Talk:List of Heroes episodes/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Volume 5 episodes

I'd do it myself but i don't really know how to make pretty charts on wikipedia, but just so you all know, according to the odi, it has been confirmed that the first five episodes are called "Orientation", "Jump, Push, Fall", "Acceptance", "Ink", and "Hysterical Blindness"

I'd be happy to do it if you have a source! BOVINEBOY2008 20:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure: http://heroesspoilers-odi.blogspot.com http://www.spoilerfix.com/heroes.php http://heroeswiki.com/Spoiler:Heroes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.180.114 (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And the first two episodes are on September 21st from 8 to 10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.180.114 (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, blogs, wikis and other user-submited sites are not considered reliable sources. — Edokter • Talk • 16:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but what are the odds that they all agree on the episodes if they're wrong and there are more websites, I just didn't put them all on; they all got the same exact information from somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.180.114 (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The odds are quite high if you think about it, they could easily be reading each others information. One of the important wiki concepts is that there is no rush, and that it's more important to be right than first. -- WORMMЯOW  07:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

NBC has released the 3rd episode as "Ink" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.180.114 (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Format list

After talk with Edokter on his talk page about the format of the episode list I'm bringing it up here. My edit was, besides some smaller fixes, removing the production code. Which has no meaning here since the airing order is the same and the code is just the SEE format (S: season number, E: episode number). I've reverted the page back to my last edit. (Nothing new was added except color changes). If you see fit to undo this please discuss here first. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 14:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb (see Bold, Revert, Discuss), we discuss matters before implementing them, which means that simply reverting back to your version is considered starting an edit war. I already mentioned that the width parameter is necessary to avoid rendering issues in IE; there is another solution for that. Production codes are also pretty common, so leave those until there is a consensus to remove them. I also see no point in replacing all dates with templates; there is a site-wide discussion going on regarding date-linking, during which everyone should avoid mass-changing the date formatting. — Edokter • Talk • 16:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Out of your reply on your talk page I understood that you said that it was ok to revert with a mention what I exactly did on the talk page. That is still what I get from your phrasing from "once being reverted" being in the past tense. As I said; production codes are not that common. Only for those shows that have different airing orders than the intended one, which is reflected in the production code. If it's the same order there is nothing useful about it especially if the code is just the season and episode number. For the date templates; did't the date formatting discussion end in April, or is there a new one? I see no reason to not use it as it makes no difference besides insuring that all dates look the same and keep doing in the future. As for the IE rendering problem; it's about 50/50 with list that use the whole page width, before you mentioned it I didn't even know that it was a problem in IE (but then again; what isn't?). I've always used the 100% because anything smaller than 100% just looks weird to me in any normal browser. What is the other solution? For now I have reedited the page without the date template, production code and page width until that's resolved. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 18:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Webisodes

why were the citations listed in the webisode lists removed? Gman124 ^talk 03:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As I stated in the summary, I moved them to the top of the table next to Title, there is no reason to have them next to every episode if they are all the same, just like the ratings ref. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 08:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

99.254.25.5 (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC) stranger.

Confirm date of Nowhere Man part 3, Pulling the Strings

If they were released every 7 days, the date should be May 4, 2009, not May 5, 2009. I have no idea which is correct.

Season 4 E 1 trivia

Please see the "not a forum" message at the top of this page. Padillah (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A tricky issue - is "Jump, Push, Fall" a separate episode?

So then, "Ink" is called "chapter two" onscreen, implying that there will never be a seperate "Jump, Push, Fall" going to air. This is tricky, and I'm not sure, but I think it may be better to consider "Orientation", all hour and twenty five minutes of it, as a single episode. It was broadcast as one, and the aforementioned chapter numbers suggest this is how it will stay. Obviously they were filmed as two episodes, but I'm thinking this should be considered as a late-in-the-day decision to merge them into one. U-Mos (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This really is a tricky issue, but I say that we still count them separately, as that is what is listed on the NBC website; thus, I suspect that that is how it will be on the DVDs. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The website shows one episode, but with two titles. But as only one chapter title is shown, it could be considered a double episode. I would not be opposed to a merge with "Orientation". — Edokter • Talk • 10:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the episode should be listed as one since "Ink" is being titled chapter two. A decision of the title will need to be made (either "Orientation"/"Jump, Push, Fall" or simply "Orientation". The production code will obviously read "401/2" or some other variation, however a census on whether it is episode "1/2 (60/61)" or just "1 (60)" with ink being #61 will have to be reached. SmallHill (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If it is merged, the episode would be just episode 1, with Ink being 61, as we would then be considering the premiere as one double-length episode. The episode should be "Orientation" only, as part of the rationale is that "Jump, Push, Fall" is not identified onscreen. U-Mos (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The following copied from Talk:Jump, Push, Fall. U-Mos (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that "Jump, Push, Fall" should qualify as the second episode of Heroes Season 4 Volume 5. It was part of the two hour premier as a whole. If you watch the episode "Ink" you will notice that above the title shown in the episode it says Chapter 2, not 3.

