# Talk:Powerless (Heroes)

Speculation with the strike is that this may serve as the season finale.  There is an article on a TV Guide blog that points this out.  I would say a TV Guide reporter would be a reliable source in this.  Is it too early to mention this?  --Bluorangefyre 07:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still a blog, thus inherently unreliable. Let's see if the strike really happens first, otherwise it is just speculation.  — Edokter • Talk •  12:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hasn't the strike already started? I heard on the news the other day that the writers started their strike as soon as their contracts ran out. - PeeJay 23:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Edokter about blogs being unreliable. However, i've added a source by Entertainment Weekly that states it. Whether or not they just repeated what was in the blog, i dont know. dposse 06:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The bumper at the end of Truth & Consequences seems to indicate that this is indeed the season finale, and that a certain multi-powered individual gets his abilities restored. --Bluorangefyre (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Now hearing word that this was indeed the season-ender, as Kring himself said it would be pointless to film three episodes for Volume 3, stop, then pick back up in the Fall.  Even Hayden Panettiere is saying that filming will resume in April, which is too late to get the episodes in for this TV season.  So can we now officially call this the season-ender and not beat around the bush? --Bluorangefyre (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


### Advertised as the finale
So on the previous episode, as documented above, and further documented here, it was advertised as the "finale".  Furthermore, this shows that there were only 11 episodes produced... gee, what a coincidence, this is episode 11.  So can we go ahead and say it is the finale? --Bluorangefyre (talk) 08:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The NBC site only speaks of the end of the "Volume". Let's just wait a week and see what happens, then we can site the LA Times when it really becomes the season's finale (though I would consider it more as a mid-season break).  — Edokter • Talk •  12:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It was the end of Volume 2, which is all that can be said about it at this point.  There's no new Heroes next week because of the writer's strike, so waiting until next week to "see what happens" is pointless, because there's no more until scripts are written and filmed. --Billdorr 07:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I re-watched this scene only once, and it quite clearly appears to be Mr. Bennet. Haven't done any edits though, some may disagree with me.
220.239.110.157 (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It should stay "unidentified". Anything else would be OR at this point. dposse (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Not to sound the pragmatist here, but we don't know for sure that this person is the shooter. At the minute, he is just a person, walking away from a scene where a shooting took place. If it is Noah, it would be Ironic, since he is just after having killed his Daughter's Biological Father. Have to say though, its odd behavior from the crowd shots of the scene. Seemed like most people were trying to get into the area where Nathan was shot, but the person in black was the only one walking away. Also, the police were trying to keep people out of the area, where as in real life, they might have been trying to keep witnesses at the scene? Baaleos (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Heroes Unmasked didn't reveal anything about that, although the actress who plays Angela Petrelli said that she knows who it is but can't say. I know I'm late, but the UK only got the episode last night - Unmasked is a behind the scenes show. Digifiend (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ginsengaddict - Can you please stop removing any reference to the helix from this episode. The mention of the helix has been left in other episodes that it appears in - eg When Peter gets the tattoo, and it becomes a helix before vanishing. I am re-adding the section to do with the helix, if you think the Section name is wrong, or inappropriate, then by all means, rename it to somthing that is, but DO NOT remove it completely without a valid reason, otherwise I will just keep adding it back in. I mean, I even specified the exact time that the helix appears, so its not like I am making it up. Baaleos (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed - please do not restore it. The information is trivia, and doesn't need to be there. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 07:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Then why does information about the Helix appear on other episodes? Baaleos (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I will remove the trivia section, and just add the helix reference to the main article.Baaleos (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Please don't - it's been removed by two other editors, and if you "keep adding it back in" (to quote your earlier message) you'll just end up attracting the attention of an administrator for reverting edits. You're better off discussing the matter. --Ckatzchatspy 07:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Baaleos (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)What is wrong with adding the sentence - "Before the scene ends, a helix symbol is seen in peters hand" I will host an image of the helix if verification is needed, can you not tell me specifically what is not factual about this? Baaleos (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont mean this to become an edit war, you are probably right in regards to - a trivia section not being needed, but I do think the helix should remain mentioned within this episode, as it has been mentioned in most, if not all other episode's it is clearly visible. Here is a url of an image the helix appears. I dont know if it should be hosted on Wiki or not, would it be copyright infringement or not?? - http://www.azmodan.net/media/images/411_0001.jpg - Baaleos (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I dont see what the problem is with adding it, if he has evidence that the helix appears. It does appear in that episode "Kindred", I think it is, When Caitlan is giving him the tattoo, and it becomes a helix, that article mentions it. To keep this article similar to the style of the previous episodes articles. Perhaps if you discussed you're reasons for not wanting it on the article with Baaleos, an edit war can be avoided. If you just keep reverting his edits, and he does the same to yours, nothing will end. Baaleos does seem to have tried to compromise, he got rid of the Trivia section, and added it to the main article. Might I add, I dont think Wikipedia is meant to look the way, that pleases the most people, I believe it is meant to reflect factual information. 86.145.18.149 (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Extract from Kindred Article "the ink of the tattoo Peter just received shifts into the helix symbol before fading entirely", as such, I am merely keeping mention of the helix in this article, and If you wish to keep reverting edits, I suggest we get some arbitration in. Baaleos (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I just noticed the conversation. I think we have to keep the helix references only if they help in the plot summary. The way they are written now is not good. The reason is that the plot summaries are really long and detailed. (Please check the summary of the prologue of Volume Three. It contains the lines Sylar says! This is too detailed). I really beg of you all, help improve the episode articles in a creative way. At this moment almost all episode articles are outside Wikipedia's policy. Please use your energy there. The Helix symbol references can go altogether in the appropriate section in the Heroes (TV series) article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Glancing over the article, the plot section's length should be cut in half and the strike-related information is in the wrong tense.  I will be back later to give a more thorough review.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article.  I bet that the production section can be expanded (this might not be true and the section is fine as is) and the "character development" section (which I would merge into the production section) should be reworded as it will seem awkward come late September, e.g. "Tim Kring is not certain as to their future, saying that their fates are 'up in the air' and will be determined after the strike." → "Their fates were left intentionally ambiguous because the writers were unsure of whether they wanted to proceed with Niki and Nathan's characters; decisions were made following the strike's resolution."  –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Powerless (Heroes)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

"It was written by co-executive producer Jeph Loeb and directed by executive producer Allan Arkush, and aired on 3 December 2007 as the conclusion of the "Volume 2: Generations" storyline" - try to avoid having more than one "and" in a sentence.
"The episodes main storylines revolve around" - apostrophe for episode, and more than one storyline??
"compound in Odessa in search of the virus." - context. What's the virus?
"was originally conceived to be the conclusion of "Generations"" - what's generations?
Ref 4 needs a publisher.
"gave the episode an "A" grading, though he felt the episode" - a bit of repetition that could be fixed up
"Stephen Lackey of Mania" - not sure this is the article you want
And please leave me a note when done. Cheers, giggy (:O) 00:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

All raised points have been fixed. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 08:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This GAN has passed, and this is now a good article! If you found this review helpful, please consider helping out a fellow editor by reviewing another good article nomination. Help and advice on how to do so is available at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, and you can ask for the help of a GAN mentor, if you wish.
Cheers, giggy (:O) 08:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)