Talk:List of Heroes episodes/Archive 1

message: Are multiple versions of episodes airing? Some of these descriptions contain events that did not appear in the version I saw.
:No idea, but the descriptions I see are of the shows I saw.--Kranar drogin 10:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be that the Canadian version is different from the American version, it could be that you are referring to the first airing of the pilot compared to subsequent version (which were trimmed in length for commercial breaks,) and it's possible that the Sci-Fi channel's version in the US is slightly different then the NBC version in the US (also due to commercial breaks.) --DJ Chair 13:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Versions of Episodes 

message: The Sci-Fi Channel schedule lists the 7th episode as "Nothing to Hide," not "Nothing to Lose."  Also, the following episode is listed as "Seven Minutes to Midnight."--MythicFox 08:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode Titles 

message: Shouldn't we follow some type of naming convention here?  I mean, what seems to make the most sense is to place the name of the episode, and then the name of the series.  Having Hiros listed as just Hiros is going to follow some people up. --DJ Chair 21:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not "make the most sense". Naming conventions of Wikipedia are about clarity, disambiguation and accuracy. No other articles for "Hiros" eliminates the need for disambiguation. Clarity is achieved by naming the episode properly. Accuracy over rules the supposed benefits of adding "Heroes episode" to the end of every article title. "Hiroes" is accurate. "Genesis (Heroes episode)" is not, but forgetable. Honestly... Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Consistency seems to be the best approach and so appending (Heroes episode) seems logical. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you DJ Chair!  I totally agree with you.  We have been having a discussion over at Hiros exactly about that.   I think Clarity is HELPED, not hindered by (Heroes episode) after the title.  I'd be okay with (Heroes) as well, as it helps immediately clarify that its part of a TV series. EnsRedShirt 22:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree. --Kmsiever 16:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with EnsRedShirt. --Elonka 03:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that was random and...uh..."late". I wonder what brough this on... Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 08:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: So, go against project guidelines for pointless, POV, pre-emptive reasons? Unnecessary. I won't have any part in that. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case the project guidelines are wrong, short sighted, and need a change.  It makes no sense why you are so against these being formated similarly so we can keep a constant look across all related articles. EnsRedShirt 05:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's not necessary. Plus, things don't generally conform to "universal format". Not every comics-related article has "(comics)" at the end of it. Not every DC, Marvel, et cetera property has their at the end of their article. Why should every episode of a TV show have "([series] episode)" at the end of it? Because you say so? No. "Hiros" is the first use of that name. Seven Minutes to Midnight will be the first use of that one. And that reminds me, adding that extra "Heroes episode" will be a bitch with longer episode titles. Honestly, open your mind. I've considered your POVs and the only benefits of your "system" are, as I stated above, pointless, biased, against policy or a combination thereof. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry that creating a better looking, easier to read Encyclopedia creates a little more work.. (yea those extra 9 key strokes are killers.)  EnsRedShirt 05:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually only (Heroes) would be appended not (Heroes episode) -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  06:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, it's worth getting as much participation in this discussion as possible.  All interested editors are invited to come in and participate in the poll. --Elonka 23:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Episodes 

message: According to here if there is no disambiguation needed then the series name need not be included.  That said most shows now include the series name by default for two reasons; one it makes it standard across the board and two it prevents future disambiguation issues.  So the format I would recomend we use is <Episode Title>_(Heroes) on every episode for consistancy and to prevent potential future issues. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  05:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, go against project guidelines for pointless, POV, pre-emptive reasons? Unnecessary. I won't have any part in that. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case the project guidelines are wrong, short sighted, and need a change.  It makes no sense why you are so against these being formated similarly so we can keep a constant look across all related articles. EnsRedShirt 05:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's not necessary. Plus, things don't generally conform to "universal format". Not every comics-related article has "(comics)" at the end of it. Not every DC, Marvel, et cetera property has their at the end of their article. Why should every episode of a TV show have "([series] episode)" at the end of it? Because you say so? No. "Hiros" is the first use of that name. Seven Minutes to Midnight will be the first use of that one. And that reminds me, adding that extra "Heroes episode" will be a bitch with longer episode titles. Honestly, open your mind. I've considered your POVs and the only benefits of your "system" are, as I stated above, pointless, biased, against policy or a combination thereof. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry that creating a better looking, easier to read Encyclopedia creates a little more work.. (yea those extra 9 key strokes are killers.)  EnsRedShirt 05:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually only (Heroes) would be appended not (Heroes episode) -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  06:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Wikipedia Standard

message: The RfC has been posted, since the issue has come up for Jericho, Heroes and Lost (probably others as well) I have put in a singly topic which you can read and discuss here  -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status: 14:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it's worth getting as much participation in this discussion as possible.  All interested editors are invited to come in and participate in the poll. --Elonka 23:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I've Posted an RfC