142.13.150.12 (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Are the messages here clearance enough to perform this change? It's pretty major, so I don't want to do it without a good consensus. U-Mos (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no rush. Lets first see how other sources handle this. Putting a merge proposal template may also generate more feedback. — Edokter • Talk • 15:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll put up a merge template then. I just don't wish this discussion to fizzle out, as I think it's important to get an agreement one way or another at some point. U-Mos (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the Heroes Wiki is treating them as one episode (chapter) but in two parts. So Orientation is Chapter 1: Part 1 and is Jump, Push, Fall is Chapter 1: Part 2; so we could keep them as separate pages, but just treat them as two parts of the same chapter. The is kind of like Eclipse in season 3, volume 3, only the two parts have different titles this time.  Snake Chess5 17:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Really what has ocurred at the heroes wiki is a bit of a half-hearted half-change. If the two "parts" are to be considered one episode, it should be in one article. As for Eclipse, that is different as it was undoubtedly two episodes: marketed as such, shown as such and (perhaps surprisingly) given two "chapters". They are two episodes that just happen to share a name. This may very well be one episode, with two seperately-produced "parts" (as designated by the opening titles). U-Mos (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I made the merger of the two pages. Everyone can take a look at them and see what they think. If you feel it is too soon or that the way it was done was not quite right, feel free to let me know and take the appropriate action in the editing process. [ Snake Chess5 11:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That was done way too hap-hazardly. I've merged the contents properly, and put it back to Orientation (Heroes), which allows the edit history to remain intact. U-Mos (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you did. That actually works better now that I think about it. Even though the NBC site labels it as Orientation/Jump, Push, Fall, the actual aired episode only showed the title Orientation. If no one checked the NBC site, they wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Thank you for smoothing out the merger. However, since it still is two parts, on the episode list page, I edited the viewership info to show it for both parts of Orientation.  Snake Chess5 01:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't they have it listed as separate episodes on the episode guide on hero's site? see [1]. So, shouldn't it remain separate? Gman124 ^talk 03:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter. Once an episode has actually aired, all information becomes sourced from the episode itself. Even though the first episode was written, directed, produced, etc. in separate parts, it was present as one whole package with only the title Chapter One: Orientation. Therefore while certain aspects of the episode can be looked at in the two parts (writers, directors, viewers, production code), the episode itself is just that, one (twice as long as what is typical) episode.  Snake Chess5 11:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, although that page has not been updated the video player itself lists as one episode, albeit with two titles. U-Mos (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The episodes are clearly separate. Different authors, different productions codes, different directors... They are even separated at NBC.com http://www.nbc.com/heroes/episode-guide/ . It is noteworthy to point out that Season 3 started the same way. 83.35.211.120 (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It is vandalism to change this (three times as you are clearly Ximian) back without consensus. It's been discussed, there is agreement. It is not like season 3, as it was all shown as one episode. Ink was chapter 2, and there was no join between the two parts. U-Mos (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It is about FACTs not consensus. You may agree that the world is flat but it isn't. At this link, you can read "Episode 402" quite clearly => http://www.nbc.com/heroes/episodes/#cat=4&mea=402&ima=71200 also http://www.heroestheseries.com/heroes-episode-guide-season-4-four/ also http://www.heroestv.com/ I guess the confussion is that in the actual video, in Ink, you can read "Chapter 2" on the screen. But what should be considered "Episode 402" or "Chapter 2" for listing episode numbers? A Chapter is not an Episode, right? Hence different words were invented for different ideas. In any case, NBC did not have a bright idea to have different numbers for production numbers and chapters. I think my arguments prove this, if no one answers to my post I will undo again. 83.35.211.120 (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is about consensus. Wikipedia puts verifiability above facts. You need to back up your position with reliable sources; two of your links are not reliable. If you keep edit warring against consensus, you may find yourself blocked very soon. — Edokter • Talk • 22:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

3 people deciding is not a consensus. Definitely this is a matter of pride. You will not back down not even when NBC textually states "Episode 402". We will have to wait for the DVD release then and see what is says.83.35.211.120 (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

They may be listed as having two titles, but the NBC episode titles both link to the same video. For all intents and purposes, it is one (double) episode. — Edokter • Talk • 17:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

See above. 83.35.211.120 (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, a chapter is not an episode automatically, but in this case we have taken into account that Ink being called chapter 2 effectively means that Orientation and J,P,F are never going to be seen seperately. Therefore it is all one episode. Obviously there are going to be sources saying otherwise, as up until broadcast this was two episodes. That is what has been decided here. U-Mos (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 2 unreasonable people decide on something and will not back down not even when NBC contradicts you. Pride.83.35.211.120 (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

More than two people have led to this consensus. As you can clearly see if you read this section, we have not ignored the NBC website but decided on the reasons stated numerous times above to consider the two parts as one episode, in the manner it was broadcast in. U-Mos (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly these people are prideful, not you guys (speaking to U-Mos). Look, to begin with, I used to think that NBC announced them as two episodes, but when you think about it, they didn't. They advertised it as a two-hour season premiere; that does not necessarily mean they are two episodes, just one extra long episode. They labeled it as Orientation/Jump, Push, Fall, that does not necessarily mean two episodes either, rather one episode with a double-title just when you use and/or in a sentence to indicate that two items can be considered together or separately. Yes there are different writers, producers, directors, etc., but that too does not necessarily mean two episodes, rather it was merely a joint effort to make one extra long episode because the normal number of people involved in a single episode would not be enough to produce one that would be twice as long. The topic of facts is continually brought up. I just laid out a few fact right there. On top of that, the fact still remains that Ink was shown as chapter 2 within a new episode. Jump, Push, Fall is not chapter 2 because of this, nor is it episode 2 because of its connection to Orientation, otherwise they would have shown it as a title on screen halfway through (in between the two parts). That said, I do think that because it is really one episode, it should all be listed as 401, Ink as 402, and so on. By the way, tell me what you think of my little edit of the episode page for Orientation.  Snake Chess5 03:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

We can't mess with the production codes. This episode was filmed as and initially intended to be shown as two. The production codes have to match that. U-Mos (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you are saying now. Production codes are official, therefore because Orientation has two production codes, it can be said that it is a single episode that was originally designed as two episodes, so for this season alone (so far), the production codes are slightly out of sink with the actual episode #. Man this is a lot of grief. It would have been easier if they just made it as two episodes, then we wouldn't have to go through all of this.  Snake Chess5 13:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The number of viewers needs to be changed to the one average over the two hour time slot. SmallHill (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No, to be completely accurate, both viewership numbers need to be shown because (as much as it pains me to say it), the viewership dropped from hour one to hour two and that needs to be shown. An average of the two only gives a general idea and that is not good enough.  Snake Chess5 02:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It should defiantly be the rating for the whole episode. On a 40 minute episode it wouldn't matter if the first half got 20 million and the second part got two million, we would still have to average them out. See the Lost season articles/episode lists as they were all awarded featured status. One episode cannot average two things just because it is longer. The viewership of the whole episode needs to be shown, not what half way through averaged. SmallHill (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources give us ratings for both parts, so that is what we use. Averaging them out is interpreting information, with is original research. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well folks, looks like the verdict is in, "Orientation" and "Jump, Push, Fall" are two episodes. The source of this revelation - NBC's Heroes page [2]". So the jig is up, now let's focus on something else.  Snake Chess5 01:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

We already established that; the website gives two titles (but in the wrong order!), and was listed as such on the NBC Media Vilage page (now down). The fact remeains it was aired as one episode. Both titles also link to the same video on the "watch episodes now" page. — Edokter • Talk • 13:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

SnakeChess5, I don't know what's going on here but please stop changing the listings on this article to two episodes. You were the one who made the merge in the first place! I don't understand what you're playing at. U-Mos (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop edit warring please!

