing it to a new format. I mean for one thing, we label production no. on the episode pages themselves and production codes on the list of episodes page, make up your mind. Secondly, I honestly can't see any straight-forward reference to state that the numbers listed under that column are production codes. I think that for the purposes of this show's listing being somewhat unique from other shows, therefore listing the first and last columns as chapter # and prod. # would be more appropriate because it is true that the episodes are produced in order of broadcast appearance so episode # and production # are interchangeable for this show. Ultimately, I think it will help to clarify things for the average viewer and it will re-legitimize it as a featured list. It was said that removing this column was proposed before due to its lack of usefulness, but since Orientation, that has changed. I agree the usefulness of the column has changed, but not the title under which it stands. As for agreeing with consensus even if it is dead wrong: one - it technically isn't consensus if there is more than one person now siding on the contrary which means a new consensus should be debated; two - just because you call it something doesn't make it true; while code and number seem to be interchangeable terms, code really signifies some kind of complex registry which requires prior knowledge of its method in order to understand where as number is simply a sequential order which is really what this is. However it is highly unacceptable to edit and revert constantly to emphasize stances of opinion because that kind of behavior is unbecoming of Wikipedia. I know I have been guilty of such in the past but I have worked to not do so anymore.  Snake Chess5 03:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's been almost a month and no one has responded to my post. Clearly there are objections on both sides which need to be discussed further so that we can either re-establish the old consensus or establish a new one, but we should do it quickly. I'm tired of waiting and want to get rolling on any necessary changes that should be made. If no one responds soon and gives a reasonable, firm and concise explanation as to why the columns "#" and "Production Code" should not be changed concordantly to "ep. #" and "prod. #" (or something along those lines), then the change will be made because as was state before, the current method is inconsistent, it's inaccurate, and as it stands it has no reasonable source to back up its continued presence. As the page stands with this kind of labeling, I do not believe we are truly upholding our featured list status.  Snake Chess5 00:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe no-one responded because people were getting sick of, along with Orientation/Jump, Push, Fall, it. In response to your post from December 31, 2009, The reason why they there is a difference on between the episode list and the episode page is due to the templates used. {{Template:Episode list}} defines Production code, while {{Template:Infobox television episode}} uses production number. This is something you might want to take up on the templates respective talk pages, but has nothing to do with us "making up our minds". The episode number and production number/code are not interchangeable. As you can see on the current page, which is the result of current consensus about the episode numbers. I would not choose to change the first column to either "ep. #" or "chapter #", as abbreviations are discouraged and long text spans out the entire column unnecessary. # is the universal number sign, it's clear, short and used throughout wikipedia for episode numbers. Even with the season 4 premier, which might even change if more clear sources present themselves, due to the low- to non-relevance of the production order, for this show I still don't really see a problem with just dropping the entire production column, as it only causes problems. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would like to thank you Xeworlebi on responding. Yes, I admit that the Orientation/Jump, Push, Fall issue was getting annoying (I was among those who were annoyed). I would also like to thank you with your clarification on the matter regarding the difference in the templates, I believe I will take that up on their respective talk pages. I kind of contradicted my self a little with the interchangeability thing before, but I still stand firm to the other part of what I said which was,

“ [...] just because you call it something doesn't make it true; while code and number seem to be interchangeable terms, code really signifies some kind of complex registry which requires prior knowledge of its method in order to understand where as number is simply a sequential order which is really what this is. However it is highly unacceptable to edit and revert constantly to emphasize stances of opinion because that kind of behavior is unbecoming of Wikipedia. ” — SnakeChess5, #Episode 402 - Jump/Push/Fall

However, since your clarifications seem to suggest that my alternative would not be a suitable one, I would have to say that your stance on simply removing the column is the next best thing because it eliminates all the problems we have been experiencing recently and it allows us to move on from this without further incident as a re-legitimized featured list page. So, if anyone else isn't going to argue this motion to remove the "Production code" column, then such an edit will proceed, but not before it is established as a new consensus, and to do that, we need people to respond. The reasons for this edit are stated above so there's no need to repeat at this time.  Snake Chess5 14:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Orientation & Jump/Push/Fall vs. Upon This Rock/Let it Bleed

I don't care to start up all of the infighting between whether the premiere is one episode or two. However, if it is listed as one episode, then shouldn't the latter be listed the same way?