message: Since the episode synopses here are (so far) the word-for-word one that NBC gives out weeks before an episode air, they don't quite qualify as spoilers to my way of thinking.  For me, a spoiler is the revelation of a surprise plot twist or a story's ending, and putting the warning at the beginning of every plot synopis or description ruins the point of having a warning in the first place, which is allow people to find out what the story but giving them an opportunity to skip over the biggest surprises.  In any case, does anyone object to having the spoiler warning removed here? Primogen 01:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler Warning 

message: The episode descriptions, which currently are based on the synopses provided by NBC, are nevertheless inaccurrate.  It looks like some describe plot points from near the end of previous episodes that aren't really dealt with in the current episode.  Since NBC was trying to avoid giving spoilers before the episode air, the descriptions are also a bit coy for an encylopedia.  If someone has the time and ambition, could they check these for accuracy against the episode articles? Primogen 23:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy of episode descriptions 

message: What are the sources for the titles of 112, 113, and 114?  --Milo H Minderbinder 20:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the first two are consistently used by most sites. TV.com, however mentions, Nothing to Lose as "Prod 115". Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for episode titles 

message: Zap2It.com wrote a story on NBC & Netflix teaming up to offer a special DVD which recaps the first half of the season, as well as previews of two new NBC shows.  I think it's based on this press release.  Should this information appear in this article or the main article?  The story also mentions NBC is showing a one-hour catch-up episode prior to the new episode on January 22.  Does anyone see a new episode title floating out there so we can add it to the episode list? fmmarianicolon | Talk 19:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how any of this in important, let alone encyclopedic. "Relevant"? Maybe. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like good info to me.  Most TV show main pages have DVD sections, you could do something like The_4400#DVD_releases. - Peregrine Fisher 22:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really a traditional DVD release, more of a recap. It's like...a homemade tape. You guys can do what you want, but it doesn't seem like something to put in the 'pedia. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NBC & Netflix offer special 11-episode recap DVD 

message: It looks to me like some or all of these summaries have been copied from other sites such as tv.com.  Check out these google searches:  .  Should we remove them all, or can someone determine some of them are OK? - Peregrine Fisher 04:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check it yourself. These summaries are all widely released and circulated, from what I understand. I doubt TV.com wrote them, let alone copyrighted them. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No excuse to copy the material.  Material is by default copyrighted so without a statement of release as public domain or copyleft then it can only be assumed that it is owned by someone and wikipedia doesn't have rights to it.  Summaries found to be copies should be blanked and written anew.  Cburnett 05:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced them all with stub summaries. - Peregrine Fisher 19:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: - I don't see anything saying production code ... :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out the URL you just posted - "http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/episodes/season1/101/". Each episode is under a respective "101, "102", etc. --Ckatzchatspy 19:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a directory, and it means nothing, it could just as easily mean: season1episode01. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Side note: Does it actually add anything to the article either way? Production codes might be useful if episodes were aired wrongly for example, however in this case it just seems trivial (WP:AVTRIV) and if cited would it not be better on the episode page? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: They can't be the way they were since those were copyright violations.  Feel free to write longer ones, we're all editors here.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summaries have been copied from other sites 

message: Why are you reverting the summaries Ace Class Shadow?  Have you read the Images section above? - Peregrine Fisher 00:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For future reference, work on the punctuation. Also, this talk page is best used to address the article and all of its editors as whole. Still, since you asked so nicely, I'll tell you. Several the attempted expansions utilizing poor grammar, spelling and—wait for it...!—punctuation. I try to correct what I can, and I'll gladly leave any good contributions alone. However, when someone, intentionally or otherwise, damages the quality of the article, I feel obligated to do something. Maybe you'd rather have large content over quality, but that's not what makes a good article. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting summaries 

message: Another problem I've having here is trying to determine exactly how many episodes there are in Season One. At first I read 11, then 13. Then I read elsewhere that it was 15 (tv.com, I think it was), and now they say 18. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!! This is starting to annoy the crap out of me. Where exactly should I go, or who exactly should I call/write to get a straight and final answer? Sweetfreek 02:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this interview, twenty-four. Perhaps we should state something to that effect, so people like you won't have to go pulling their hair out. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds more like either 18 or 23. Sweetfreek 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to read between the lines a little, but trust me, it's twenty-four. (eleven plus seven plus five) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly did u get 24 from 11 + 7 + 5? Z3u2 20:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: He's right thats 23. Bio 21:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Total Number of Episodes