Both of you come up with sources and list them here. Whatever the outcome here, we have to be consistent. Right now, the episode articles do not reflect the numbering in the list. — Edokter • Talk • 11:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've only been restoring the consensus that was accepted before, and since which nothing has changed. I don't know why Snakechess has apparently changed his mind completely, and seems to believe the consensus is with listing as two episodes which it is not by any means. U-Mos (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, it was made as two episodes initially right (different writers, directors, production codes, etc.), the only reason all of this has been so crazy is because the title Jump, Push, Fall never appeared on screen, but to me it seems quite simple, it is a DOUBLE-EPISODE! That means it is two episodes, but because it is only under the title of Orientation, that means it is two episodes under one chapter. This is similar to Eclipse in that it is two episodes under one title, the only difference is that they did separate those two parts into two distinct episodes labeled as parts one and two. In this situation, they combined the the two episodes; not into one episode; into one chapter. Two episodes, one chapter, that's how I see it. It seems rather clear to me but apparently this so-called consensus sees it differently. Well I think you have lost sight of the definition of consensus: everyone agrees on the same thing. The mere fact that I don't agree no longer makes it a consensus. This is more like majority rule. So let's put it to a vote.  Snake Chess5 13:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, please can you explain why have you have changed your mind from this of October 6:

Once an episode has actually aired, all information becomes sourced from the episode itself. Even though the first episode was written, directed, produced, etc. in separate parts, it was present as one whole package with only the title Chapter One: Orientation. Therefore while certain aspects of the episode can be looked at in the two parts (writers, directors, viewers, production code), the episode itself is just that, one (twice as long as what is typical) episode.

to the above. I cannot understand what you are doing when we were in agreement before, and indeed it was you who actually changed it to one episode! Forget this silly votes, votes are a last resort and not at all binding. Let's discuss this. There was a consensus for the change made before, so unless there is a consensus to change back (which there clearly isn't) it should stay as is. U-Mos (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You know what, I had forgotten I said that. I am such an idiot. I am sorry for all the trouble I caused.  Snake Chess5 04:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No votes!

This is rediculous. Wikipedia needs to build consensus to reach a decision, and consensus needs to be based on arguments and reliable sources. By putting up a vote, you are essentially stifling discussion. I asked you to come up with sources backing up your position, as that is the only way to adhere to our policies. So, again, back up your claims with sources. This is not a majority vote. — Edokter • Talk • 14:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is the consensus! I certainly don't see it! I see a few people voicing their opinions! consensus requires everyone by definition to be on the same page! We are not and I see a vote to be the only way to get things done. If you look at what I said above you will see that I left it open to anyone. Besides I don't see you voting! what are you so afraid of, that many people will think you are wrong? Look, I am perfectly willing to accept whatever people decide on, but consensus is not working in my opinion and I think we need a different way of doing this. I understand a bit where you are coming from but I just don't think that I need to give anymore. I think my point is clear with what is already out there, just as you think your point is clear with what is already out there. Others might think they know what is clear with what is already out there but different what they believe and they can add their opinions to the vote too.  Snake Chess5 16:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Ink"

Will someone please put an episode plot on the page for Ink. Edokter edited it away (mind you for legitimate reasons) on September 27, 2009, and no one has put up a new one since. The episode aired on the 28th and its page has been sitting there without a plot for almost two weeks now. I'm not great at writing plot summaries so I always let someone else do that, but no one has. So please, someone, anyone, write a plot summary on the "Ink" page.  Snake Chess5 13:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's been 45 days since the airing of Ink and there still isn't a plot typed in on its episode page. Come on!  Snake Chess5 00:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Future episode names - NBC link is dead

Bad news, everyone. The link that is being used to source all future episode names has died. I've had a look at website, but I'm finding it a nightmare to navigate and can't find a thing on heroes. Don't know if this is a temporary issue with the source or not, but as it is all the future episode names are technically uncited. What can be done? U-Mos (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Good news though, I did. Here's how you get there -
1. scroll to the Networks/Programs bar, scroll down its list to NBC Entertainment, scroll down its list to Primetime, scroll down its list to Heroes, click.
2. Once on the Heroes Overview page, click on the Upcoming Episodes folder tab.
Once you are there yo will see it lists the next two upcoming episodes, or if you click on See All Episodes at the bottom of this folder it will show all the episodes of season 4 that have aired plus the two upcoming episodes already listed. Now I think that because we all know that the original source showed that Once Upon a Time in Texas is set to be the title of the seventh Heroes episode that we should keep everything we already have on it and add more as more information arises with reliable sources. However, based on the new format, there will soon only be two listed unaired titles at a time. As for old episodes, we really don't need those sources anymore since the DVDs are released. The DVDs are our source of info now (for certain pieces of info such as plot, names of directors, writers, guest stars, etc.).  Snake Chess5 02:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Link to NBC episodes

The link to episodes is here [3] but they dont have the episodes listed correctly, they seem to think Jump/Push/Fall was its own episode. Perhaps someone from here could get ahold of them and get them to fix that little error. They obviously don't have a clue what they are doing! :)

Just a thought someone could add another line that has Chapter Numbers. Then those that like episode numbers can keep them in line with NBC and those that like Chapters could use them.

