Talk:Heroes (American TV series)/Archive 2

message: Are the online graphic novels and other content considered official canon? I haven't heard one way or the other. I know that Brody is more severely injured on screen than he appears to be in the comic, and Claire's Myspace page says she's 18 but the TV show says she's 17. And there are probably other contradictions. If the canonical status of these spin-offs hasn't been determined, I think this should be noted (precedents for this include various articles related to Star Trek and Doctor Who that also indicate if a piece of information derives from a spin-off. Such things need to be noted in the character articles as well. Again using Claire as an example, her article mentions her rescuing Brody, etc. yet anyone watching only the TV show will be confused, as the episode suggests they were rescued by ambulance. 23skidoo 20:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Well, Ollie explained the age thing. I think the comics are canon, though citation of them should be clearer as to not confuse readers. And, the inconsistencies seem to be in the series alone as well, citing Chandra Suresh's book as just one example. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He did? I must have missed that. 23skidoo 16:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Said it was because of access restrictions to minors. Makes sense if it's all canon, too. I could see Claire embellishing for more access. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphic novels - canon? 

message: I'm thinking it be time to either
*move the list of graphic novels to their own article or
*move the information on each novel to the corresponding episode article
one or the other needs to happen and just a general description left in its place, otherwise by the end of the season the table will be twice as long as the character table that I just moved off to its own page!  -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  11:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe there will always be a corresponding episode, as I recall seeing an interview the producers that the plan was to even have a new on-line comic during weeks that there wasn't a new episode.  (I can't recall where I saw that, though, and I don't see it on the NBC site or 9th Wonders!, so unfortunately I can't cite a source.)  I'd support moving the list to their own article at some point.  --Psiphiorg 00:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm agreeing with the new article idea. I'd suggest leaving a quick one para "Hey, guess what, there are graphic novels to go along with the episodes." Also, Psiphiorg's mention of non-episode linked issues sounds vaguely familiar, but I can't for the life of me think of where I heard it either. Hemsath 06:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely agree that the Graphic Novels should have their own page. Leave the section up in this article, with a link to them, and that's it. The table is going to get unweildy very soon. I took the liberty of creating a Graphic Novels page and if the consensus here agrees we can link to it (like we do the episodes link). Otherwise I'll delete it.Novastarj 03:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Table 

message: Due to recent edits getting out of hand with wild speculation and various inaccuracies. I am again requesting that this page be protected. It won't get the more persistant rule breakers individually blocked, but it should limit the troublesome changes and reverts. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect 2 

message: What's with the reversion war going on with this article, particularly with character abilities?  I don't see how continuously reverting information -- including details that are still subjects of debate -- are serving the best interests of Wikipedia readers.  Primogen 23:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: THe GIPU editor is switching IP's and continuing his actions,that's what. You can see on ACS's user talk page that it's all the same editor. ThuranX 01:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, in "Collision" (#4), the conversation between Mohinder Suresh and Nathan Petrelli, Mohinder mentions "spontaneous regeneration." In "Genesis" (#1) during his lecture he mentions "tissue regeneration." Also seen in the pilot is a glimpse of the file tabs of Chandra Suresh's files. One is labeled "Rapid Cellular Regeneration." Obviously the main matter to convey is _what_ the ability is. Best case is to use the accepted, generic term. If a unique term prevails in the show's context we can mention such a term or phrase (ie, "break the space-time continuum"). Hobophobe 05:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree, the show itself hasn't determined a specific name yet so we should be using the industry standard for now.  Additionally for all future discussion to the two separate revert wars we've had please refer to Talk:Claire Bennet for her issue and Talk:Isaac Mendez for his issue.  We want to keep these issues separate and where they belong. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  05:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion War 

message: Hiro's powers should be changed from the three listed to 'Space-Time Manipulation'  Which comports better with his individual entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.10.52.72 (talk • contribs) 02:51, October 27, 2006
:I disagree that this would be an improvement for the general reader.  Less-geeky readers might not infer that "Space-Time Manipulation" includes teleportation and time-travel; more-geeky readers might incorrectly infer that Hiro is capable of (at this point), say, levitation and telekineses by sufficiently folding the space fabric around himself or an object.  The currently listed three powers do a good job of conveying Hiro's demonstrated abilities thus far. Primogen 17:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much as I wish we could properly link 'S-TM' to a proper article, we can't. I agree that the three do a better job of explaining his power's function, if not it's actual title. It MIGHT be worth adding a notation to the chart explaining the difference between power and listing?ThuranX 00:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the statement above made by ThuranX. What we are attemting to do is put a name to something that has not yet been given one. Time is what we need to better understand the powers of all the characters, not just Hiro. We are looking for answers that haven't even been given to us. Everything will be understood in time. We'll just have to wait until that time comes before we can really do anything. The three listed will do for now, but may be changed when the times comes that we can verify that they need to be changed. Bkid 09:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Powers 

message: She doesn't even seem as important as Mr. Bennet!  Why does she have warrant to be as a main character?
Gbcue 06:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the producers Credit her as such.  Mr. Bennet will be moving to the main charcter section soon, as he is a main character as of episode 11. EnsRedShirt 07:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simone Deveaux as "MAIN CHARACTER"? 