message: Most of the images here are very dark. (#1, #3-#5, #7-#11) It would be nice if someone could either adjust the way they are capturing these or choose more visible frames; the research utility of these images is reduced if a reader can't quickly figure out what they are. I don't have convenient access to original source for these. Avt tor 17:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see them fine. Also images should not be lightened as that makes them look fake and crappy and (obviously) the shows producers/etc did not intend the show to be viewed like that. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The much larger versions of the original files are easier to look at, but they don't all reduce well for the purpose of list icons. (They're also pretty large for fair use, i.e. they contain a large percentage of the information from the original image, but that's a minor quibble.) Television itself is a moving-picture medium; viewers obtain information from motion that isn't available in a still frame. A web page is a different medium; images that are going to appear on a white background can't be mostly-dark rectangles (this is a long-established methodology among book photo researchers). I'm interested in what other people think. Avt tor 18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Less then 50% of the original size I find to be web resolution, we don't actually have a set-in-stone limit, I however always resize my images to around the 680px mark, I find that to be a good resolution, generally most images don't need to be rendered higher then ~300px, but if your like me when you click the image you expect it to be larger so you can see the frame better. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Avt tor - many of these images could either be improved or changed for more suitable ones. Matthew, keep in mind that the producers/directors/editors etc. composed the images for viewing on a typical television screen in a living room setup, not for viewing as a postage-stamp-sized object on a smaller computer monitor. Resizing the screen grabs for Wikipedia lists changes how they appear, and we have to tke that into account - even if that requires getting different images specifically for this article. (BTW, I'm looking at the small images on a properly adjusted, well-maintained pro monitor right now - and they're definitely dark.) --Ckatzchatspy 18:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see some of then lightened as well.  If not simple brightening then perhaps some curve adjustment to get more dynamic range in the colors to bring out the contrast.  Doesn't have to be a lot... Cburnett 19:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Addressing only the point about size: I agree that the graphics should be larger than what appears in the list, merely because an editor can't be 100% certain of the eternal look of a particular page. My opinion is that an icon which is going to be 125 pixels wide does not need to be much more than 200-300 pixels when it's uploaded. If I were involved in a show, I might feel slightly stepped on for anything more detailed than that. However, this is a small issue, most people aren't going to click on the image, and for myself, I would not bother to change any existing graphics just because of size. Avt tor 00:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dark images

message: I protected this page to get people talking on here instead of in edit summaries. Please work this out using dispute resolution if necessary. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 16:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No dispute resolution is needed, we have a consensus, one guy does not wish to abide by it, hence disruption. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this has been discussed at great length on this very page if you look above.  There's a clear consensus and a single editor unilaterally editing in opposition to it.  I'm not exactly sure where a single editor violating 3RR and reverting a number of other editors resulted in a page protection instead of just blocking the disruptive editor.  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Requested unprotection. Cburnett 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Looking at WP:FU, it seems the clause Cyde and Ed are concerned about is "identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose."  As long as the image identifies the subject of an article (the image identifies that specific episode) and/or specifically illustrates the text, there's no reason to delete it.  If/when the image is deleted, we need to make sure it meets this criteria, which may mean adjusting either text or images to make sure that one unquestionably illustrates the other.  Cyde and/or Ed, correct me if I'm misinterpreting your reason for removing images (so far Ed has refused to answer questions about this on his talk page).  If either of you could provide an example of an article that uses a fair use screenshot in a way you feel meets fair use well, that would be much appreciated.  Thanks  Update - obviously this applies to all article screenshots as well as this page, please take a look and make any required updates.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A thing to do instead of adding (as shown in the image above) would be to move the image into context with the plot like they do at Doctor Who. I did try this once however another user reverted me. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's something we can try, although if the text discusses the image that would seem to be enough, FU doesn't seem to say that the text it illustrates must be right next to the image.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, all we have to do is to rewrite the episode descriptions here to illistrate what the picture is showing us? That shouldn't be too hard. It might mean a slightly longer description, but it's possible. dposse 21:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have zero problems with longer summaries. Cburnett 22:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ed, you are being disruptive now stop, you may decree that because you believe them to be invalid fair use then they must be, however that does not make them so and the general consensus is you are wrong. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is so disruptive about expressing my opinion on a talk page? You can shout consensus for as long as you like but it's not going to stop the inevitable. ed g2s • talk 22:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides the fact that you are causing problems instead of working with everyone to help solve one? Nothing. dposse 22:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again - I fail to see how that last comment caused any new problem. Unless you are voicing a general "stop it" towards me trying to enforce our Fair Use policy, in which case: no. ed g2s • talk 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it's your interpretation of policy that has been REPEATEDLY stated that you are wrong about.  If policy were wrong this would obviously be the wrong place to discuss that.  Cburnett 01:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ed, could you provide an example of a screenshot that you consider to be used correctly in terms of fair use?  I wouldn't jump to conclusions yet, there may be many deletions in many categories of media, but there certainly are cases where images improperly used may have their use corrected instead of being deleted.  The decision on whether a given image is being used properly or not isn't to be made by one editor, but is something that requires judgement and therefore consensus.  Current policy says that screenshots are fine if used properly, and the latest edict from the board doesn't seem to contradict that.  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like the screenshot on Citizen Kane is a good example of an academic use of such material. ed g2s • talk 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh stop pretending to be the victim and acting like all you've done here is discuss on the talk page.  All you've done on this article is disrupt it with your interpretation of policy (to which the majority agrees that your interpretation is wrong).  Cburnett 00:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was clearly referring to that comment only - to which Matthew protested "stop it". ed g2s • talk 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he called you disruptive.  Clearly your revert warring on the article is what he was referring to. Cburnett 01:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, the pictures for the episode articles for Lost (TV series) and 24 (TV series) are also somehow against the rules as well? If that's so, why haven't they been deleted or taken down as you claim they should be? dposse 03:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images again 

