Talk:Unexpected (Heroes)

message: Why isn't the part with Hana (Wireless) first meeting Ted in his cabin in this article? Brand Eks 19:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we're not perfect. Be bold and do it yourself. While you're at it, put any other details you can think of in the article as well. Don't go overboard, please. dposse 19:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: hana

message: I remember Hana saying that they used the radio isotopes to track animals in Africa or something. Isn't there a specific word that people use to describe that? dposse 16:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "subject tracking" 

message: Trivia is inherently non-encyclopaedic, and one will always be "too much" - per this I re-tagged the article. I believe (and thus will do it) that point one can be integrated with the lead-in. Point two just seems irrelevant and non-notable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Re-added both lines.  Brand Eks 09:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And please stop deleting the trivia!  It's only two lines, both relevant whether you think so or not, and It's not harming anything by being left alone. Brand Eks 21:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag 

message: Please don't revert war over this, get a consensus on the talk page.  Both of you are approaching WP:3RR if not already beyond it.  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got a consensus behind my back in the form of a guideline, also see above section and WP:AVTRIV, notable piece has been merged, another editor removed the second. Also yes the guy has violated 3RR, even though warned not to. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as you reverted my reverts you should have been warned too, asshat.  And why is it that the trivia in this episode's entry is deleted but in the previous episode's entry there's still trivia?  Where's this consensus you speak of, and why aren't all of the articles conforming to it?  THATS why I was reverting.  Because it seemed like only this article was being screwed with.  But whatever... goddamned wikinazi.  Brand Eks 21:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as you're concerned is irrelevant. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  Were you born a jerk or did it take years of practice? Brand Eks 21:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm done.  I just didn't understand why a trivia section was being deleted/integrated on one page and not another in the same series of articles.  In my experience it seems like some people just revert for the hell of it, and it pisses me off.  Also, since there was no consensus that I could see regarding this it was just one person's opinion versus another and I usually don't back down... sometimes to the point of being blocked.  But again, I don't have the energy or patience to keep doing this all day, so fine - Matty boy wins this one. Brand Eks 22:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add my two cents, i agree with Fenton, Matthew. If the trivia can be integrated with the article, then do it. Adding a trivia section is, in my opinion, a last resort in case it's not possible to integrate it into the article. Also, the Trivia in this article gained a little bit of OR with the reference to Earth-616. dposse 22:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section 

message: The section needs to be trimmed down.  It should focus on the main plot elements and not a scene-by-scene review of the episode.  See WP:NOT#IINFO for official policy against plot summaries. --Madchester 18:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot cleanup

message: The last line in the article says files instead of flies and phase instead of phrase. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.131.97.22 (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but the last i looked, everyone on wikipedia is human, and is not perfect. I'm glad that someone who isn't human and never makes mistakes caught those two extremely large errors. dposse 15:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  learn to spell 

message: Considering they showed Simone walking around in the preview for next week's episode, saying in this article that she's dead seems a bit...wrong.  Can we agree to change this to something more accurate?  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. We see her hand fall, limp. In that one episode, she die's. We have a source that says that she dies. We shouldn't ruin the ending of this episode with what happens in a future episode. Simone being alive is obviously a surprise plot twist that begins in the next episode (two episodes after she "died").  dposse 21:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We see her hand fall - that doesn't mean she's dead, that's just an assumption on the part of whoever wrote this.  That source also says she appears in two more episodes which means we should be cautious about saying she's dead if we're going to see more of her.  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What i'm saying is that she appears to be dead in that episode. We shouldn't start changing details because of what happens in a future episode. do you understand what im trying to say? Changing details of past episodes because of new developments in future episodes is wrong. It's like what happens with Lost (the tv series on ABC). Just because we know more about a event doesn't change what happened in that event. Does that make sense? dposse 22:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that she appears to be dead in that episode - the episode doesn't make it clear either way, so declaring her either dead or alive is just assumption.  And that's not based on the promo, there was dispute that she was dead even before that came along - see above.  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought you are all for assumptions, Milo? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's what you think, your comprehension skills need work.  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Haha.. you're the one starting sentences with conjunctions. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Simone could be dead, possibly Issac is hallucinating and has probaly taking heroin again.Temari of Wind13 01:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: She could be dead, she could be alive.  We don't know.  This article makes an assumption that could turn out to be wrong.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Has Simone every shown manifestation of power, is it possible for her to be related to a hero or maybe have some power of her own. If we're wrong, it won't be like the end of the world or anything, will it? --Temari of Wind13 18:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Simone is indeed dead. First, it appears the "body" that asks about the shooting is just a figment/dream/wahatever, as the real dead body is in the background visible. Second, Kring stated in a TV Guide interview they were killing her off. http://www.heroes-tv.com/modules/news/article-530.html Third, in another interview with Tawny Cypress (Simone) in Guide she even confirmed she was. She hinted she may appear in another way at some point (like in the preview), but physically she's dead. http://www.heroes-tv.com/modules/news/article-664.html --Navex 04:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just Candice, a shape-shifter, that impersonated her so Mr. Bennet and Primatech can "clean up the mess." Candice just takes it too far, and that is the "Wanna shoot me again?" thing we saw on the preview. So, as of now, she is dead/in Europe indefinitely.--TheChrisParker 20:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simone lives? 

message: Can we unlock the page now?  Mathiastck 02:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simone is dead