message: For those that care I just ran this through the automated peer review script and heres the results.
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
*Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day.  See footnote
*Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
*Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word 'The'. For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.  See footnote 
*Please provide citations for all of the s.
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status: 07:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated Peer Review 

message: I have noticed that there are a number of images for the characters on Wikipedia. Some characters have two or even three images, when really only one is needed. For instance, look at Isaac Mendez. On the main show page, we have :Image:Isaacmendez.jpg. On the character's page, we have :Image:HeroesIsaac.jpg. On the actor's page, we have :Image:SantiagoCabrera Heroes.jpg, claiming to be from Heroes, which doesn't even look like he does on the show. All three images are only used once each and we clearly don't need all three. If this was the only time this happened here, I would bring it up in a different manner, but it seems that many, if not most, of the characters have at least two separate images, one on the character's page and the other on the actor's page, both claiming to be from "Heroes." I think that someone needs to go through the images, find the "best" ones (IE the ones with the most secure copyright status and that look the best), use it in all instances, and delete the others. Thanks. -Platypus Man | Talk 16:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: The main character table is becomming VERY cumbersome and is only going to get worse as Mr. Bennet will be joing it by episode 11.  I am thinging it may be time to move it off the main article into its own article like shows such as Lost have done and leave an overview summery in the main article.  If that idea is not popular then i would suggest that we remove some of the unnecessary columns such as age, occupation and location as these items are somewhat trivial for the main article.  -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  16:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of getting rid of the pictures. That'll make the table much more compact (since most entries would be a single line without them) and make it easier to use. The pictures are, after all, in the individual articles already. --dws90 01:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both of these suggestions. I still feel like users went a little crazy with the template. I won't do anything now,—for once—but if there's no opposition posted here by Thursday, let's make the changes. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there weren't any objections and it was going to have to be done anyway at some point i went ahead and moved this off the main article.  Alot of work still needs to be done to expand this article past the chart I would recommend merging the minor characters list into the article as a sub section and going from there. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  11:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You should give a week of discussion before passing a final judgement. I don't feel like there was a reason to creat a seperate article for the main characters of the show. The list was not that long to warrent such a move. --Pinkkeith 17:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the table was getting unwieldy.  I think a very brief text descrptions, which is whata most other articles about TV shows use, works better.  However, I don't see the point of linking to an article just containing the table.  I think we should lose the table altogether.  So much of this show involves the character's changing locations and relationships, as well as new things being unveiled about each on almost a weekly basis, a table isn't the device to give readers a good snapshot of the characters. Primogen 19:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason the table was kept and moved was so that it could be expanded to include all the characters.  I'm not sure about the change on the main article though from paragraph style formatting back to a listification.  Lists should be avoided when possible and in this case it is.  I would refer you to to the Lost article which uses a similar formating and was recently an FA. (On a side note please reference Wikipedia:Embedded list -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  03:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Character table 

message: Shouldn't Ando be in the main characters table? He's had more screentime than Simone and arguably plays just as big a role. --Mister Six 22:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue is under discussion here in the Minor characters talk page.  --Psiphiorg 22:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ando 

message: I would add it in myself if it wasn't protected. Available here: http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/novels/downloads/Heroes_novel_006.pdf 160.39.30.231 22:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it. Novastarj 00:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Graphic Novel 

message: Near the beginning of the episode "Better Halves," when Niki and Micah are startled awake, sitting in plain view on the nightstand is an orange Mold-A-Rama wax lion.  There's about half a second where it's in focus, but it's quite clearly the smooshed-faced wax lion from Wonderfalls. —Ricky 04:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bryan Fuller was a writer/producer on both shows, so that's probably why they referenced WF.  --Psiphiorg 06:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This possible reference is discussed in Talk:Niki_Sanders#OLTL_connection.  Primogen 02:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to non-NBC Shows 

message: I've created :Category:Heroes Images and tagged ever Heroes related image I could find with it.  If you see any I missed please add them.  Also we have "duplicates" of some actors/characters as mentioned above we need one of the more lawyerly editors to go through them and determin which to keep and which to toss.  Before that happens though it would be nice if everyone went through and checked the images for proper licensing, referencing (where the image came from) and fair use rational (if needed).  This will make it much easier when determining which pics should stay or go.  -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  08:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tbh.. all charcater images need to be redone and cropped (look at Clares and you will see why..) - cropped from an episode them self then the  can be claimed, all images also need a FUR. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  added Category:Heroes Images 

message: All, it seems weird to me that the list of Graphic Novels is considered important enough to be prominently displayed in the central Heroes article, while the list of television episodes is moved to a second page.  I realise that there is a policy for all TV-series related articles to do episode listings on a seperate page, and for good reason, but shouldn't this policy rationally also be applied to the graphic novel listings?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 07:45, 2 November 2006 (talk • contribs) 212.123.24.90
:There is a discussion above, at #The Table.  Check it out!  --Psiphiorg 13:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance of Graphic Novels vs. TV Episodes? 

message: Does anyone else find Heros substantively similar to Broken Saints? Sandy McArthur 20:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems Heroes is similar to a lot of stuff. Don't think too much of it. Like Tim Kring said Jeph Loeb put it: "It's been done...fifty times." Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarity to Broken Saints 

message: could someone please write a small paragraph to explain what the ratings mean to the show, and compare it to other shows so that we can gain a perspective as to what the hell it means? thanks. dposse 13:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ratings 

message: There should be a supporting characters section to the main article for characters like Ando Masahashi, Sylar, Mr. Linderman, Eden Cain, and Brody Mitchum. Some of these these characters have had a lot of screen time and/or a major role in the story line. They should be removed from the minor characters article and moved to the main article.Lobot72 05:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supporting Characters section 

message: Lexxdark 22:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Six or five weeks... 