Here are the upcoming episodes for those that can't find them

• Season 4 Episode 8 (4.08): “Once Upon A Time In Texas”

(Original Airdate: November 2, 2009)

• Season 4 Episode 9 (4.09): “Shadowboxing”

(Original Airdate: November 9, 2009)

• Season 4 Episode 10 (4.10): “Brother’s Keeper”

(Original Airdate: November 16, 2009)

• Season 4 Episode 11 (4.11): “Thanksgiving”

(Original Airdate: November 23, 2009)

• Season 4 Episode 12 (4.12): “The Fifth Stage”

(Original Airdate: November 30, 2009)

• Season 4 Episode 13 (4.13): “Upon This Rock”

(Original Airdate: TBA)

• Season 4 Episode 14 (4.14): “Let it Bleed”

(Original Airdate: TBA) Mateyahoy (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the text from NBC.com, as it is copyrighted. Regarding the episodee numbers, please see two sections above. What is the source for these episode names? Keep in mind we can only use reliable sources. Blogs and other wikis fail in that respect. — Edokter • Talk • 12:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Instead of calling this article a List of Heroes Episodes why don't we rename it, to List of Heroes Chapters. NBC has a list of episodes that differs from ours. We are really creating a list of chapters unless we can convince NBC to redo their list. :) • Mateyahoy (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, to Edokter, those titles are listed on Heroes Wiki so as you said, it is a source that is unaccredited. However, it is true that the titles they list on there end up being correct every time. It would be wise to re-think how credible a site Heroes Wiki is, or if not, find out where they are getting their information from because they are listing the titles of several upcoming episodes before they appear on the NBCUMV site. Clearly they have some kind of insider information. Secondly, in response to Mateyahoy, it is a television series. Just because the creators of the show choose to present chapter titles on screen does not deter from the fact that they are episodes. We are doing a list of episodes, not chapter. Just because there were some disagreements about Orientation does not change that fact.  Snake Chess5 19:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The creators of the program list them as seperate episodes. I believe its their show so they are probably correct. We are doing a list of Chapters otherwise our list would match the creators. Mateyahoy (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

NBC.com only lists the episode names, which both point to the same video file; hence one episode. Please see three sections above for the entire discussion. — Edokter • Talk • 20:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually we are still discussing it. If it looks like a Duck, Waddles like a Duck, Quacks like a Duck... You can call it a Chicken if you like... but its still a Duck... *The NBC list them as seperate Episodes on their EPISODE GUIDE with the same air date. *We list them as the same episode because they didn't type in the episode name as they usually do. *NBC's Episode Guide must be in Error because we are smarter than they are! *The real question is how can we get NBC to change their Episode Guide to match our proper list?Mateyahoy (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) NBC is not going to listen to us (nor should they). Fact is, the episode was produced as two episodes, but was is aired as one episode. NBC Media Village also announced it as one episode; that is what we use as the source. Unless NBC is going to provide actual episode numbers, we stick with what we have. And since you haven't brought any new sources into the discussion, reopening this discussion is pointless. Rest ashured, if new data shows up, we will re-evaluate. — Edokter • Talk • 21:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well at least we agree its two episodes now on NBC EPISODE GUIDE [4] They give the Episode a seperate name of Jump, Push, Fall with a seperate definition of the episode and an air date of: 09/21/2009. So they are either correct or they are not. I am leaning your way no one at NBC has a clue what they are doing, even though they created the show and an Episode Guide. We are much smarter than they are and our Episode Guide is the real one. We really need to figure out how to get them to stop calling it an episode named Jump, Push, Fall. Mateyahoy (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No we don't, it is not our business what NBC does. Our job is to write an encyclopedia based on verifiable sources. We picked our sources (the epsiode itself and NBC Media Village) and based our information on that. — Edokter • Talk • 22:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well just for fun I went to the NBC Media Village [5] and followed Programs/NBC Entertainment/Primetime/Heroes/Upcoming Episodes/See all Episodes.... There they list the episodes by Air Date and they have the first listing as Orientation/Jump, Push, Fall which is in agreement with their Episode Guide [6] which lists two seperate episodes Orientation & Jump, Push, fall with the same air date..... hmmm.... maybe they do know what they are doing..... Mateyahoy (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That is becuase this is how the episodes were announced. But the actual episode, broadcast as one with one title only, over-rules this.
U-Mos (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually we had a 2 hour premiere that showed two episodes. [7] Here is the episode list acording to NBC

• Episode 401 | Season 4 | 09/21/2009
• Episode 402 | Season 4 | 09/21/2009
• Episode 403 | Season 4 | 09/28/2009
• Episode 404 | Season 4 | 10/05/2009
• Episode 405 | Season 4 | 10/12/2009
• Episode 406 | Season 4 | 10/19/2009
• Episode 407 | Season 4 | 10/26/2009

Here it is again at the EPISODE GUIDE [8] Here it is at the MEDIA VILLAGE NBC [9] and followed Programs/NBC Entertainment/Primetime/Heroes/Upcoming Episodes/See all Episodes.... Just because they showed two episodes as their premiere doesnt make them one episode... I think NBC knows what an episode is and they have it listed on their site as seperate episode. Mateyahoy (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

With several edits in favor of following NBC's Episode List and SnakeChess5 agreeing with it and only U-Mos dissenting (and possibly Edokter, who hasnt weighed in yet on the Episode list taken directly from NBCs site) with only one or two dissenting it looks like we have a new concensus. Please refrain from editing out episode 402 unless you can show from the NBC site why it should not be considered an episode. We need to follow Wikipedia rules on verifiable [10] information. Thank You Mateyahoy (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, you aren't dragging me into this. I've had enough with this ride. I'm out, you can decide amongst yourselves. But I will say this last thing - I think most people here would seem to agree the Edokter knows a lot more than we do about the matters of Wikipedia, especially considering he has admin status. Despite the fact that some people here think that he is just being another person voicing his opinions, with his admin status he has some clout here on Wikipedia. Therefore, whatever he settles on, most of the time, I will settle on too (I say most of the time because no one is perfect, but he is knowledgeable and experienced which counts for a lot), so on this matter, I will accept his decisions in this matter and many future matters to come. The only authority I accept beyond his is that of the Heroes DVDs. Once they are out, we will know the answer once and for all, and we'll have a base reference in case they ever do something like this again. Now can we just settle on something already, and perhaps keep it that way until the Season 4 DVDs come out?! Seriously!  Snake Chess5 03:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Being an Admin doesnt make you right 100% of the time. NBC has clearly labeled the episodes. Besides he hasnt agreed or disagreed since I posted the list from NBC. Probably away. Mateyahoy (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the same thing that happened with House. Every place you can buy them now online (iTunes, Amazon, …) you have to buy them only once; they sell them as a single episode, unlike House where you have to buy for both episodes separately. The ultimate source are the DVD's and until they're released doubt will stay, but for the moment Amazon states it as a single episode on the DVD listing. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 07:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

