Talk:Who Wants to Be a Superhero?/Archive 1

message: Do not post copyrighted material on Wikipedia, such as that from Scifi.com. Mak (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's copyvio and what isn't?  Character names & secret identities?  --Dr Archeville 21:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just don't copy and paste texts or pictures and you should be okay. Pixelanteninja 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest you take a few days away from the page, Clan R. Your above comments demonstrate a clear bias and agenda. Take a couple days to get a little distance and find some objectivity. Just a suggestion.ThuranX 05:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My comments aren't biased. They're factual. Look at the footage very carefully. Clan rHrN 14:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have. Levity is speaking with a number of other participants, who ask what he does. He freely volunteers that he makes custom toys. One remarks that this could be good for him, while Rotiart is standing there, and Levity agrees. It is not Rotiart who speaks, he just films. Even so, asking a person their motivations isn't a trick, it's a conversation. There's no trick to asking a person what they are thinking and recording it while on a reality show. Levity's comments were freely given, and could as easily have been used against him based on the in room cameras and microphones, without Rotiart's involvement. Levity was aware he was on a reality contest show, and also aware that he was being filmed. Stan Lee could have gotten lesser quality footage from the cameras further away. Instead, Rotiart's purpose was to 'be a spy' for storyline purposes, and provide close-up camera angles while recording. While what happened with Levity was deigned to make Rotiart look like a part of the action, that's the storyline, nad Rotiart was little more than a glorified cameraman. I agree, Levity being removed so early for being honest about the real-world consequences of his participation seems a bit awkward, if not outright unfair. However, percieved unfairness for your favorite character (as noted on your userpage), is not a valid reason to keep reverting multiple editors' removal of your trickery comments. Furthermore, I've repeatedly asked that the cast and contestants  section be kept brief, and let the episode summaries explain more. The single most notable exception to the brevity request is Iron Enforcer, whose dual role should be noted in the cast/contestants as he's transitioned both from contestant to cast, and from Iron Enforcer to Dark Enforcer. This change could easily be confusing to a new page reader, and is noted in cast, and exlpained in the episode section. I should add, overall I'm glad to see someone taking such an interest in the page, and hope you'll continue to add here. Just not the trickery thing. If you still feel there should be more, work on it in the episode summary. Maybe you can try writing it up focusing on the odd decision to ignore the real-world connections that many contestants have.ThuranX 15:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What about Nitro G and Cellphone Girl? Iron Enforcer got them BOTH out. I do not tolerate those who ONLY get by with pure luck, and Iron Enforcer fits that description PERFECTLY. Clan rHrN 16:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Iron Enforcer didn't make Nitro G undress in the middle of the park, which Stan cited as a major factor in his elimination. Likewise, Iron Enforcer did not give Cell Phone Girl a headache, and he certainly didn't make her say 'and I still have one right now' during her appeal to stay. You're not the only one who dislikes Iron Enforcer, but WIki's not for voicing your opinons from a soapbox, it's for citing the facts. I think you'll find that if you devote some time to carefully crafting your work on the summaries, you can get your point across "regarding Iron Enforcer's repeated comments, which have often put him at odds with Stan Lee's expectations regarding the values of superheroes."  Although everything in there is fact, by putting Iron Enforcer, a known contestant, against a figure like Stan Lee, and showing that Iron Enforcer didn't 'learn' the first time, by using the word 'repeated', I can construct a page that sticks to the facts, but still illustrats the underlying conflict, and that IE is a jerk. Try more of that, and less of 'Levity got tricked'. There's no proof Levity got tricked, there's a fair amount of evidence that IE is a jerk. Hope that helps.ThuranX 16:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You're NOT Stan Lee. Write up the FACTS. Keep opinion out of edits.ThuranX 03:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Meh, I've looked at the whole Levity thing. If someone replys to your hobby/small business as "Wow, you could become a millionare off of that!" What do you do? Say no? Becuase he never outright said "I'm here to make millions on my toy business" I think the it shouldn't be cited definately. Maybe say alleged or something. 24.218.65.219 03:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of the exact words Levity did, or did not, use, Lee premised his dismissal of Levity on that conversation, characterizing it as previously described. ThuranX 03:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvios

message: *It seems obvious that, if you listen to the dialogue REALLY carefully, you'll realize that Rotiart snickered that Levity could make a lot of money. Levity just went on with it, unaware of Rotiart's intention to eliminate him. However, Iron Enforcer wasn't tricked into saying he would kill people. SUPERHEROES DON'T KILL PEOPLE!
*Nitro G wasn't the only one out in the open. Iron Enforcer had a semi-open area for which he dressed. Also, I think Monkey Woman ignored the little girl ON PURPOSE, and that the dialogue is edited. Also, Nitro G said he wouldn't fail him again.
*Cellphone Girl WASN'T complaining/claiming of a headache. She actually HAD one. Someone would have to be DEE-DEE-DEE to not realize that Iron Enforcer obviously takes steroids, since he acted like a sissy in the Second Challenge and crudely commented on Creature's failure.
*Iron Enforcer SHOULD NOT have been given a second chance. He apparently SUCKS and he is a blatant idiot who only wants the prize. He doesn't realize he'll NEVER get the prize no matter how he tries since he's a supervillain. Clan rHrN 03:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you take a few days away from the page, Clan R. Your above comments demonstrate a clear bias and agenda. Take a couple days to get a little distance and find some objectivity. Just a suggestion.ThuranX 05:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My comments aren't biased. They're factual. Look at the footage very carefully. Clan rHrN 14:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have. Levity is speaking with a number of other participants, who ask what he does. He freely volunteers that he makes custom toys. One remarks that this could be good for him, while Rotiart is standing there, and Levity agrees. It is not Rotiart who speaks, he just films. Even so, asking a person their motivations isn't a trick, it's a conversation. There's no trick to asking a person what they are thinking and recording it while on a reality show. Levity's comments were freely given, and could as easily have been used against him based on the in room cameras and microphones, without Rotiart's involvement. Levity was aware he was on a reality contest show, and also aware that he was being filmed. Stan Lee could have gotten lesser quality footage from the cameras further away. Instead, Rotiart's purpose was to 'be a spy' for storyline purposes, and provide close-up camera angles while recording. While what happened with Levity was deigned to make Rotiart look like a part of the action, that's the storyline, nad Rotiart was little more than a glorified cameraman. I agree, Levity being removed so early for being honest about the real-world consequences of his participation seems a bit awkward, if not outright unfair. However, percieved unfairness for your favorite character (as noted on your userpage), is not a valid reason to keep reverting multiple editors' removal of your trickery comments. Furthermore, I've repeatedly asked that the cast and contestants  section be kept brief, and let the episode summaries explain more. The single most notable exception to the brevity request is Iron Enforcer, whose dual role should be noted in the cast/contestants as he's transitioned both from contestant to cast, and from Iron Enforcer to Dark Enforcer. This change could easily be confusing to a new page reader, and is noted in cast, and exlpained in the episode section. I should add, overall I'm glad to see someone taking such an interest in the page, and hope you'll continue to add here. Just not the trickery thing. If you still feel there should be more, work on it in the episode summary. Maybe you can try writing it up focusing on the odd decision to ignore the real-world connections that many contestants have.ThuranX 15:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What about Nitro G and Cellphone Girl? Iron Enforcer got them BOTH out. I do not tolerate those who ONLY get by with pure luck, and Iron Enforcer fits that description PERFECTLY. Clan rHrN 16:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Iron Enforcer didn't make Nitro G undress in the middle of the park, which Stan cited as a major factor in his elimination. Likewise, Iron Enforcer did not give Cell Phone Girl a headache, and he certainly didn't make her say 'and I still have one right now' during her appeal to stay. You're not the only one who dislikes Iron Enforcer, but WIki's not for voicing your opinons from a soapbox, it's for citing the facts. I think you'll find that if you devote some time to carefully crafting your work on the summaries, you can get your point across "regarding Iron Enforcer's repeated comments, which have often put him at odds with Stan Lee's expectations regarding the values of superheroes."  Although everything in there is fact, by putting Iron Enforcer, a known contestant, against a figure like Stan Lee, and showing that Iron Enforcer didn't 'learn' the first time, by using the word 'repeated', I can construct a page that sticks to the facts, but still illustrats the underlying conflict, and that IE is a jerk. Try more of that, and less of 'Levity got tricked'. There's no proof Levity got tricked, there's a fair amount of evidence that IE is a jerk. Hope that helps.ThuranX 16:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You're NOT Stan Lee. Write up the FACTS. Keep opinion out of edits.ThuranX 03:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Meh, I've looked at the whole Levity thing. If someone replys to your hobby/small business as "Wow, you could become a millionare off of that!" What do you do? Say no? Becuase he never outright said "I'm here to make millions on my toy business" I think the it shouldn't be cited definately. Maybe say alleged or something. 24.218.65.219 03:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of the exact words Levity did, or did not, use, Lee premised his dismissal of Levity on that conversation, characterizing it as previously described. ThuranX 03:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Few Things To Consider