message: I suggested this above, but I know it'll get lost in the mess so I'll say it again here. The list of graphic novels I believe will get unweildy very soon. I think it is better to move it to its own page, to make the page more on topic with the TV show itself, and also ease some pressure on this talk page. I made a page for the Heroes graphic novels. Assuming I get a consensus here, we can link to it from the main page like we do for the list of Heroes episodes. If not, I'll delete the page. Novastarj 03:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like this (an ever expanding list) is generally not very contrivercial since it's going to have to happen at some point (like the episode list.  Be Bold! go for it! -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  06:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I split and linked the page. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphic Novels on own page 

message: After the last episode the symbol of the solar eclipse seems to be more and more important.  Currently there is a section on the symbol and I am wondering if it would make sense to broaden the section to _Recurring Themes_ or _Symbology_ or _Recurring Symbols_  Jrasmussen0 13:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At present we really don't know too much about what its significance is or where it shows up. At first it seemed like it was related to unlocking their abilities somehow, but then it was revealed that (for instance) Niki had her super-strength before the day of the eclipse. So I dunno. It is definitely worth analysis but I don't think there's much to go on just yet, certainly nothing that wouldn't be original research. Vignettelante 05:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That's the earth.... so it might not be at all an eclipse (it depends if you consider that the perspective is from the moon or not)... Anyway if it is an eclipse it's not an solar eclipse but an lunar eclipse... Lexxdark 01:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "So what's the symbology there?" - "I believe the word you were looking for is "symbolism." What is the ssss-ymbolism." --Jeff 06:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar Eclipse 

message: There is another symbol in the show. First on the radioactive man, then on matt's neck. Everybody wanna rename "the symbol" to "Symbols" for more clues and symbols. Maybe the nuclear man will meet up with Hiro and Ando and Distroy NY by mistake. Maybe Future Hiro is from a Mad Max-like universe he inadveringly made
Tgunn2 18:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I incorporated the second symbol. However, please refrain from wild speculation on the discussion page. We discuss article improvements here, not the plot and predictions. (that said, I have a hypothesis I will post on my own user page for the historic record, lol.) ThuranX 22:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't tell me you think it looks more like DNA. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That's really much to bo on, and I think people have seen it, thanks. BTW, sign your comments. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another symbol and explosion theory 

message: As the other character's occupations are listed, I added that Peter Petrelli is a Nurse. Gerren McKnight 03:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No the table was moved to its own page as main articles are not supposed to contain lists but rather be prose.  I moved the table off and replaced it with prose and someone reconverted it to a list when it should not have been.  I will re-convert it to prose over the weekend. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  09:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters 

message: I know this was just changed, but even though the characters only recognized it as a sword, it's also a katana.  Unless someone who knows swords more than I can say it looks more like another type, I think we should leave it as "katana". PureSoldier 20:21, 8 
November 2006 (UTC)
See Talk:Hiro Nakamura#Katana or Tsurugi? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiro's Sword 

message: The Radiokinetic we met in the recent ep is named under the "Symbols" section, and has ionizing radiation as a wiki link in his brief description.  What do you think of supplementing or replacing ionizing radiation with Radiokinesis?
171.159.64.10 20:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Page Edit 

message: In an effort to clean up this talk page I've archived most of the discussions. Going forward please keep all discussions specific to characters confined to the talk page for that character  and try not to make duplicate sections (IE we dont need 5 seperate discussions of the symbol.-- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  04:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some more archiving of this talk page and split the original archive up into a few smaller pages as it was extremely large. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  04:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added a mini-TOC under each Archive link so people can find better track when major topics were discussed.  I've seen it done on some other Talk pages with lots of Archiving.  I know it's a bit long, but hopefully it helps.  If it gets too long, the first thing to chuck would probably be the dates. fmmarianicolon | Talk 04:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, now that I'm looking at the archive pages, they're also large.  But since they're archive pages, do we need to make them into smaller archive pages or leave them as is? fmmarianicolon | Talk 04:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Archive pages can be unnecessarily large. That's why they're archives. The important thing is to keep the main pages in check. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, just wanted to make sure.  I've archived another group (#7) to keep the size down. fmmarianicolon | Talk 20:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: Is it possible to have sections for theories that people come up with for characters and such? This is a great feature on Lostpedia, and I think Heroes deserves the same types of discussion. (CinematicESP 23:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not for speculation.  Perhaps one of the Heroes wikis (such as heroeswiki.com) allows speculation.  --Psiphiorg 00:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, we do not support this or consider it a good quality for a purported wiki/'pedia. Spec=bad. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories Sections? 

message: This guy is starting to pop up everywhere. Currently, he's listed on both Minor characters in Heroes and the main article, but he's not listed on Characters of Heroes. In addition, he also has his own article. I don't think makes much sense to have him in both the minor characters list as well as the main page (which is otherwise exclusively major characters. Therefore, I recommend we either: a) remove him from the main page, or b) remove him from the minor characters list and add him to the table on the Characters of Heroes page. Are there any opinions as to which one? --dws90 23:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think option A sounds better. Perhaps this should be made into a poll? --TorriTorriTalk to me! 00:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Option B is the correct one though.. as he is a main character as of episode 11, he should be treated as a main character.  EnsRedShirt 03:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No polls, and don't claim "correctness." This is an encyclopedia, not a democracy or bureaucracy. Now, what, exactly, is so bad about multiple links? He's not officially "bumped" status-wise yet so excluding him the minor characters article isn't best. Listing him here shouldn't be a problem, either. Chillax and deal, people. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 08:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do with Bennet... 

message: I don't understand why they think fansites with wonderful info are getting such a bad rep? Tonight, we're adding only informal fansites, not blogs and forums.
If should disagree, be my guest !
Tgunn2 00:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, first off, don't call us "bitches." Second, why the confrontational message? Civility, ever hear of it? Third. read Wikipedia:External links. And, I repeat, name one thing that site has which we don't. Specify; don't just making whorish claims. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 09:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There is nothing wrong with fansites; I used to be involved in running an extremely popular fantasy fansite.  However, the problem with including fansites in a an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is that it would open the floodgates to spamming, given that some people or shows have hundreds of fansites devoted to them.  Now, Wikipedia:External links, to which Ace suggests we refer, does permit us to list one fansite among the External links, and that's all a reader interested in seeing a fansite really needs to be directed to.  After all, we're here to serve the interests of the reader, not be free publicity for website publishers. Primogen 21:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansites: spam or info? 