The main citation for the episode count of 18 links to the NbcUni page which shows an episode count of 17. They combined both the fall and winter premieres into single episodes. Should we do the same? Eticketjedi (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Using the same reasoning used for Orientation; episode 12 and 13 both have the title shown on screen (#12 at 2:02, #13 at 00:46); buying the episodes online means paying for both #12 and #13, unlike #1 for which you only have to pay once. Again we'll have to wait till the DVD comes out, but if we use the same reasoning it should be two. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 19:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

2 Episodes not a double length episode

I just looked at this page and the first thing I noticed was that Episode 2 is completely left off the list. Then I realized it is wrapped into 1 double length episode. I realize I'm stating the obvious and that's what this "talk page" is about, I did read everything. But you go on about the productions codes being the problem and all that. It's not. 401/402 is a production code...sure. I don't see why anyone cares. It makes sense as an episode number (season 4 episode 01...I'm sure everyone realizes this) but once again, why is this so important. The main problem is just that it was 2 episodes. That is fact. It is listed on the NBC website as 2, on the DVD I promise it will be 2 episodes, and when episode 1 was over words come on the screen saying "Chapter 2 begins...." "NOW!" and then Jump/Push/Fall began. Just like every other time they played 2 episodes in one night since season 1. They don't make a double length episode, they make 2 episodes and play them on the same night. If it is listed on Wikipedia which is, as some put it near the beginning of all this, "We are Wikipedia, we are attempting to be an academic point of reference with a certain set of standards in our practices." If this is an academic point of reference then why can't it be correct? He also said "You are one person who has a belief. This is a belief that does not sync with your fellow editors, nor the standards and practices by which Wikipedia upholds itself. Get over it, move on already." I assume this person is an admin of some sort, at least I hope so to say that (incase it isn't obvious at this point, I have never tried to edit something on wiki, or talk on one of these discussions. I think I'm going about it right, but I don't really know for sure...just came in here because it told me too when I tried to edit for the first time. So it is obviously such a problem that alot of people try to change it) why would they let it go if you are the one that is wrong. And I know Heroes (not to sound smarter or better then anyone here, i mean really I'm not trying to brag incase someone thinks I'm just like one of those people that thinks he is right about everything. I'm also not saying I'm stupid but I can't think of anything I know as well as heroes) every detail, as sad as this sounds not only do i know every episode title in order by heart, I could practically go every episode word for word...which is really annoying when people try to make me prove it. I also know every detail of characters, plot, webisodes, the graphic novels, names and powers of people never mentioned in anything other then quick photos, etc (i own every official reference guide I have been able to find). I know how sad and pathetic that is but I hope it proves I do know what I'm talking about and when the DVD comes out Push/Jump/Fall will be episode 2, that is why it has it's own name. Can we please let the article reflect this cause it drives me insane that people going to "an academic point of reference" to gather information on my all time favorite show are being given false information. Once again, I'm sorry if I put this in the wrong place, that i'm ranting, if I am repeating myself, that I didn't go on about production codes, and that I type the way I talk on msn. But the article is wrong. NBC is right, it is their show. There have been 78 episodes total not 77. That is just how it is. Once again every other time 2 episodes were in one night they are listed on the episode guide as 2 episodes. Why wouldn't the latest one reflect this. I guess that's it. I hope someone reads this and fixes it. Otherwise the page would be better off taken down as someone mentioned. I'm assuming the contact Wikipedia link is how I'd complain as the other person mentioned they would do. I'm personally not okay with the edit on top either it has the title, at least but it is not an 'alternate title', it is another episode. Thanks for at least reading my rant, I will take the time to report this, I know Wikipedia wants the information to be correct and I will make sure I give them as much proof as I can. The article is wrong, can we please change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.102.39 (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid you are incorrect. Orientation was a single episode that ran double length, there was no item on screen that said "the next chapter starts now", it was "Heroes continues now", completely different context. I don't think you read everything because there is further detail about this in archive 3 that deal with exactly what you are talking about so the issue above stands. Heroes is known for being unpredictable. Just because something has been done the similarly in the past does not mean it will always be repeated. The title Jump/Push/Fall never appeared on screen an thus is not to be included. Heroes episode titles are the same as the chapter titles, but this is Wikipedia, and there are certain formats and layouts and templates of information presentation and various rules to organize them. Show pages deal in the term episodes not chapters, therefore we are not listing them as chapter titles. While many shows don't show their episode titles Heroes does, which makes it somewhat unique and this is reflected in the listing. The details about the title Jump/Push/Fall are listed on the episode's page to satisfy the fact that it was at least listed on NBCUMV.  Snake Chess5 04:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, Heroes is screened on BBC Three and also on BBC2, both of which are non-commercial... we don't get those tedious breaks every 10-15 minutes on the BBC, so episodes of Heroes are typically 39-43 minutes.