message: As this show goes on, these summaries will need to be shortened to keep in line with Wikipedia's ideas about page length. I'm pretty sure that this can be done when we need, but for future episodes, please keep in mind that brevity is better.ThuranX 14:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does no one understand the meaning of the word "summary"? It isn't necessary to list every detail, every line of dialogue, every fart and tickle in the summaries. Significant details only.Otto4711 22:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck with that, I've tried to shorten previous episode summaries, to be like episode one, which is the model, to my tastes. Unfortunately, some editors think holosticism to the level of script reconstruction is needed. ThuranX 23:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode summaries 

message: I'm surprised the page doesn't mention the multiple complaints by viewers (at least on SciFi.com's boards) about the previews and commercials for upcoming episodes.  By showing events of future episodes (even 2 or 3 episodes in advance), it's clear that those participants are not eliminated.  For example, they showed the shot of the heroes looking off the rooftop in Episode 3 before Episode 2 aired.  Therefore, a viewer with a keen eye would know that Feedback and Ty would not be eliminated in Episode 2.  We've also seen a classroom where kids are asking questions (and one asks if they're "just nuts") in one commercial.  Since that wasn't in the preview for Episode 4, it must be from 5 or 6...and the people in that scene obviously won't be eliminated before we see it. --PatrickD 16:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know, don't care, I'm just looking forward to the series finale so that the whole stupid section can be taken out of the article. One of the worst-written sections of any article I've seen on this site. I'd cut it all myself right now except that some of the fanboys would pitch a screaming fit about it. Otto4711 02:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The viewer voting doesn't matter at all. It has no bearing on the eliminations (which are of course on tape from months ago). It's a way for the show to make some extra coin off of poor dumb suckers who waste their money sending text messages to TV shows. Otto4711 15:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies

message: As for the 'Feedback' info, isn't it possible that the closeup referenced is from episode 2, where he was on the red block for making hte rooster cracks about Ty'Veculus' outfit? and if so, shouldn't we remove those references in this section?ThuranX 23:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know, don't care, I'm just looking forward to the series finale so that the whole stupid section can be taken out of the article. One of the worst-written sections of any article I've seen on this site. I'd cut it all myself right now except that some of the fanboys would pitch a screaming fit about it. Otto4711 02:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The viewer voting doesn't matter at all. It has no bearing on the eliminations (which are of course on tape from months ago). It's a way for the show to make some extra coin off of poor dumb suckers who waste their money sending text messages to TV shows. Otto4711 15:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Winner revealed

message: I've added it, because the article on wikinews is also in dispute. So for the time being, the tag should be added here for relevance.--293.xx.xxx.xx 02:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Factual Dispute tag