message: Should anything be included about parts of this movie that link to other films? For example, in Genesis when Mohinder meets the "Horn-rimmed glasses" guy, the man says that Mohinder's last name must be popular in India, like "Smith", or "Anderson". Those are the names of the protagonist and antogonist of the Matrix series (Smith and Neo Anderson) Bio 19:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unless you are aware of a source that proves that the reference was intentional.  And even then, this is pretty trivial trivia that's more appropriate for a fansite than an encyclopedia. Primogen 21:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a film. Gahhh...Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to other movies 

message: I'm almost positive I read somewhere (I think on wikipedia somewhere) how many episodes would be aired for the first season, but I forgot the number. What was it?
:22... -Xornok 13:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of episodes to be aired for the first season 

message: can someone please provide a source for that last paragraph or remove it? thanks. dposse 01:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here. Primogen 21:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  plot: to harness their "super DNA" for his own ends. 

message: Please fix the heading under Simone Deveaux to reflect the proper gender -
"... boyfriend, Isaac. He has no known superhuman abilities."
Some Random Bloke 19:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request typo fix (he -> she) 

message: I suggest having a list of powers that any characters, major or minor, have and which characters have them. It's difficult to differentiate between the people with powers and those without on the Characters page. ShigityShank 03:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Powers? 

message: Well I guess now that the show said made it clear that Claire's power is spontaneous regeneration and not a healing factor, the people who wanted to list her power as spontaneous regeneration will want to change it.  In case you missed it in the last episode Claires friend Zach gave her that book written by Chandra Suresh and pointed out the chapter on the power of spontaneous regeneration. If this doesn't put this debate to rest I guess nothing will. IG-2000 03:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claire's powers 

message: Anyone know what font they use for the show? It's very comic-like. I'd like to know the name.--Richard 03:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recognize it. THey got Tim Sale for the paintings, it's entirely possible they hired a letterer to custom scribe a font for hte show, it wouldn't be the first time a ashow's done that by any measure. ThuranX 04:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Font? 

message: The article says the symbol appears "On Niki's back as a tattoo whenever her alternate personality surfaces."  Since this symbol disappears when Niki is in control of her body, is it, strictly speaking, a tattoo? 71.193.152.63 14:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jessica's RNA Symbol 

message: Just curious about this last line on the main page...Is it necessary now, considering Mohinder has finally accessed his father's file on all the Heroes and he is not listed? I understand the concept of him just being an undiscovered Hero but assuming he was close to his father as a son, and just in general about being family, you would think if he was one his father would know. As we know, not all the important characters are Heroes, such as Ando and Mohinder, as each has a role in this story. Mohinder's time at home made him realize his destiny was to help the Heroes,so it's likely he won't be one but just be the guide for the rest. In case you find this unreasonable or otherwise a complete waste of the Talk: page, I apologize, as I do not generally talk in the discussions here but I was just voicing a thought.User:Navex 4:36, 21 November 2006
The list was never shown in it's entirety, nor is it guaranteed that every single person with superhuman powers is on that list. Mohinder could still possibly display powers in the future
67.183.178.171 17:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mohinder so far exhibits no superhuman powers himself." 

message: This is a discussion question...please do not remove! 
I was just wondering if we need to include the fact that Peter never rescued her. Is the plot line going to continue into Villians, or did I miss something? (Wikirocks2 (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, i don't think we do. Events happened so fast that we never saw what happened to her. We shouldn't speculate. Personally, i believe that she returned to the present after Peter destroyed the virus. That would be in line with how most science fiction shows work their time travel paradoxes. But, that's just my opinion. dposse (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take this discussion to a fansite.  this is not a forum for idle discussion on the show or to post speculation.  Please only post things that relate to improving this article.  thanks.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, no fair, stealing my line! Seriously, while this does border on fan discussion, it is about a character in the series. As far as we know, Caitlin is stuck in a future that - due to Peter's actions - no longer exists. Dating heroes has its consequences. Perhaps she would have been better off pulling pints for bent Irish longshoremen. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well thanks for [possibly] answering my question, and i wanted you guys to know that you can delete this question if you like. I never was going to include the fact that Caitlan is stuck in the future, I just wrote it that way so it wouldn't get deleted again. :P Sorry. (Wikirocks2 (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  I doubt this will go unanswered. You'll likely get an answer from a Q&A, graphic novel or may wait till next season. Until then we can't really state where is now. Rekija (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caitlin 