message: I think the hints about what happens next episode should be a little more vague. For example, one episode says that a female charater dies. This seems to be giving away just a little much, as the episode has not even aired yet. Bio 21:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do not wish to be spoiled do not read past the warning. Really I keep telling people this repeatedly: Wikipedia contains spoilers, do not look if you do not wish to be "spoiled"! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Contains spoilers, yes. Has to have them everywhere, including places people might not expect them to be - no. There's nothing unreasonable about keeping the text vague for an episode that hasn't aired yet. (Especially given that until it airs, we don't necessarily have verifiability for the details.) --Ckatzchatspy 22:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the text should be changed to simply "A hero dies", or something similar? Bio 22:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That'll still pee-off a fair amount of spoiler trolls, the only way to please them I expect is to write "Some stuff happens.. and some major stuff." thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing unreasonable about not wanting to get spoiled about FUTURE episodes in an article call "List of Heroes episodes". If you want to include spoilers, put them in the article for the episode where someone would have a reasonable expectation of getting information about an episode that hasn't aired yet. I don't understand why the "spoiler sluts" on Wikipedia insist on ruining surprises for everyone else. 65.121.137.134 01:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You shouldn't be here if you do not wish to be spoiled, simple as, Wikipedia is not censored. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Matthew, "censorship" is very, very different from what we are discussing here. The censorship guidelines are with respect to social and moral values, as well as "good taste". This discussion is about revealing plot details for a television show before it airs. --Ckatzchatspy 09:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly censorship, if it is accurately cited and factual then it belongs here, if people do not wish to be spoiled then they should not look at the pages, after all, they do contain big honking spoiler warnings. Complaining to try and get stuff removed for personal dislikes is censorship. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And in this case it's not accurately cited so we have no way of knowing it's factual.  Removing it isn't censorship, it's just cleaning up potential OR.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  and the operative word there is: if. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there's a spoiler warning and a reasonable person would expect spoilers for *only what's aired*. It's not about censorship; it's about being a douchebag who's intent on ruining other people's enjoyment. 65.121.137.134 15:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Aside from the spoiler issue, what's the source for the summaries of future episodes?  A paraphrase of the official summary is probably fine, but something from a rumor site wouldn't be RS.  Seriously, listing potential characters who could be the one who dies?  NBC says there's a death in the promos, where does "female" come from?  --Milo H Minderbinder 22:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Future summaries should be limited to what's known.  (I think that almost goes without saying.  WP:OR & WP:NOT#CRYSTAL.) Cburnett 01:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Give Aways 

message: i missed heroes this monday (the 28th, a week after the finale) and i just wanted to know if their airing reruns now or the heroes origins mini series. cuz the whole thing on origins didnt quite explain itself too much.--Late Leo 14:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reruns? 

message: please put the names of the directors + writers 89.217.24.134 06:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, please put the director names....so we don't have to keep clicking the episode titles for the directors.... Sstrieu 20:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Why aren't the director names listed yet???? Sstrieu 23:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Saw that the directors are now listed. Thanks! Sstrieu 04:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  information 

message: I have gotten this article semi-protected, hopefully this will prevent (at least most) people from changing the air dates. --WillMak050389 22:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: "Distractions", "Run!", "Unexpected", and "Company Man" (and even "Six Months Ago") all have excessively long plot summaries. I agree that it is importinat to ,mention all of the significant occurrences  in a given episode, but Wikipedia is not the place for scene-by-scene verbatim reproduction of every episode. Pages such as "Godsend" and "The Fix" are examples of reasonable-length articles. We should work together to ensure that we don't go overboard in our episode summaries. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 18:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary length redux 

message: i think that season 1 has 23 episodes planned for so should we post blank entrys to show that?
:Where did you here that?  I haven't seen anything saying there would be 23 episodes, and besides, most tv shows only have 20 episodes. Arwen undomiel 17:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Entries should only be placed once there is verifiable information, i.e. TBA cells are unneeded. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: actually, the first season will have 22. it was announced when they said they would pick heroes up for a full season... -Xornok 17:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Further to the above, shows tend to have 22-24 shows per season. Sci-Fi has done a number of 20-episode seasons, for Stargate and BSG, but the major nets usually go a bit longer. --Ckatzchatspy 17:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In an interview from Wizard Universe (TV Q&A: HEROES—TIM KRING), Tim Kring states Volume I (which spans all of season 1) will have 23 episodes.  Jeff Loeb adds in another Wizard Universe interview (TV Q&A: HEROES—JEPH LOEB) that NBC wanted more episodes but there wasn't enough time to produce more than 23.   - fmmarianicolon | Talk 20:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct.  There will be a total of twenty-three episodes this season.  Thus it makes sense to post TBA entries for the final five of the season.  I know how much trouble it was for me to find out when the season finale was.  Having the info on Wikipedia makes it a lot easier. -alongwaltz 16:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  episodes number