message: Most of the speculation as to the validity of the show comes from the SciFi website and the IMDB message boards.  The discussions show up under titles like "Is the show fake" and suchlike.  There hasn't been a news article on the subject that I know of.  I think the controversy section should stay but it should be stressed that the information comes from online discussion and not a news source.
::Saw this?: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Winner_of_Sci_Fi_Channel%27s_reality_series_possibly_unmasked --293.xx.xxx.xx 02:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given tonight's episode, I'd say the odds are good on it being "fake." It's like watching a really bad professional wrestling match. Frankly I'm surprised I'm not in a coma from having watched the whole thing. Must be some new Stan Lee 'Watch-My-Show' superpower he's been keeping quiet for all those years.--Begin the Beginning 02:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Online Discussions

message: Wasn't Nitro G's costume black with green, like The Hurricane? Where did this green and blue costume come from? Gopherbassist 03:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nitro G's Costume

message: Ok, whoever edited the article to add the cute little header about the article "Needing to be vandalized to show Stan Lee what "we" think of the show, just stop it."  Wiki is supposed to actually be a credible site.  It's not your little playground to express some sort of beef.  It's people like this that do this kind of stuff that make Wiki a joke.  So, someone either edit out that or tag the article as vandalized, cause I don't know how to do that.--sivazh 09:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Someone should tag this article as vandalised

message: Personally, I'd much rather have them transferred out (to their own article(s)) since simply having the episodes on the main article seems to be taking up too much space.. Any thoughts? DrWho42 18:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose this. There are only 5 episodes, not worth their own articles. Instead, work towards condensing the four extant episode summaries, preferably before the fifth airs, so a format and style is evident to match to. I've tried to go for brevity before here, but there are too many editors who are insistent on detailing every action and word. give it a shot.ThuranX 19:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I also oppose each ep having it's own article.  There're only going to be five episodes, so the whole run of the show can easily be covered under one article. --Dr Archeville 13:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also oppose.  Shouldn't have to jump between articles to see what was going on.  All episodes should be together, and they won't be too long. RJFJR 16:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I oppose as well, however, should a second season be recorded and aired eventually, we probably will want to split the seasons into their own articles. However, for now, they're fine as-is. PratzStrike 17:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving episodes to their own article(s)? 

message: (Eh, it's as good a header as any.)  Anyone else notice the large, framed pic of Stripperella on the wall behind Lee?  Should this be mentioned in the article, especially in light of all the admonishments he's leveled at Major Victory for his stripping past (and at Lemuria for her sex appeal in Ep #4)?  --Dr Archeville 13:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has any outside press or reliable sources made an issue of it?  If not then it does not belong here.  Wikipedia is not used for original research. --StuffOfInterest 14:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The TV.com entry for the show does mention the pic of Stripperella behind Lee, but that's all (and I don't know if TV.com is considered a reliable source, since anyone can contribute to it just like on Wikipedia).  The only place I've seen the "hypocrisy/dichotomy" aspect mentioned so far is on numerous comic book/sci-fi messageboards... but I'm fairly certain messageboards aren't considered Reliable Sources for wikipedia, so I guess it'll be left out.  Shame, that. --Dr Archeville 16:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends. Just post links and some of us can figure out if their legit or not.--293.xx.xxx.xx 11:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hypocrisy?

message: I've looked at the IMDb link, and she's not listed... Where's the confirmation on this? DrWho42 22:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, well.... Since there's no reference to support this claim, I s'pose I'd have to remove it.. DrWho42 23:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: her role is listed on IMDB  Whateley23 02:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, alright.. Thanks for the notice. When I looked it up: there wasn't any, but now it seems there is. DrWho42 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd be suspicious of anything on IMDb, but since there's photos for comparison, it might be alright. ThuranX 02:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Inmate (played by [[Dot Jones]][?]) 