message: Hey there.  Long time reader, first time contributor so be gentle. =)  Taking a step back and putting aside previous discussions for a moment, why is it that we keep removing an external link to Heroes Wiki on this article?  It doesn't seem to actually be a violation of any policies since we have links to external wikis on the following articles for example:
* Scrubs
* The Simpsons
* Battlestar_Galactica
* Chuck
* Family Guy
* American Dad
* 24
* Smallville
That's just a brief list of shows I know off the top of my head.  If simply including links to external wikis was a violation of policy then I'm sure they wouldn't still be on some of these popular articles.  I perused some prior discussions and it does seem like Heroes Wiki meets the guidelines at least as sufficiently as the wikis the articles above link to.  I'm just confused why we here keep removing it since I see a lot of revert comments that claim it's because it violates a policy like WP:EL, but I think those reverts may just be happening out of habit.  I know others have discussed this before and I don't want to ruffle any feathers especially since I know that I, too, am guilty in the real world of sticking to my initial beliefs and trying to find every little reason to back up my original position.  I've tried to become more aware of this tendency and try to approach new discussions with an open mind. =)  -Centish (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an excert from the policy on external links that you may find helpful
# Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Wikis that meet this criteria might also be added to Meta:Interwiki map. Please check the link to see if heroes wiki has been added.  I say no to heroes wiki because it so speculative. but we need to follow policy on this one, and not opinion--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is that the Heroes Wiki IS quite speculative. Every time (or, if multiple times in a day or from the same editor, the first time)I've reverted the addition of the link, I've jumped over there. There's still tons and tons of WP:SYNTH going on, lots of WP:CRYSTAL, and so on. It's a fanwiki, not a well referenced encyclopedic wiki, and shouldn't be linked to from here. When they get some actual policies and enforce those policies, then a link can be added. But for months, all I've seen is synth synth synth. (Addendum: The Cuck Wiki is similarly plagued by OR and opinion. Adam Baldwin's page over there has editor interpretations ofhte characters he plays as fact instead of as opinion.) ThuranX (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, ThuranX. =)  The point you made in your addendum is what has actually been confusing me.  If the Chuck Wiki has a ton of OR and opinion AND if that is immediate grounds for not including a link then why is it allowed to remain on the page?  In the page source they even mark it as having passed WP:EL.  Also a good point to keep in mind is that for links to satisfy WP:EL they don't need to satisfy WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.  The latter two are concerned with Wikipedia content itself and are not viral.  --Centish (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Thuran, I have no real opinion on the wiki, but being a "fan wiki" is not much different than being content on Wikipedia, considering how many of us are fans. -- Ned Scott 04:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, original research is hardly a concern for an external link. The reason we discourage it is because Wikipedia is not a place to publish original thought, not because the concept of OR is bad. -- Ned Scott 07:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems I actually took a look at this site not long ago on Meta:Talk:Interwiki map. I didn't realize I was looking at the same wiki. A very well done wiki, and has my full support to have a link. -- Ned Scott 08:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ned, sorry, but your edit has been reverted. One, there has been significant opposition both past and present to including the link. Two, discussion here is still under way, so any change must wait until it finishes. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 09:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Have you actually read WP:EL? One, having original research is not a bad thing, it's just not something that Wikipedia does. Who cares if it has a very different attitude than Wikipedia? Why is that even an issue? Reading the archives on this talk page is very bewildering. No, really, go back and read WP:EL. This has to be one of the best independent wikis I've seen in a long time, and the people here are actually fighting against linking to it? -- Ned Scott 11:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  indeed, there are some pretty wonky applications of WP:EL being demonstrated here. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Further - if people here think that having OR is a reason not to link to an external wiki, then I suggest they get busy removing the 100s of links to Wikia that exist on this site - make sure the enforcers don't catch you removing the links to Jimbo's cash cow. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: But it's just not our problem - the fact that other sides engage in OR has never (except in BLP situations) be a good reason not to link - if that was the case then we would remove the links to Memory Alpha and Memory Beta - by far the two largest and most stable Star Trek wikis - which we don't - in fact, we link extensively to them so people can get more information and discussion of the sort that we don't engage in. This idea of Original research = bad is wrong, it's that we don't engage in it not that we don't link to any site that does. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Padillah. =)  Check out some of those articles I listed way at the top.  In those articles we link to external unofficial wikis as well, so we'd just use the same format they use.  Most external links on articles are to unofficial sites anyway so I don't think there's any confusion.  As for encouraging OR and speculation, I think it could have the opposite effect.  We have strict guidelines on content here and it might even help out by giving people who are determined to contribute some piece of content that might not be appropriate here an outlet.  Instead of edit wars over things like notability, it could be possible to just say, "This is more appropriate for the Heroes Wiki" and the contributor may be satisfied placing the info there.  --Centish (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It was specifically labeled as the unofficial wiki in the link. -- Ned Scott 00:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's also nice that heroeswiki.com makes the effort to mark what is speculation and what isn't speculation. It gives an outlet for fans, and means the editors there don't have to fight the tidal waves, but still keeps the speculation contained in marked area (for the most part). -- Ned Scott 00:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: So, rather than put the OR here, we should link to it and endorse it by association?  That doesn't sound like it enhances the article much.  I've been thinking about this and I have a theory about why this (and other fiction articles) is difficult: there is no factual reality to base it on.  If you take a look at the FA Evolution you'll see the links aren't to sites that have several different arguments about the good and bad of evolution.  They are to sites that have evidence or expound more on the idea, not the proof of the idea.  However we don't have the luxury of having reality to back us up so we have to rely on "official" sources.  Of all the sites you mention above the only one that is a FA is The Simpsons and I'd have to argue that there are much fewer (I believe the total is 0) theories surrounding the Simpsons and the Simpsons Wiki looks like it doesn't contradict the WP article so much as extend it.  There is a valid point in allowing an outlet for those that would rather entertain the speculation of what is Angela's power, but the above is my viewpoint.  Take it for what it's worth.  If we need a consensus vote I say call for one.  Padillah (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some very interesting opinions.  Thank you, Padillah. =)  I do agree that documenting worlds of fiction can be quite tricky, though it seems to me that external wikis can do an even more comprehensive job since they're not trying to be general encyclopedias.  As Ned Scott said, there's nothing wrong with OR.  We just don't incorporate it into the bodies of our articles.  In any case I think there will always be people with a personal preference whether they're interested in linking to an external wiki, but if I'm correct the only factor that comes into play here is WP:EL.  I believe that's the only policy that needs to be met since we're only referring to an external link rather than inclusion of specific information from the site.  If there's agreement that it meets WP:EL then it shouldn't be removed from the article when someone adds it.  --Centish (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have some great arguement here.  But, i oppose. The reason I oppose is because heroeswiki is because it is so speculative.  I understand that they are attempting to clean things up, but man, sometimes I read articles on heroes wiki and think to myself "where the hell did they get that from?"  I dont like all the OR that they put it some of their articles.  It is like a huge fan site that has called its self a wiki.  I think all the OR and speculation needs major overview.  Heroes wiki looks like what the heroes wikipedia page would look like if editors allowed all the OR and spec that comes through the page on a daily basis.  I oppose.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for replying, Chrisisinchrist. =)  I think perhaps the point some of us are making might not be explicit enough.  A few editors have pointed out that presence of OR isn't grounds for excluding an external link.  OR is not a bad thing and is only prohibited when it comes to the specific content we're adding to our articles here.  As Angela, who's been here way longer than I, pointed out providing links to external wikis even when they include OR can be more of a reason to externally link to them in the first place.  When discussing whether to include a link to the external wiki the only policy that comes into play is WP:EL.  Do you have any opposition that is based on WP:EL?  If it passes WP:EL then according to Wikipedia policy it is permissible.  --Centish (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Chrisisinchrist, since I do not follow the show it's hard for me to tell, but since heroeswiki.com does try to mark speculation, I assume you mean that over-all speculation is still abundant on the wiki, not just what is marked as such? -- Ned Scott 05:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For what it's worth, I do watch the show and I don't come across much speculation except what they have cordoned off on their theories articles.  In the relatively little time I spend there I do see them explicitly removing speculative info that gets added to articles from time to time just like we have to.  To me it's a very nice site even if its purpose is very different from ours and I personally wouldn't consider it a "fan site that has called its self a wiki", but we're all entitled to our opinions.  --Centish (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: We are discussing it because that's what we do here in Wikipedia, we discuss and reach consensus (you remember consensus, don't you).  We could simply revert and edit war but that doesn't help anybody and can get people into a twist.  The arguments for and against the link are being aired and listened to, I for one appreciate Ned Scott's and Centish's patience and willingness to discuss and present argument.  It helps me take them seriously and when the link is added I won't feel slighted in the least and will harbor no ill will to spill over into the next series of edits.  I don't think anyone has tried to present the WP:EL argument since it was shot down in the beginning, no one has presented anything other than their personal outlook on how it affects the article.  no one is arguing the content of the other site is inherently "bad" or that Heroeswiki should adopt WP guidelines.  If you don't feel the usefulness of participating in a consensus discussion, then, by all means, don't.  Padillah (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oooooooooh, you certainly told him! Good job.....and oh yeah, I vote in favour of the wiki, per all the arguments above. (  Wikirocks  13:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I didn't mean to tell him off.  I guess that last sentence was a little harsh, I apologize for that.  I got out of hand.  For what it's worth, I vote include the link as well.  Fredrick day is right, personal "like", in the end, has nothing to do with it.  It's a viable link and does conform to all the requirements of WP:EL.  Thanks for putting up with us through this.  Padillah (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my own personal opinion, I oppose heroeswiki.  However, based on wikipedia policy, I have to support it, because it does not violate the policy.  policy says it has to have a substantial amount of editors and it does.  so, i will support it.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm glad you were able to return, ThuranX.  You're absolutely correct, the policy does not by any means force us to include any particular link, however it also does mean that if someone wants to add it that it is not necessarily appropriate to remove it.  I can understand your concern about vandalism and speculation, though I haven't noticed any correlation either here or on the other articles I've read in the past between adding links to external sites and an increase in the amount of undesired (though sometimes good-faith) content.  Regardless of whether we add links or not there are tons of sites out there with material that is not suitable for Wikipedia and only attempting to educate users as to what material is actually acceptable and what is not can help us reduce the amount of undesired content that gets added.  This is a general problem found all across Wikipedia when people don't fully understand that the goal is to be an encyclopedia and not an indiscriminate repository of information.  In fact, including the link could provide us the opportunity to specifically label that its content is not suitable for direct inclusion into articles here and could possibly help reduce the amount of good-faith attempts to include the information here.  --Centish (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External wikis 