message: The list has the Air date for 119 as April 23 but the two referencing pages both list episode 119 as airing next week, I'm wondering if anyone has a reference for the delayed air date? It doesn't seem very appropriate to show that kind of break in the schedule without any reference. -Tomaszkolo 03:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there is.  It is April 23.    Arwen undomiel 03:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 119 Air date

message: There is some information avalible about episode 20. We know that it takes place at least partially in the future (5 years hence) and that most of the heroes will be dead in this possible future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.189.155.40 (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ..... -Xornok 05:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't want to believe it, but he's right. At least about the future bit. Jack Colemanhttp://www.tvguide.com/News-Views/Columnists/Ask-Ausiello/default.aspx and Greg Grunberghttp://www.avclub.com/content/node/59134 have both said it. The Coleman bit is second-hand(from a radio interview), but Greg's statement is word for word. Huh. Five years later. Weird. Valaqil 20:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: in perspective it's not really the weirdest or least plausible thing on the show. it's likely the future hiro is now visiting.130.126.130.178 16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode 20 

message: It is not just TV.com giving information about .07%, so would people please stop removing info on the episode?  http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/photos/general/ and many other reliable  sites have talked about .07%  Arwen undomiel 19:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added references to official photos from NBC and the news report from CBR. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 20:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  .07% 

message: when does the first season end and when it does well there be others? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.89.117 (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first season will end with the next episode, ".07%". A second season has already been announced by NBC. dposse 16:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ??? I'm presuming you meant after five more episodes... the next batch starts with .07%, followed by four more. --Ckatzchatspy 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct--the season finale isn't until May 21.  Arwen undomiel 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 

message: http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=40615
According to Sci-Fi Wire, see link above.
Episode 22: "Landslide"
Episode 23: "How to stop an Exploding Man"
http://www.herosite.net/herositespoilers.htm
and from HeroSite.net
Episode 20: "String Theory
Episode 21: "The Hard Part" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heroesfan40 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think we need to remove them.  There are now several reliable sites naming the next four episodes, the sources cited in the article are just a few.  Arwen undomiel 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I found a reference at heroestheseries.com which redirected to scifi.com. Scifi.com is a fairly reliable source, I would say. Valaqil 13:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Can someone make a general icon for the future episodes like the one in the List of Jericho episodes? -- Magioladitis 19:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New episode titles 

message: Ed's trying it at List of The Wire episodes now (removing them), he's also trying to get the FUC reworded to effectively "ban" screen captures, Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Screenshots_2. Matthew 15:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screen captures and fair use 

message: There is discussion at WP:AN/I#Fancruft_issue_again, and an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man that is attempting to create a precedent disallowing individual episodes. - Peregrine Fisher 18:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Peregrine Fisher and User:Matthew are attempting to vote stack this AfD by telling other users that this AfD will effect unrelated episode articles. This AfD is only about this set of articles, and stands on it's own. AfD is not a vote. Editors coming here to support a different show's set of episode articles should take the time to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man situation individually. -- Ned Scott 18:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt to create precedent disallowing individual episodes 

message: There's presently a discussion at WP:AN in regards to image usage in LOEs. With several having gone as far to edit war in the hopes of removing images. You are invited to participate and give opinions, so that another consensus (of many) may be reached, again. Matthew 12:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this looks so empty now.--156.56.151.21 00:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it looks kinda depressing.Toxic Ninja 00:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Could someone please give me a link to the discussion? Jakk55 18:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of images in LOEs 

message: The summary for season 2 is wrong, the reference link cannot be followed because it says "http://http" and even after following it,to  Kristin's blog, nowhere does it say anything close to the summary given. Can some admin correct this?
And Why is the page protected, I mean the season is over and I am guessing there will be less vandalism, isn't it? eZio 06:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The season ends on May 21, as far as the comment above this page, the page was protected so people stopped editing the air dates. Vicco Lizcano 14:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops! Wonder why I thought that the season is done! eZio 14:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I fixed the http://http typo.  Cburnett 15:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you also fix reference link number 4, it doesn't point to anything eZio 09:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cburnett 12:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Season 2

message: At the bottom, under season 2, I think it should be "M.O." or "MO" and should link to "Modus operandi" instead of the current "m.o."  HOwever, I cannot edit. DrIdiot 22:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen it abbreviated as m.o. in the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy.  I'm pretty sure it could be abbreviated either way, but it should be abbreviated to MO to ensure continuity with Modus operandi.  Arwen undomiel 00:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cburnett 12:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see the link to "Modus operandi", or has it been reverted?
I would also think that the "'cause" should be changed to "because" as per an attempt at some sort of formality in the writing.  Thanks!  Michaeloz 17:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  typo 

message: could someone update the first sentence to show 21 episodes aired? thankee you..... Purples 04:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll unprotect the page. Please do not add the images back without project-wide consensus. CMummert · talk
Done. Cburnett 01:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Episode.... 