message: Each of the paragraphs in this section has weasel words: "There has been a fair amount of criticism', "While several posts at the Sci Fi Channel forums have claimed... others maintain", "might lend support to the theory that the show is pre-scripted".  The only citation for these opinions is the Sci-Fi Forum, but a forum is not a credible source.  So, I added the "weasel word" warning.  Has any professional TV critic who might be cited raised these criticisms?  Primogen 21:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A professional critic probably hasn't and won't. As for what appears to be a case of turning Wikipedia into a soapbox, I'll be happy to reformat if not remove this section to improve the article. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 22:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it looks like outright removal will not be necessary. However, citing a forum is, of course, inappropriate in general. I don't think "might lend support to the theory that the show is pre-scripted." is so bad, but I've changed the wording, there, too. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 23:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the re-write is far less weaselly, more solidly cited, adn still gets to the heart of the issues previously included, with less fannish whining. good work, Ace. ThuranX 00:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy and Criticism Weasel Words 

message: Will some 1 please be kind enough to put this on the main page for me please? And please leave the pictures in this order since thats how the're introduse in the opening of the show. DJD23 00:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These pictures are all targeted to be deleted until copyright information is confirmed.  So, unless that happens very soon, don't bother putting them on the main page. Primogen 01:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: NO! those are ALL copyvio. Putting any one probably would be fair use, but one alone is pointless. Adding all is Copyvio. They should be speedy deleted, and if someone would post that link, i'll vote as such. Don't fill this article with pointless images. ThuranX 01:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Pictures

message: I remeber seeing a few commercals on SciFi the night the show started that where sponosred by SciFi and, if I correctly recall, Darkhorse. The commercaials seemed to have Superhero much like Feedback, very similar in costume/colors. I haven't seen the commercial since, and I was wondering about that. It might start to be shown again after the final episode. Anyone else know anything about this?
216.250.13.30 01:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was 'LIghtspeed', Stan Lee's first film for Sci-Fi. ThuranX 01:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie Commercial 

message: ThuranX, i'm not sure why you reverted my edit (with a snarky comment to boot). the comment is not obviously "cryptic" when taken in context and properly quoted. the quote currently in this article is a paraphrase, not a direct quote, and obscures the meaning of the original post rather than illuminating it. since the comment she made is not universally "cryptic", it seems to me that some explanation of the context of the comment is helpful, rather than a problem. obviously, you may see things differently, but that doesn't mean that an explanation of the context should be removed. Whateley23 11:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All you added was some babble about how her 'reality brainwashing' snark was probably related to some 'choas magic' thing. You didn't actually say SHE tied the idea to HER philosophy about choas magic. so it stays out. that's why. Introducing some esoteric worldview doesn't make it encyclopedic. ThuranX 00:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm trying to be understanding of your position and assume that you are acting in good faith, but your use of inflammatory language like "some babble" isn't making it easy. i did, in fact, note that she specifically, in her blog entry, discussed the idea that "brainwashing" is connected to her "studies in magick". knowing a bit about that subculture, i understood the context and explained it. to be clear, what she said, when understood in the jargon she's using, isn't "snark" about reality television, but is a description of how she approached the competition. in addition, it's fairly apparent that the reason that you aren't understanding her comment and that it is so cryptic to you is that you aren't trying to understand what she's said, but are instead trying to impose your point of view on it. so, i'm going to put it back - that you aren't understanding what she said (and it's starting to look, from your poor attitude here, that it is more intransigence on your part) doesn't mean that everyone doesn't. if explaining jargon isn't "encyclopedic" then nothing is. Whateley23 05:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: i have no objections to that. the only connection i can potentially see is to illuminate the mindset of one of the contestants. Whateley23 10:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tonya Kay's "Cryptic" Comment 

message: Okay...let me just say...WTF? Is this all just speculation? First off, what's the reason for Fat Momma's supposed elimination? Second, If you're gonna add "Episode 6", add a summary, no matter how short or at least mention what little you know, like a TV guide tidbit. We don't need a "placeholder". Third, if I'm not mistaken, this information and episode should not have debuted yet. I'm getting really tired of people claiming they have an "inside source". ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode 6 updates 

message: Does anyone out there think this show will go into season two because I think it will because the last episode was called a season final it did not say it was the series final
Superx
:It can be assumed that opened ended insistance on referring to "season" rather "series" implies that the possibility was or is in consideration, but it's best we not speculate, especially in the article. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 2? 