message: - I know this is a little trivial, but they list the cast out of alphbetical order in the beginning of every episode, so I think this page should follow suit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.73.145 (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. This is a reference site, and the most logical way of listing names is alphabetically. On-screen cast listings may well vary over time (depending on the power of agents mainly!) and we'd be forever having to check and update. Ged UK (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the show did not list the actors alphabetically and actually had a main character, then they would be listed that way.  I think that it is by the characters' and not the actors' last name because the section descibes the characters.  –thedemonhog talk • contributions 19:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we list the characters in alphabetical order according to actor's last name? 

message: Sylar is a main charcter he appeares in nearly every episode in series 1 and without him Claire isn't a main character.
Ando is a main character because without him Hero would never kill Sylar. This in itself is another reason why Sylar is a main character because if Sylar wasn't in series 1 then Hero would have no point either. (Electrobe (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been discussed several times in the archives.  Please look it up.  NBC decided this, not us. Though your point is valid, it is original research. Thank you. Magkaz (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off user:Electrobe you have violoated the three reverts rule several times.  You need to get your facts straight.  If you have a verifiable ref. to state that ando and sylar were on the main roster one season 1, fine, post it.  this has been discussed several several time.  during season one, they guest starred.  they were not credited as main characters.  they were upgraded to the main character roster on the second season. please stop reverting the edits or you will be reported.  you have no verifiable source.  while their are several source in the character section that support that sylar and ando were not main characters in the first season.  we have verified sources and you have none.  so stop...thanks.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: From someone who has watched this conversation but not, until now, participated: The Wikipedia policies that you have violated are Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and Wikipedia:Verifiability. — Val42 (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Four different wiki contributors responded to you on this Heroes talk page or on your talk page and two additional contributors have reverted your edits throughout the day.  What kind of response are you looking for that six different contributors to wiki haven't provided?  Please, there are links to articles that support what we are telling you, check them out before you continue. Otherwise, provide a source for your edits and they probably won't get reverted.  Just asking someone to not revert your incorrect edits isn't gonna do it.  It's already been decided to go with what NBC says.  I haven't violated any wiki policy with my actions. Magkaz (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Eletrobe, you are attempting to cite something as fact, without a citation, where as, we all have reverted your edits, because we have citations to back up our claim.  you are attempting to light up an issue that has been dead for serveral months now.  sure, we would love to determine who is a main character and who is not, but that is not how we roll here.  this is a verifiable encyclopedia, where things need to be factual and verified.  we have not violated any policy because we have sources and you do not.  please stop with the edits. --Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I agree with "TheDJ". What he (or she) is saying is true. "Main cast" and "main characters" are very similar, and people usually mistake them as the same thing, including me. Sylar and Ando ARE "main characters" in season 1, but they aren't part of the "main cast" according to NBC. Maybe we should change the subheading from "main characters" to "main cast"...but then wouldn't we have to change the order of the table...thus going back to the argument above....changing the order per actor's last names....but we wouldn't have to. I don't really know anymore.   Wikirocks  11:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I can see the technical point regarding terminology, we still cannot be the ones deciding whether or not Sylar and Ando are main characters in season one. It has to be someone else's assessment, giving the most weight to the producers and the network. Otherwise, we're right back where we started from, and anyone who feels character X is "main" will feel free to write it as such. (For example, Wikirocks feels Ando is a main character. I disagree, as I see him being used primarily as a tool to develop Hiro's character. Those are our personal opinions, however, and neither qualifies for inclusion without sources.) --Ckatzchatspy 20:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to bet that you see Simone as a tool to develop Peter and Isaac.  I don't think any terminology should be changed.  It does say "starring seasons" and not "Main seasons."  –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, when we start deciding who are main characters/cast/whatever, that becomes OR, no matter how obvious it may be to some people.  We should only tag them as the Main Characters/Cast if NBC has tagged them as such. QuasiAbstract (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK now I am kinda angry. Why do people always misunderstand me? Did you actually read what I said? TheDJ was explaining the difference between "main cast" and "main characters" and I was merely saying that I believe that the two are "main characters." That doesn't mean anything. What really matters is if they are a part of the "main cast" and they are NOT! That's why I was saying how I was confused a bit and how I wasn't sure what we should do. Why do take what I say and change it and attack me??? (OK and I admit I went a bit crazy in this post) (  WikiRocks  02:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sylar and Ando are main characters in series 1 