NBC has a list of every episode from every season the episodes are numbered and its accurate because they created it. It also matches the DVDs from the other seasons. Here is the LINK [11] Mateyahoy (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not change this again. There is no "new consensus" as you seem to feel. You have give no new evidence on this subject, and as I stated above it has been discussed and decided that the episode itself, broadcast and seen as one episode, overrides the NBC site's implication that you have outlined. Until we have a DVD release, or repeat broadcasts seperating the two parts (which given the chapter designations is highly unlikely), there is nothing more to discuss. U-Mos (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no implication... NBC has a list of Episodes with numbers go and see for yourself. [12] Mateyahoy Mateyahoy (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Edokter said "Unless NBC is going to provide actual episode numbers, we stick with what we have." Well NBC has that list of actual episode numbers, so I expect Edokter to honor what he said. You on the other hand never made that statement so I am not expecting you to change just because NBC has a list with episode numbers. Mateyahoy (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I say again, everything you have linked to was seen in the original discussion. It was all looked at and considered. U-Mos (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So you have read the episode numbers at NBC but disagree with them? Mateyahoy (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nail on the head. Or more accurately, the episode itself disagrees with them. U-Mos (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well by you disagreeing with the offical source of information it really leaves nothing to be said... The official Heroes Wiki site of NBC seems to have it correct perhaps we should just direct people there? Mateyahoy (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Heroeswiki is anything but official, and if you ask me the way they've done it there is crazy. Unless other sources come to light, you're really going to have to let this one go. U-Mos (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a link to it directly off the NBC site. So they must have sanctioned and approved it. I dont see a link from NBC to any other Heroes site including ours. Mateyahoy (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. U-Mos (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are the only one that thinks everything is irrelevent. Also all of the references that we link to at the bottom of our article page see Jump, Push, Fall as an episode. If they are innacurate we shouldnt be linking to them. Why are we linking to innacurate referances? Mateyahoy (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please just let it go. It's all been seen, considered and decided on. Not becuase we are ignoring sources, but because we are choosing the episode itself above said sources. U-Mos (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You are ignoring everything. Besides what I have already poinetd out NBC shows Highlights from an Episode called Jump,Push, Fall here [13] Mateyahoy (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Episode Numbers VS Production Codes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

NBC lists "Episode Numbers" here [14] Our article currently has Production Codes this is misinformation as at NBC they are clearly labeled as Episodes. I will edit the article to reflect this. If you have a link to NBC that lists production codes please show it here, we need verifiable information. Thank You Mateyahoy (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't shift the problem. Those are production codes. Current state of verifiable: DVD > Episode itself > website. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 10:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not shifting the problem. The link I provided clearly shows them as episode numbers. If you have a link that shows Them as production codes please provide it. : If you look at the talk pages archives you can see the information has always been taken from the NBC reference that I listed. It has just mistakenly been called a Production Code. Mateyahoy (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. The current scheme has had consensus since the series began. The only way to change this is to build a consensus, meaning other editors have to agree with you, and I don't see that. — Edokter • Talk • 10:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought the way to change things was to provide verifiable information. Please post a link that verifies production codes from the NBC website. I have provided a link that shows them as Episode Numbers. Mateyahoy (talk) 10:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because we all agreed and did it wrong in the beginning is no reason to keep doing it wrong. Please provide your verifiable information as I have done. Thank You Mateyahoy (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Production codes are what are used, as they can give additional information such as running order changes, and in the case of Orientation they show that it was filmed as two episodes. Episode numbers give no additional information. U-Mos (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Great Please provide a link that shows these production codes on the NBC Website. In the past the codes have been taken from the link I provided that Lists them as Episode Numbers, we just called them Production codes. If there is link to the NBC website that shows Production Codes I would really like to see it. Thank You Mateyahoy (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

They are production codes. Just because the website has chosen to categorise them as something else doesn't make a difference, production codes are a more accurate description than episode numbers, which is especially important with the Orientation issue. U-Mos (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You wanted a link you got it, it was right under our noses on the NBC Heroes home page [15]. Under the catch me up heading it lists the last 3 episodes that aired. Look closely at the episode #s. Notice anything, that's right, they are identical to the production codes we have listed for those episodes. Oh, I know what you will probably say, they list them as episode #s, not production codes. Maybe so, but U-Mos is right. By listing them as production codes on Wikipedia, it gives more accurate information than just episode #s. They list as episode #s because they are just a show site. We are an online encyclopedia, meaning we need to portray the information in such a way that accurately depicts the standards around us. In the case of television shows, they use production codes as their standard. Just because they do not show it in so many words on their sites does not mean they do not. We are listing it by their standards, just like so many other Wikipedia pages for television programs. SnakeChess5 (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct they are listed as episode numbers there as well. NBC is not just a show site HEROES is their program. THEY MAKE THE EPISODES. NBC lists Episode numbers... NBC may have production codes but we have no idea what those production codes are. Instead we take the Episode numbers and call them Production codes and because we are an encyclopedia that makes it OK? All it does is make us not very accurate. Its no wonder they started their own Wiki. The correct thing to do is remove the production code column until we can show verifiable production codes or call them episode numbers as NBC does. Mateyahoy (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just show me one verifiable link to something called a PRODUCTION CODE on NBCs website. I am sure they have production codes. I am also sure that the EPISODE NUMBERS are not the same as the PRODUCTION CODE. But we are calling the NBC EPISODE NUMBERS the PRODUCTION CODE which just isn't right. Mateyahoy (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. [16] Thank You Mateyahoy (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at Production code number. The codes on the NBC website ARE production codes, whether they call them that or not. And so they are verifiable. U-Mos (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There we go. So an Episode number can be called a Production code or vice versa. Thank You Mateyahoy (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And on Wikipedia, we call them production codes for greater clarity and distinction between the standard "#" column on the left hand side. U-Mos (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Well actually that makes it less clear. I was on the NBC site looking at episodes then a few days later I came here to get some info and everything was different. It was very confusing, had it said Episode # instead of Production Code I would have figured it out. I am sure it is confusing for a lot of newbies. Once you have been editing a page for awhile it makes total sense to you, but that may not be so for someone coming here for the first time. Mateyahoy (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that they're using the same style. U-Mos (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't at all clear to me, I read production code and never made the correlation until, I had been here awhile. Had it said Episode # I would have understood instantly. Once I read production code I guess I disregarded the column. Perhaps I am a little slow, but i am sure there are others that have had the same problem. :)Mateyahoy (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The real problem is Episode or Production Code 402. Because we dont agree with NBCs Episode List it throws everything off. Had the column said Episode # then I could have used that and not been confused. Because we want to call it a Production Number it will remain confusing for others like me. So we will need to discuss 402 in depth and get that figured out, but I need to take a break for now, but will try and get to it ASAP so it doesn't become stale. Mateyahoy (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) 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 • Talk • 19:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia Guidelines For Discussion