message: I've cleaned up the Contestant Links section, it was becoming a mess.  It's out of order, though, as I'm unsure what would be best; arranging in order of eleimination forwards or backwards, or perhaps alphabetizing by character name or contestant name?  Any ideas?
Also, worth noting is Ty'Veculus apparently also has this site (link found on Monkey Woman's links page) but there is nothing there yet.  If that site ever does get content posted it would complete the list, as he is the only contestant without a link. Rob T Firefly 16:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contestant Links 

message: I apologize, when I changed the image size that was honestly all I was trying to do--I was a bit befuddled because I couldn't figure out when the image had changed, as I had seen a different image on the page previously and on all previous versions of the page I could only find the "new" image, and I think I may have inadvertently edited an old version of the page when searching.  It was not a "sneaky" way of putting in edits I wanted, as another editor put it, but it was certainly my mistake, which I didn't intend at all, and I do apologize. -Shannernanner 15:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine, dude. Sorry for not assuming good faith. Some people do make those sorts of edits, and often. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand, I just wanted to explain, it was certainly not intended at all.  If I had wanted to make such changes, I would say so.  No hard feelings. :-) -Shannernanner 04:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: I don't think we need a gigantic garish chart. The outs are summarized in the character/cast list, and in the episode summaries. The chart is huge and to my eye, very disruptive.ThuranX 15:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an easy way to track who was nominated when, and who completed challenges without reading the gigantic garish paragraphs below. Quick reference is good. ~  PHDrillSergeant...§ 04:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading is an easier way which doesn't break up the page read. The chart is really ugly, it's really big ,and it's entirely redundant to mutli-editor written character and episode summaries. We don't need it. I appredciate that lots of work went into it, but I think it should go. ThuranX 02:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current chart is succinct and informative. Keep it. -- -- BBlackmoor (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart 

message: What happened to the bits about how the show seems fake and what-not? That was kind of the highlight of the article...
:It was unsourced, innaccurate and highly POV.--CyberGhostface 20:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Has the movie name been released yet? I see Matthew/Feedback is listed on IMDB as having completed a movie called Young Single & Angry, but it doesnt seem like a superhero movie. And nothing is listed there as even being in production. Anyone know anything about it? M8gen 07:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing yet, we will link to that movie's page from here when it starts getting made. ThuranX 11:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Movie

message: Well, while dealing with an attempt to section the episodes by season, I realized that we may have to overhauled content based on the apparent return. Almost all content here is based solely on the first season, so we'd have to alter the main article to be more like that of most reality TV series. To this end, I'd propose moving contestants, progession chart(s) and episodes to "Who Wants to be a Superhero? <subject>" articles. For example, Who Wants to Be a Superhero? contestants would have the people, charts and contestant-specific external links. Episodes at Who Wants to Be a Superhero? episodes. The rest would just be a matter of revising/summarizing the main article's "body", especially the intro and top box. Alternately, we could make "Who Wants to Be a Superhero? <season>" articles, but I think that would be undoubtably worse as each season would be starting off barren. Plus, only a second season has been confirmed. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second season alterations 

message: As of this date, I think this article is excellent. It is informative, concise, neutral, and verifiable. I think it wouls be enhanced by the addition of photos of the contestants (I find it sad that Wikipedia has fewer images than most modern real encyclopedias, when by any reasonable criteria it ought to have more), but I understand the difficulty involved in that. Kudos to the editors who helped write and refine this article. -- -- BBlackmoor (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: well done