message: The virus isn't a symbol in the sense of everything else under that section. It's not a motif and it doesn't symbolize anything, it's just a plot point. 87.97.80.167 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is called mythology, not symbol or elements.  mythology is define as follows: The word mythology[1] refers to a body of myths–stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity. Mythology also refers to the branch of knowledge dealing with the collection, study and interpretation of myths, also known as mythography. Mythology are the fictional things and elements that make up the show and the virus, which is 100 percent fiction, is apart of the shows overall mythology.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris, there was no need for a snarky remark - and no need to revert again. Two people disagree with you - so why don't you discuss *before* restoring what appears to be a misplaced block of text? If enough people agree, it can be restored - but don't edit war please. --Ckatzchatspy 06:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious? it seems like individuals need to be babied here at wikipedia, and that is not okay with me.  But, to address the issue, this issue has not even been discussed.  The issue should be discussed before it is just removed from the article...not the other way around.  you feel like it should be removed and then discussed, when it should be discussed then removed.  this topic hasnt even had time to resenate. i mean, just because two users feel it is okay, doesnt mean that is the end of the discussion.  this discussion only started this morning, so how is it already resolved?  just because two people feel it should be removed, it doesnt mean to just remove it.  you should at least give this topic a couple of days before you make a conclusion.  i reverted the edit originally because someone removed the virus section from mythology without discussing it first and i felt like that was wrong.  the user should have came here and discussed it, and then once the discussion ended, then we should have either removed it or kept it.  but to just remove it without coming to the talk page isnt right.  this discussion began less than 12 hours ago, and you seem to already feel like their is a concensus.  i dont think so.  the virus may be a plot point, but because it is fictional and becuase it is peppered throughout the series, is also envelopes the mythology of the show.  for it to be removed and then discusssed is backwards.  it should be discussed before it is touched and the section should be reverted back to its original state until such a discussion is resolved. if you saw me and another user disagreeing on the idea of putting the virus, why would you just revert the idea because you agree with that user and not me?  that is why i said you are not special.  you werent even apart of the discussion, yet you felt like it was your job to make the final say? No, i dont think so.  you are not special and you dont run this page. i think it was wrong for you to come and just revert to the side you supported while their was still an active discussion on the talk page.  that seems okay to you? who are you?  i support the virus in the mythology section.  if you dont support it, than say so, but dont just decide that you are going to answer the discussion for the other user and i who were discussing it.  you could have at least given the other user 24 hours to respond.  now, with that said, i am reverting the edit to its original state until it is finished being discussed, since the discussion just started this morning.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did give it a couple of days, seeing as I posted it five days ago only to be ignored until now. :/ Also, since the title has now been changed to just Mythology, why not add every single element of the plot while you're at it? 87.97.80.90 (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. If we accept the objecting editor's, we would have to classify every element of the story as "mythology" since it is all "100 percent fiction". --Ckatzchatspy 09:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is nice.  Users are acutually discussing an issue before making changes.  I love wikipedia.  This is what wikipedia is all about.  Let the discussion continue!  I wont fight it...if you all want to virus removed, remove it...i just wanted to make sure it was discussed.  also, user with the IP address 87.97.80.90. are you new to wikipedia?  you seem experienced, yet, your contrib history only deals with this issue.  wierd.  i sense sockpuppeting. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.  Just curious--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a dynamic IP and can't be arsed to register. Removing. 87.97.126.215 (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be sock puppetry if I claimed to be someone else to support my own opinion, which I didn't. A most cursory glance at the WHOIS data of all the IPs I have used reveals that they belong to the same ISP. Stop the drama, please. 87.97.126.215 (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not sockpuppetry, but it does make it easy for you to avoid, or pretend to avoid, any talk page replies left for you, including civility warnings, which you're due for after your last couple responses. Getting an account would make your contributions easier to take seriously. One, not everyone can WHOIS handily, nor do those who can WANT to daily to make sure it is 'probably' you we're talking with. Two, when messages can be left for someone, it's easier to work with them on pages they like working on. There are other benefits to having an account, like the watch-list and so on, but actively dodging around IP to IP to avoid such things, as you're clearly aware you're doing, isn't that impressive nor does it contribute to a good atmosphere when trying to work with you. ThuranX (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with ThuranX on this. I've been trying to stay out of this, but Mister Dynamic IP there needs to get off his ass and register an account. He may not purposely be socking, but is socking nonetheless. We have no real way to know who the anon user is, and the user could post as one and support the edit with another, and it would be a pain in the ass to verify. If you don't want to be treated like a sock, don;t act like one. Period. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Magkaz.  This user presented an arguement that makes perfect sense.  i will support this and not fight the change.  I also encourage the user with the multiple IPs to register...thanks.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  but if he doesn't want to, then he shouldn't - this is wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The fact that he has a dynamic ip is neither here or there and has nothing at all to do with socking. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one said they couldn't edit.  No one is arguing that he must register, they are suggesting that they should.  If they (or you) are wondering why, check out WP:WHY.  And I bet that if you look you'll find that having a dynamic IP does, in fact, have to do with sockpuppeting.  It facilitates it, it mimics the results, it misleads others into believing that the user is actively trying to sockpuppet... so, yes, having a dynamic IP can very easily be misconstrued as sockpuppetry.  We are trying to be informative and friendly, we are trying to let this user know that other people may see their situation as sockpuppetry.  Padillah (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a flat out accusation of socking puppeting - He may not purposely be socking, but is socking nonetheless., so I'm afraid your statement doesn't match with what has actually been said on this page - indeed, I'm so sicking of the bullying that goes on with our good faith IP addresses, I'm going to give up my id and go back to being an IP - and yes I have a dynamic IP. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not bullying, for one. It's simply an explanation of why registering can help. The fact is, he can, and probably will, miss  any messages left for him on the IP talk page. If he makes a request for a change, and the change is made, short of him coming back to the page, there's no way to let him know it's been done. and sicne many IPs drop in a request then go poof, never to return, their requests are often dismissed out of hand, because it's the experience of many editors that such drive  by commentings never get followed up by the requester. Finally, I specifically stated that he's NOT socking, but making it hard on himself and the rest of us. As for Arcayne's backhanded accusation, I don't know what to tell ya, but if you think making your own wiki-experience harder by giving up your watchlist and such is the way to handle it, then good luck. And logging in to check, then logging out to edit each time seems absurd. ThuranX (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: [Reset Indent] This is getting off topic now, however I'd like to add that I agree with Fredrick day, the user has stated he has a dynamic id, and as far as I am aware has at no point attempted to use this to sockpuppet. The potential to commit a crime isn't illegal, it's only committing a crime that is. One comment about it being easier to join would have suffised, but everyone stopping the discussion to say "Get an account" is effectively making it so that the user is unable to facilitate in the discussion because instead of responding to them, their membership status is questioned. It's almost like telling someone they can't have a political opinion until they join a Political Party... Jacobshaven3 (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The virus is not a symbol 