Chapter One "Orientation" was listed in the Radio Times (the BBC's listings magazine) as "1&2/19 Orientation/Jump, Push, Fall"; when broadcast, it ran to 82 minutes. There was nothing to show where the first half ended and the second began - neither caption or announcement, completely seamless (I would guess that the join was at about 42:30, the point where Hiro has just time-travelled back 14 years to the carnival; and we are about to see his face appear on Lydia's back), and the words "Jump, Push, Fall" never appeared on screen. What I did notice was that at about 12:30 (where Peter Petrelli is explaining why he's doing another shift), there were credits "Part One edited by Donn Aron, A.C.E." and then "Part Two edited by Jon Koslowsky, A.C.E.", "Production Designer Ruth Ammon" then "Part One Director of Photography", etc. (the closing credits also had some "Part One"/"Part Two" entries), so these two "episodes" were designed to be broadcast as a pair.

By contrast, Chapter Two "Ink" (listed as 3/19) was pretty typical, at 41 minutes. I won't bother listing the rest; and we're only up to Chapter Six "Strange Attractors" (7/19) here in any case (Chapter Seven "Once Upon a Time in Texas" (8/19) goes out tonight).

In previous seasons, when on the few occasions when two episodes were screened back-to-back, there were the closing credits for one (with voice-over something like "stay tuned for the next episode"), followed by the station ident and then the opening for the next. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Brave New World

Okay, so right now a new issue has just been left to use via the season four finale. As with other finales, season four as one volume titled Redemption ended with an introduction to the next volume titled Brave New World. Now in the past, this translated into the fact that Heroes would return in the fall for a new season, but here's the thing, in the past, it was already clear by the season finale that Heroes would return for a new season of episodes in the fall, this time it is not. Unlike past seasons, NBC has not yet announced whether Heroes will be renewed for a fifth season, therefore we cannot make any assumptions. We do know they will be making announcements in May. I find there are a lot of people editing on here who are too impatient to wait for important dates (like the DVD release of season 4 in order to see once and for all whether Orientation/Jump Push Fall is one double-length episode or two cleverly laid out episodes as a recent example). Therefore, let's wait until May before we start editing a new season into place.  Snake Chess5 04:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Volume one title

Thing is, Volume One is never given the name Genesis on-screen. Or on the DVD. So where does it come from? I'm sure it wouldn't be all over the internet without a source, but without being named in the programme that source needs to be cited on wikipedia. And I for one can't find it. U-Mos (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Heroes episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716154439/http://www.titanmagazines.com/app?service=external/Product&sp=l1077 to http://www.titanmagazines.com/app?service=external/Product&sp=l1077

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Heroes episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090310091046/http://www.abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052008_06 to http://www.abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052008_06
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.titanmagazines.com/app?service=external%2FProduct&sp=l1077
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080703235014/http://www.tv.com/story/11433.html to http://www.tv.com/story/11433.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3iff716996ae2a7e21c8a3f229c7669739
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=51591

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of Heroes episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100516155419/http://livefeed.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/05/nbc-cancels-heroes.html to http://livefeed.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/05/nbc-cancels-heroes.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://nbcumv.com/release_detail.nbc/entertainment-20080213000000-nbcrenewsdramaser.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071223144616/http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2007/05/14/learning_from_heroes_struggling_nbc_embr/ to http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2007/05/14/learning_from_heroes_struggling_nbc_embr
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081118014455/http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/video/categories/heroes-destiny/819601/ to http://www.nbc.com/heroes/video/categories/heroes-destiny/819601/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217053207/http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/video/categories/the-recruit/873822/ to http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/video/categories/the-recruit/873822/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090121173710/http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/video/categories/hard-knox/894782 to http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/video/categories/hard-knox/894782/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417042843/http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/video/clips/tim-kring-on-nowhere-man/1077681/ to http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/video/clips/tim-kring-on-nowhere-man/1077681/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090410150859/http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/video/clips/nowhere-man-trailer/1077682 to http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/video/clips/nowhere-man-trailer/1077682/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091023052225/http://www.nbc.com/heroes/video/categories/sprint-now/1153645 to http://www.nbc.com/heroes/video/categories/sprint-now/1153645/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://nbcumv.com/release_detail.nbc/entertainment-20080512000000-nbcdigitalentertai.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)