If someone disagrees with you, make sure you try to understand why! Listen to the others, and take the time and effort to explain why you think your suggestion(s) might be preferable. Take it slow. There is no time limit for a discussion. If you are angry, take a break from posting or editing. Come back in a day or a week.Mateyahoy (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, but there is a limit to our patience. As I said, endlessly repeating yourself is not getting you anywhere. The only result is annoying your fellow editors, which is not regarded as a good start on Wikipedia. — Edokter • Talk • 19:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been explained. The talk was going nowhere. I understand your disagreements completely, but that doesn't mean I agree with them. U-Mos (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't really trying to convince you or Edokter of anything. I was merely responding to much of the talk on the page. However I do feel there is a need to clearly explain the facts in one Detailed explanation for any other readers, especially any other new members like me. I have no personal feelings on the subject at all and don't really care what is decided. I do know that the way the page sits in opposition to the Official NBC site is very confusing. So I feel this is needed for other new readers, not at all to try and convince you of anything, you have already expressed your opinions and I am not expecting you to change them. Mateyahoy (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Edokter did say at one point "Unless NBC is going to provide actual episode numbers, we stick with what we have." Even though that list has been provided he hasn't changed, so it would be unrealistic to expect any change at all.Mateyahoy (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to create a carbon copy of NBC's site. It doesn't need to be recognisable from NBC's page, we need to provide the clearest information possible. And the clearest way of describing these things is "production codes", given that that states they were used in the show's production. U-Mos (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand now thanks to you, that Episode # and Production codes are interchangeable. That just wasn't obvious to me and confused me greatly when I first came here for information. —  MateyAhoy  04:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

1)I believe that there are some here that have their minds made up, so there is no point trying to convince them. 2)I believe the Episode Guide on NBC is correct, after all its their show. 3)I see a need to put all of the verifiable information into one clear consise statement, for other readers. 4)Thank You —  MateyAhoy  05:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Finally, we have made some settlements on these issues. Now we can move on with our lives. :)  Snake Chess5 14:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So why is the NBC list different from this one?

Once Upon a Time in Texas

I think we should find a legit photo to put up for this episode because this episode was so highly significant in the overall series and, at the very least, this season that there should be an image.  Snake Chess5 00:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured list removal candidate

Closing as disruptive. Sceptre (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article no longer meets the requirements for a featured list. Specifically that of verifiability. NBC is the creator of the show Heroes and is ultimately the authority on the show. Jump/Push/Fall is listed on the NBC site here: [17] as Episode 402 with a desription of the Episode Also we get the Episode Numbers from The NBC website . Where they are Plainly Called Episode Numbers. They are not Production Codes. As such the table is incorrect and misleading. The editors here seem determined to keep the article according to their concensus, ignoring verifiable information that shows otherwise. As such it no longer meets the requirements of Verifiability for a Featured List. Thank You —  MateyAhoy  17:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Coming Episodes

Episode# - Name

• 412 - The Fifth Stage
• 413 - Upon This Rock
• 414 - Let It Bleed
• 415 - Close to You
• 416 - Pass/Fail
• 417 - The Art of Deception
• 418 - The Wall

—.神猴泰.•☼•☪•❄ 08:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This was actually discussed before as shown in Archive 3, in fact I brought it up. However, as of this moment in time, the only source of information revealing these titles is Heroes Wiki. Now I spoke with one of its administrators, and he claims to be involved with the show, and his involvement, plus his contacts with various writers on the show act as the verifiability on that site. However, here on Wikipedia, Heroes Wiki is treated as nothing more than a spoiler site and a rehashing of already released information. In this sense, the statements of this admin are to be treated as here-say and unverifiable, and although I personally believe him (and maybe others on Wikipedia do too), verifiable information is not based on the opinions of any person. Therefore, we are forced to be patient and wait until NBCUMV releases each new title, one-at-a-time. Snake Chess5 05:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of "Heroes Wiki" links

NOTE: Linkage from other talk pages to this page have been added to bring everyone possible into the conversation because this particular topic affects the editing processes on every article that exists for the show Heroes.

At this moment in time, we are at a crossroads as to how to incorporate information from the Heroes Wiki site. As I mentioned in the above discussion on Upcoming Episodes, there was a concern addressed about this, and it was dealt with, and yet I am still finding that there are discussions about this matter continually popping up here and there. Therefore, I believe it is time to put this matter to a central discussion and deal with it once and for all. Here are some perspectives to weigh in this matter:

• As has been mentioned before by some; Heroes Wiki is a spoiler site amongst other things, therefore any information it details regarding events in the series that have not yet transpired are to be treated as purely speculation and unverifiable by any means.
• Heroes Wiki has articles on nearly every actor, director, producer, editor, etc. that is involved with the show. Many of whom do not have articles as of yet on Wikipedia and may never get them for one reason or another. Therefore, by linking the names of some of the people involved with the show to these Heroes Wiki articles, it allows people to get a better sense of all parties involved, not just the few who happen to have articles for them here on Wikipedia.