message: There seems to be a lot of recent edit warring on this article, with several editors having broken the three-revert rule in recent hours. This kind of editing is highly disruptive and will get the participants blocked if it continues.  Please continue to discuss the issues on the talk page but don't make these unnecessary edits that you know will probably only be reverted in a matter of minutes.  Gain agreement and then edit.   --Tony Sidaway 12:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree...lets all get along and work as a community.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring on this article 

message: Apparently Heroes is coming back the 14th of January? It was from the December 17th article of The New Yorker. http://www.newyorkercollegetour.com/websites/readerlink/sections/index.html There it is.-Babylon pride (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: not sure how up to date that infomation is.... It's basicly an ad and may have been created and paid to run before the current issues.harlock_jds (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, volume 3 of Heroes has been postponed indefinitely.  No new episodes have been completed, nor will they until the conclusion of the writers strike.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My friend had the magazine in her hand. I highly doubt she would've had 2006's. I know it has been postponed (not really indefinitely. Just until the writer's strike is over and they expect it to be done with next September) but it's from December 14th's. You can check the site: there was a December 14th issue. I just found the article and posted it. Maybe I'm wrong with the date. Don't get snippy, thedemonhog. But yeah, it is an ad more or less. It's just a magazine. I'll double check. Also, sorry about the wrong URL. http://www.newyorkercollegetour.com/websites/readerlink/images/ss/323.jpg That's the only thing I can link to since it keeps linking me back to the sections.-Babylon pride (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just adding it wasn't 2006. I just checked and it was January 22nd that the hiatus stopped. And the 14th is a Monday. But NBC clearly says Volume Two is wrapped up so now I'm wondering why there's such a fluke from an issue just a day old?-Babylon pride (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  i know it wasn't 2006 ( i checked the dates) but i think that ad might have been designed and sent to the times before the strike impacted the dates... i'm sure the origional plan was to come back on the 14'th but the strike prevents that because they have nothing they can do (and no ep's filmed)harlock_jds (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: How was I snippy?  –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He wasn't being snippy. I know snippy, and Mr.thedemonhog is no snippy. Seriously, snippy involves calling someone an ass-clown who Jesus and the Twelve Apostrophes unanimously agree need to be called that. On another note, do you have a citation that says that the season is actually concluded? There was some minor tumble about that a few weeks ago. I'm just making sure we aren't going to see another kerfuffle about it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In an IGN December 14 interview, show runner Tim Kring said that they shot some scenes from the next two episodes, but have no complete episodes, nor will they until the strike is over.  Director/producer Greg Beeman stated in his blog that if the strike does not end soon, the second season ends with "Powerless."  If the strike does end soon, Heroes will resume production and make more of season 2.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: NBC.com says it's concluded. I saw it yesterday in a rush to see if that article was a mistake. I know that disproves it but felt like mentioning it. It was on the right hand corner saying that now that volume two is done, (which may not mean season two. I dunno) fans are wondering what Angela's power is and to talk about it on the boards. But I can't find it since the site changes the little ad parts there so often. Sorry. -Babylon pride (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is true that season concluded with one volume concluded and the next one beginning, we need confirmation that the season, and not the volume are indeed finished. Otherwise, season 2 is still rolling. We wait for citation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return of Heroes