message: Edits were made in good faith.
Sources:
http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/episodes/season1/105/
http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/episodes/season1/119/--unsigned
:Those links don't make the titles wrong, just shows the NBC web team didn't proof-read. Matthew 09:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode titles (105 and 119) revert 

message: In 5 days (June 25, 2007) I will be redirecting any Heroes episode articles that do not have "real-world context and sourced analysis" as per WP:NOT#IINFO to List of Heroes episodes.  I also posted this notice to WikiProject Heroes talk page, please comment there to keep the discussion in one place.  Thank you. --Phirazo 17:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to Gwinva's note here. There is a proper process for reviewing episode articles, as defined through WP:EPISODE. Five days notice plus blind redirection will only cause problems, especially since the Heroes project already has plans for improving the articles. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode Summaries and [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|What Wikipedia is not]]

message: The part under Season 2 about Tim Kring's interview with the Guardian is totally false. There has been no such interview. I've checked.
Uwaisis 12:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tim Kring Interview With The Guardian 

message: Hi, I'm new. I was just wondering if there should be a plot summary page for the unaired pilot on the season one DVD. Also, I was wondering if there should be a list and short description of the deleted scenes, perhaps on the pages of the episodes they were deleted from. --Lord of Narf 23:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The unaired piolot could be of some interest on the main Heroes page and maybe this page, however deleted scenes arn't needed.--Wiggstar69 23:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never Before Aired Piolot and Deleted Scenes 

message: It states, "Takezo Kensei (new series regular David Anders)" Please remove that, I doubt that David Anders will be playing Takezo Kensei. Also, other sites state that his character will be named kane?
??????
I guess it was correct afterall
But wtf, why does the good asian guy always turn out to be a white guy? (ie, the last samurai)......
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.8.8.182 (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Season Episode 1 

message: LOOKING FOR HEROES TRIVIA.
70.48.242.206 04:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maya J 

message: Hello.  I am new.  Not sure how to sign.  Anyway, someone keeps deleting the chart with the episode titles and sources that I have been reposting.  I am assuming they delete it because I have not cited a source.  So, here is my source.  Can someone please tag it on to the chart so that it wont be deleted again.  My source is from NBC.com and has episode titles and previews and blurbs and list who will star in that episode.  here is the link from nbc,
http://nbcumv.com/entertainment/storylines.nbc/heroes.html
http://nbcumv.com/entertainment/storylines.nbc/heroes.html
http://nbcumv.com/entertainment/storylines.nbc/heroes.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.220.243 (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, your sources are to the Futon Critic. Which mentions only one episode title. Which I've reverted multiple times. So stop it. Will (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: At the end of your statment type 4 tildes together (~) and it will sign it for you Mjrmtg 20:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future episode sources 

message: episode 6 will be called
the line
the source is http://nbcumv.com/entertainment/storylines.nbc/heroes.html 
over AT NBC--76.168.220.243 05:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  episode 6 title and details 

message: write it down in the plot box thing.also, there needs to be a better link to the episode summary. the title of the episode is "kindred" not "kindred spirits"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.148.8 (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kindred- Sylar returns 

message: If I recall correctly, Tim Kring or someone else stated that Volume Two will not comprise the entirety of the second season (additionally, Vol. 2 technically began in HtSaEM). Based on this, I don't think we should be equating seasons to volumes by stating their titles in the contents box. I think there is a place for the Volume information, but I don't know specifically what it is. --iTocapa t 01:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Volume three began in the last episode, did it not? Or perhaps the one before it. Matthew 07:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Volume two started with both HtSaEM and FML. If you hadn't noticed, Heroes overlaps its cliffhangers and episode starts a lot. Will (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season != Volume 

message: The second season's color is currently grey, which blends into the page.  Can we get a new one?  Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 23:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to metallic gold (I'm trying to replicate the eclipse). Will (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've updated the colour again as I don't believe that the "replication" went very well with the page. I've used a pastel black. Matthew 16:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why are the colours so emo? Could we make em like blue and green? (Wikirocks2 06:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we write crappy poetry, wear girls jeans and listen to FOB. Will (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Haha, very funny! (Wikirocks2 (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color 

message: Edit box was too small:
I see no reliable/official sources on the article that indicate that either Season/Volume 2 will end on December 3, 2007. The strike may not even effect Heroes beyond Origind being shelved; we cannot speculate the length or effects of the strike. Will (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Season 2 consists of volumes 2 and 3.  Season 2 was picked up for 24 total episodes with Volume 2 coming to an end after 11, which airs Dec 3.  Regardless if there is a strike or not volume 2 ends Dec 3.  However, its unclear when volume 3 will resume again due to the strike. Grande13 20:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the source. Will (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert explanation. 