If you have other perspectives to add to these two, please feel free, I just used these two as recent examples. With that said, I might as well layout my stance with this issue as of present. I personally believe that while Heroes Wiki in its entirety his not a valuable source to base our proceedings upon, I do believe that specific aspects of the site can work for us, and it is our duty as Wikipedians to enhance the quality of presentation of information here on Wikipedia's Heroes articles by incorporating these various aspects into said articles. I am sure there are some who would agree with me and some who would not, but that is why I feel we need to have a discussion about this matter and I encourage everyone who is frequently involved with the editing process on these articles as well as anyone else who feels the need to weigh in to please put your ideas, opinions, thoughts, beliefs, etc. here into this discussion and maybe, just maybe, we'll be able to put this matter to rest. Snake Chess5 06:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

First off, your intentions should be commended, as you are clearly interested in improving articles. Unfortunately, while adding a link to the wiki from the main page is one thing (i.e in the "External links" section), what you were doing with the cast and crew links involved using link markup to channel readers directly from body copy to a different wiki. If the real-world personnel are truly notable, we should be creating articles about them here, not sending people off-site. Conversely, if they are not notable enough to warrant articles here, it is a strong indication that we should also not be sending people off-site. Keep in mind that Wikipedia has strict rules governing articles on real people, chief among them being the "Biographies of living persons" policy. That documents states:

"External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on external links."

As far as I am aware, Wikia sites do not require the same restrictions that we do for real-world individuals, and the BLP policy certainly would never permit their use as a reference for BLP articles. If we link in the manner you propose, using markup that appears identical to standard internal links, we are giving readers the impression that we regard the linked content to meet those standards when in fact they do not. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

So then, based on this, would you say that if we were to provide some kind of linkage, it would have to be formatted as external links as opposed to what I have been doing of late?  Snake Chess5 15:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm strongly opposed to the links in any form. I really dislike the external-as-internal link format, as I think it is bad form to unknowingly transfer a reader from one site to another. (No offence intended against your edits, as this is an inherent issue with the link system.) I'm also opposed to linking any real-world articles to a wiki which is outside our control in terms of accuracy, verifiability, and other BLP requirements. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Inline external links ensure that these people will never have articles on Wikipedia. Redlink them instead. —Korath (Talk) 22:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay, I see where you're going with that. See originally, I didn't see a need for the red links because they didn't go to any pages, but what you are saying is to use them as a mean of encouraging someone to establish a legitimate article for that individual at some point. Okay, so unless anyone has any objections, we should be in agreement that all Heroes Wiki internal-external links should be changed to Wikipedia internal red links.  Snake Chess5 01:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Now it seems to me that a very interesting point was brought out of that discussion and that is that Heroes Wiki is in no way a site by which we should be sourcing for any information, or directing people to as though it was a part of our site. Therefore, I conclude that (unless anyone still has objections,) we have reached a consensus on this matter and any future actions as such should be treated as either vandalism or just unhelpful edits and should be removed immediately. Now we still list Heroes Wiki as an external link, I believe this is alright because it identifies it as a separate source of information regarding the show and in no means of any direct relation to us.  Snake Chess5 01:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Heroes Wiki partially credible?

Okay, I think it's time we talk about this. I do believe that for the most part, Heroes Wiki cannot be considered as a reliable source because much of its credible info is after the fact and almost everything it has prior to the fact is purely speculative. However, there is one thing they have which I believe is credible and that is the titles of upcoming episodes. They list episode titles week, sometimes even months before they are listed on NBCUMV and they are accurate every time. This fact was first brought to my attention last year when this was revealed to be happening with episodes in season three, and it occurred throughout the season with each and every episode, and now it is occurring again with season four episodes. Now I have spoken to some people I know who are not fans of the show and have never looked at Heroes Wiki, nor our List of Heroes episodes page here on Wikipedia. I told them what I've said above and they all said the same thing: "They must be getting some inside information." Whether or not that is the case is besides the point. They show these episode titles long before our source reveals them, and yet we do not list them until NBCUMV does. Just so you know, here is what is listed:

411 - The Fifth Stage
412 - Upon This Rock
413 - Let It Bleed
414 - Close to You
415 - Pass/Fail

Now, if we were to list them now, before they were revealed on NBCUMV, we could present them as such:

#	Title	Director(s)	Writer(s)	Viewers (millions)[A]	Original airdate	Production code
Volume Five: Redemption
11 (70)	"The Fifth Stage"	TBA	TBA	TBD	TBA	412
More information yet to be released.
12 (71)	"Upon This Rock"	TBA	TBA	TBD	TBA	413
More information yet to be released.
13 (72)	"Let It Bleed"	TBA	TBA	TBD	TBA	414
More information yet to be released.
14 (73)	"Close to You"	TBA	TBA	TBD	TBA	415
More information yet to be released.
15 (74)	"Pass/Fail"	TBA	TBA	TBD	TBA	416
More information yet to be released.

So, if we can come to some consensus about this matter it would be greatly appreciated.  Snake Chess5 05:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that there already is consensus per WP:RS and WP:V. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the entire Heroes Wiki is reliable, just in the matter of episode titles listed. That's why I want to open so more discussion about the matter. I mean in about a week's time you will see that NBCUMV will list a blurb and an air date for The Fifth Stage where Heroes Wiki will have had that title listed for approximately a month and four days prior. That has to mean something.  Snake Chess5 14:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem of non-verifiability remains. If the Heroes wiki could somehow divulge it's source, then we could incorporate their titles. Until then, we're stuck with the NBC Media Village. — Edokter • Talk • 16:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, of course, and that is easier said than done now isn't it. Alright, I guess we'll make due with what we have, for now.  Snake Chess5 02:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) :) Hey, guess what, I got confirmation. This is a quote from a conversation I had on Heroes Wiki:
Okay. So for some reason, you guys manage to list titles for upcoming episodes of Heroes months in advance to their being listed on NBC Universal Media Village (NBCUMV). In that respect alone, I think that this wiki's episode pages should be counted as credible sources for our List of Heroes episodes page on Wikipedia, however, one of our admins says that because your source for that information is unclear, we can't. Therefore, I was wonder if that information could be divulged. SnakeChess5 14:37, 9 November 2009 (EST)