message: I think there needs to be a general guide for the episode plot summary. Some are in the order of character plot events while other are in chronological order for the episode. At best can it be decided what format to use when posting the plot summary on an episode page? Macgyver Tape 20:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're talking about individual episode articles, it should be noted that work is on progress to overhaul all of the episodes' plot summaries, but it isn't yet very far along. When I was condensing them, I tried to condense each character's story into a single paragraph. For the most part, I ordered them by first appearance in the particular episode, except where it needed to be done otherwise to mesh well with the entire summary. --iTocapa t 03:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  episode summary format 

message: ...I just thought that since this is a "List of Episodes" page, Heroes: Origins isn't needed. The summary already is on the main page...why repeat it? Since there is no longer going to be any episodes (in the near future anyways) I think it should be removed. (Wikirocks2 08:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, point taken. Battlestar Galactica: The Resistance is only mentioned once in the BSG LOE, not ten times. Will (talk) 11:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, cool. (Wikirocks2 05:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored (and rewritten) the text. Sorry, but it is directly relevant to the article. --Ckatzchatspy 07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just don't understand why we need it. It is just repeating info for no reason. (Wikirocks2 08:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are we repeatig the origins info soooooo much?  i mean, it is on the main page and then it has a seperate page.  it needs to be removed. honestly, if someone needed info on origins, why would they come to the episode page when they could just click the origins link on the heroes template.  on the main page, their was a discussion to more origins from the plot summary section to production and the change was made.  same change here.  especially since the info on origins is word for word the same as the main page.  I say delete the information.  pointless info on the wrong page.  no eps have been produced, therefore, it is irrevelant to this page.I say delete the information Agree or disagree?--Chrisisinchrist 04:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There, it's been rewritten to focus directly on the connection to season two, the desire to avoid the ratings slide in season one, and the fact it is now on hold. Details about the series itself are removed, as the main article covers them. This should address any concerns voices above, while retaining relevant, sourced information. --Ckatzchatspy 10:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rewording is much much better.  Now the section serves an encyclopedic purpose, rather that just repeating info. great compromise user: CKATZ.  I think this is better.--Chrisisinchrist 18:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heroes: Origins 

message: That source was obviously wrong. The third volume will be called "Villains", not "Exodus". Anyone who just saw the ending to "Powerless" saw this to be true. Once Greg Beeman gets a new blog post up, then we can source it properly. dposse 03:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volume Three: Villains. 

message: I have noticed that for a lot of new shows, a ratings table for individualy episodes has been put into the "list of episodes" page. I think this would be great for Heroes. Most of the individual articles already have the ratings and sources ready, so all we would have to do is insert them in the table. We may not be able to find ratings for all episodes straight away, but I believe if we work together we can do it.....wow that sounded so inspirational! ;) Well what do we think? (Wikirocks2 (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the episode articles, there seems to be no sources for the ratings. :( Now we have double the work. :( (Wikirocks2 (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: they usually have ratings section per season.  like a season one ratings, season two and so on and so fourth.  we have only had one complete season of heroes, so it probably would be wise to wait until at least the end of season two.  put if you are talking about an episode by episode ratings chart, i like that.  but, i dont know if anyone would support it.  maybe you should take this conversation to the main page of the project page so more people can repsond and give their opinions on the matter.  --Chrisisinchrist (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that I had already responded to this.  Maybe I forgot to hit "save page"…  Anyway, I can get on this in the next few days.  Do we want an extra column or a separate table?  –thedemonhog talk • edits 08:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that the seperate table is more clearer and concise. It makes comparing ratings easier. Thanks for doing this and if you need any help I'm always here. (Wikirocks2 (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Always?  Well, that's kind of creepy.  ;)  I prefer an extra column, but let's hear what others have to say.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, maybe always is a bit exaggerated, lol. I guess we should wait until we get more of a consensus. Oh yeah, and thanks to you, I Wikirocks now! No more being number 2. :D (Wikirocks (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems like this is going nowhere. What should we do?   Wikirocks  02:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yesterday (or two days ago Wikipedia time), I added the ratings for the second season.  I just have not gotten around to do season 1 yet.  And please, other editors, let us know that you are there.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh ok, I didn't realise you insterted them. It looks really good! Good job. (  Wikirocks  04:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Each rating now has a citation.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, cool! We did it! ...or rather you did it! lol. You did do most of the work....but I think I can take 1% credit. ;)   WikiRocks  02:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings table 

message: I love with what has been done to the page. The whole lead in is fantastic and it really is looking good now. Well done!   WikiRocks  05:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I finish rewriting the summaries in the next couple days, I will be taking this to WP:FLC.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...I don't know what it is, but the summaries are wierd. Some are an overview of the episode, some state the storylines of the featured characters, and others have spoilers which aren't really necessary. I think we should chose one way to write all of them. Щіκі RoςкЗ(talκ) 05:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only rewritten up to "Godsend."  It's a work in progress.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now rewritten each summary.  I will read it over and edit some more.  I would appreciate feedback from other editors.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find the summaries very plot spoiling orientated, and you know how I feel about spoilers. I am not very fond of the summaries, but I guess another editor will the they are excellent, as everyone has different views. I commend you on rewriting all the summaries and I think you did a good job. Щіκі RoςкЗ(talκ) 14:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The FLC is here.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page format 

message: Did I miss something? Because it seems the page for this episode has been deleted. What happened? Щіκі RoςкЗ(talκ) 09:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AFD result due to notability concerns. Will (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but that's so random. Most of the other individual episode pages are like that too. Why just randomly delete that one? Щіκі RoςкЗ(talκ) 12:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've established the notability now. Will (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. Thanks for that. :) Щіκі RoςкЗ(talκ) 16:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truth & Consequences 

message: Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here . Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centralized TV Episode Discussion 

message: None of these episodes fall under wikipedia's notability clause, and we should delete all of the page long summaries. They fall under the category of something in the heroes wiki.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.113.158 (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the section above this one.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode Summaries

message: Demonhog must you insist on having colours that look like barf? I agree that white isn't a really good colour, but at lest make it blend in with the rest of the page! Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 06:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was trying to get an orange that didn't look like the new messages banner.  Feel free to change it.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colours 

message: Found the first four here.  I'd edit them in myself, but it's late, so I don't feel like messing with the table code right now.-Jeff (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but do not edit in these titles.  We need confirmation from either NBC, a producer or an actor on the show.  For all we know, those titles were made by a fan, gained popularity and have become popular around the Internet.  Are they true?  Probably, but inclusion would violate WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS.  Sorry, –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake then, I saw the same site linked in anther article so I thought it was a reliable source.-Jeff (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I added the informtion in the first place so I can verify that it is what it says in the magazine.  However, the magazine listed the first episode as "The Butterfly Effect", so …  –thedemonhog talk • edits 13:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 3 episode titles 

message: I liked it when it was 98% because it matched the other tables.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No hostility here, but I like it better now. It is clearly distuinguished from the actual episode lists, and there is no point in having it too large. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 06:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it is too large and is still clearly distinguished from the other tables because it is a different colour and title.  Input, please, –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I know of at least one other editor who likes it small. I don't really mind the size of the table, but I think we should find consensus as to whether it should be big or small. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 05:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I see you changed it back. Well I'm not going to argue this time, because it doesn't really matter. Make it however you like it. :-) Corn.u.co.pia ĐЌ Disc.us.sion 02:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mwuahahaha!  –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Don't laugh demonhog, this isn't the end of it. I WILL GET YOU BACK!!!! Mwuahahaha! Corn.u.co.pia ĐЌ Disc.us.sion 02:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series overview table width 

message: Hey I just found some possible titles for the first  4 episodes of Season 3 of Heroes. Here is a link to the source-
http://www.tv.com/heroes/show/17552/episode_guide.html?season=3&tag=season_dropdown;dropdown;2
I started to edit the page, but had no idea and would probably end up here anyway apologizing for goofing up the page. So there's a link I found. Glad to be of help.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlman27 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see above discussion.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heroes Episodes for Season 3 Titled 

message: What's up with the "first/last appearance of [insert name here]" lines in the summaries? Should they be removed... I think so. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 11:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They have been removed. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 08:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode summaries 

message: Has anyone heard that Volume Four's title is to be 'Fugitives' ??? --Mikey-is-lost (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome! ...where's the source? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 13:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Does anyone think we should show the different volumes in different colors as Mikey said .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.99.96.236 (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually planning on that, as evidenced by the overview section at the top.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volume Four 

message: Here are the full reviews of the next two episodes.
http://nbcumv.com/listing_detail.nbc/nbc-20081124210000.html
http://nbcumv.com/listing_detail.nbc/nbc-20081201210000.html
Nothing here yet, but there will be soon:
http://nbcumv.com/listing_detail.nbc/nbc-20081208210000.html
http://nbcumv.com/listing_detail.nbc/nbc-20081215210000.html
--Cngodles (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Episodes 

message: This is crap, episodes don't need to be sourced once they are released. The Muffin Man has moved to Broadway 00:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, yes they do! Once an episode has aired, the episode served as it's own source. Web episodes however, need at least a link to prove their existence, so they defenitely do need to be sourced.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, by being released on NBC.com they aired which was the source for their existence. If the release had been third-party, then I would agree, but since it was not, no additional source was needed. And even if it was, I fail to see why you had to remove information from the page instead of just sourcing it. The Muffin Man has moved to Broadway 01:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:BURDEN.  I agree with Edokter that the webisodes should be sourced—they are just so obscure.  With the episodes, it is obvious to the average reader that the implied sources for the episodes are the original television broadcast and can also be verified with a DVD set, not to mention that they probably remember watching the episode him or herself.  But the general public is largely unaware of webisodes, so a citation is certainly helpful.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the link(The WP link, not the source) we were both wrong in our actions and I accept I was wrong, acknowledge my error, and apologize for it. I still believe that they do not require a source, but I now know I should have provided one after the first removal. The Muffin Man has moved to Broadway 05:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heroes: Destiny