• I work for NBC, and I am also an administrator for Heroes Wiki. Many of our episode titles come from spoiler sites (most notably Heroesite and The ODI)...but I've confirmed every title with various writers and producers (like Joe Tolerico, Carri Wagner, Jim Martin, and others). Does that help? -- - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2009 (EST)

Based on this latest information, I believe we should go with my recommendation and go with the listing I have presented above.  Snake Chess5 18:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not satisfied about verifiability; those spoilersites are unreliable, but the confirmation by the Heroes wiki admin is not entirely verifiable as well. Our readers need to be able to verify it as well, unless we can refer to him as a source. But I will let others comment on this first. — Edokter • Talk • 02:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Edokter. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't get it, he is confirming it because he is one of the writers on the show, plus he speaks with fellow writers from the show. Now if that's not enough I don't know what is?  Snake Chess5 02:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

He says he is one of the writers, there is no confirmation on that. And I agree with Edokter, it's still a spoiler site with no way for users to verify it. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 13:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the next line should be released on the season considering we at least have the date heroes site,look on left of January 4th 2010 Jreidus (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Numbering, again

Whoever keeps setting the numbering of season 4 to make jump push fall part of episode 1, please stop. Jump push fall is episode 2. End of story. http://www.nbc.com/heroes/episodes/#cat=4&mea=402&ima=71200 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.56.23 (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

See this discussion in the archive. End of story. — Edokter • Talk • 12:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Your sources are another wiki(not a valid source) and someone claiming to work for NBC. My source is NBC itself. Since when can someone in a discussion CLAIM to be a Subject Matter Expert and therefore their comments are taken as source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.56.23 (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Also, saying something is consensus doesn't make it consensus. From what I'm reading of that discussion, consensus is that Jump Push Fall is episode 2. Please change the article to agree with consensus(and NBC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.56.23 (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read the discussion again; The conclusion is we source it from the episode itself, not some other wiki. Also check the history, where where you can see that multiple editors have reverted that change. The seems conclusive consensus to me. — Edokter • Talk • 12:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to "The conclusion is we source it from the episode itself" - Yes, I completely agree with that! Use the episode itself. NBC.com says "Episode 402". It does not say "Production Code 402" or "Production Number 402". You are attempting to re-interpret the source to mean whatever will support your argument. It clearly, without any qualifiers, calls it "Episode 402".

In response to "multiple editors have reverted that change" - Guess what, it takes two to tango. In order for there have been an edit to revert, someone needed to have made that edit in the first place. So unique editors as votes for consensus, care to start counting? Galestar (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The episode itself only has one set of credits and one title shown on screen. NBC.com also link 402 to the same video as 401. And no, we don't count votes; we work by informed consensus, meaning editors have discussed this and concluded this was one episode. Read the discussion in the archive. — Edokter • Talk • 01:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying "read the discussion". I read it the first time you said that, Stop repeating yourself. You also continually state that there was consensus, but there wasn't - obvious by the continued edits. The episode only having one set of credits is circumstantial. NBC.com is the only reliable source and it calls it 402. Wikipedia needs verifiability, you are not following that: I suggest that YOU read Wikipedia:Verifiability again because you clearly do not understand. Also please read Wikipedia:No_consensus. Thank you. Galestar (talk) 04:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I know this isn't exactly credible, but to lighten it up a bit; can all these 15,000 seeders be wrong? http://thepiratebay.org/search/heroes/0/7/0 Galestar (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The numbers listed in this article are the chapter numbers prominently displayed on-screen with the titles near the start of the episode (for example, "Ink" is labelled "Chapter 2"), not internal NBC production numbers, no matter what the folks stealing it happen to label their torrents. —Korath (Talk) 05:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Ink" is labelled "Chapter 2" - Thank you Korath - at last a verifiable, credible source supporting Edokter's side. While I still would like to point out the fact that the two sources conflict, I will drop my argument. Here's what he is talking about for anyone else wanting to verify. http://imagebin.org/74009. Galestar (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree—when there's disagreement between sources of comparable reliability (which NBC's website and the numbers given within the episodes are), normally we don't take sides, instead saying something to the effect of "source A says X, while source B says Y". I don't know the best way to go about it in a table like this instead of in a block of prose, though. The "#" column header was briefly changed to "Chapter #" during the last big revert war, but that wasn't enough to settle things by itself, and it widened the column significantly besides. Maybe a footnote. —Korath (Talk) 06:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd still be interested to see what they are numbered when the DVD comes out next September. Galestar (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling this same discussion will pick up when the next 2 hour show airs on January 4th. Unless they plan on airing 2 episodes in May, the 19 episode run only fits with the February 7th end date with the 2 hour shows considered as two separate episodes. Eticketjedi (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, it would be the 8th because the 7th will be a Sunday and Heroes is a Monday night show, secondly, that would be if Heroes was returning after the holiday hiatus on the 11th, but it is returning on the 4th, third-of-all, that of course will only happen if they do decide to show two hours after the holiday hiatus, otherwise this season will end on February 22th. However, all of this is pure speculation and circumstantial and is best left to a spoiler site like Heroes Wiki or someone's user-page (like mine for example).  Snake Chess5 01:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(←)On second though, it would appear that there will be two episodes airing on the 4th according to the NBC Heroes page, which means the season should end on Feb. 15th.  Snake Chess5 01:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops on the 7th/8th thing. However, I'm standing by the 8th. Most networks don't run new episodic content against the Olympics. I'm pretty sure they've stated they're ending it then to make way for Parenthood after the Olympics end. I'll look around and see if I can find anything, but I agree it's all speculation otherwise until it happens. Eticketjedi (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, checking the info that's out on the web now, (I know the semantics of it not being released on NBC sites but just bare with it since this is just a discussion and not me going willy nilly putting stuff on the article itself) titles have been released on spoiler sites indicating that the season will end with an episode titled Brave New World (although I am still skeptical of that because that would leave us with less episodes than 19 but whatever) which based on the current order of things, will probably air on the 8th which is four days before the Olympics begin, so maybe the season will end before the Olympics but that's enough of that.  Snake Chess5 14:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)