Talk:Heroes (American TV series)/Archive 7

message: All of the information on Primatech is redundant to other articles.  Unless there is a reason that the information cannot be included in this artcle, shouldn't we just merge it? --In Defense of the Artist 16:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should merge it, but to Heroes 360 Experience. That covers the "Alternate reality game" part of Heroes. J-stan TalkContribs 18:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It really covers more than just the game as well, and does have a direct relationship to the TV series.  Pushing this content into another article which isn't directly covering the TV series seems like a good way to lose track of the information, and making navigation of what information there is about this fictional company even harder to find.  BTW, on a slightly unrelated note, is Primatech going to be in season #2 of Heroes?  If for some reason this article is split up chronologically by season instead, perhaps the information about Primatech could be merged into a detailed discussion of season #1 instead.  Just a thought here.  I caught Mr. Bennet in one preview of season 2 but it seems the story line may be moving out of Odessa, TX.  --Robert Horning 00:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by the latest graphic novel, it seems that Primatech may still be in the storyline. And though it's speculation at this point, it looks like Elle may be an employee. Ophois 23:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe if Primatech is important enough for NBC to center an ARG around it it deserves its own article atleast for now. It's obvious that NBC didnt just make an ARG on it for no reason so we are too assume that its eventually going to have a bigger role in Heroes.FuzionZero 18:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Primatech does relate to HEROES, but having all information for the HEROES series on one page would undoubtedly clutter the page and render it unreadable. If it were to be merged with anything, it should be merged with The_Company_%28Heroes%29. Keldon85 20:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should be merged with The Company. Ophois 22:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If any merging is to occur A agree with this more. But the fact that it has its own ARG based off it makes me suggest it deserve it's own article since it will eventually become a key item in the plot. Yamagato Industries itself has yet to do anything significant besides the CEO of the company being affiliated with "The Company". Primatech on the other hand has done things like abduct several people with abilities and run tests and implant tracking devices in them, aswell has hold Sylar captive and run in-depth tests on him. I still think that right now it still deserves its own article and as the plot unfolds will further merit its own article.  FuzionZero 04:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Primatech has done all of that under the Company's orders. It's not as if Primatech and the Company are completely different entities. Primatech employees are employees of the Company. Ophois 04:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but neither "The Company" itself nor Yamagato Industries has done anything directly to effect the plot. I am aware that The Company is what ultimately ordered Primatech to do the things that were related to the plot but Primatech not only has directly done the things, but NBC also so it an important enough element to do an ARG based on it. And that is why I think it deserves it's own article. FuzionZero 04:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has it been confirmed that the next ARG will be centered around Primatech? Ophois 04:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the Heroes 360 article it says that this was an experiment and that they have an even bigger experience coming next year so that could mean either a more in-depth ARG for Primatech, or an ARG covering more of the Heroes universe, which is what I think. FuzionZero 15:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then Primatech may not have much of a presence in Season 2. Ophois 21:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it safe to assume now that we will not be merging Primatech into the main article? If so we should remove the merge tag  FuzionZero 23:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I don't like the recent addition to Peter Petrelli, but it is correct.  It's more the format that is incorrect.  Unless someone has stated (in a referenceable source) that he is an "empath", I think that we should change his power to "mimic" or "copycat". — Val42 21:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's stated in an episode.  Also, there is nothing about him being an empath that is incorrect.  Empath deals with those who are sensitive to others.  Peter is sensitive to other's abilities.  How is that incorrect? Also, the statement has been removed. PureSoldier 21:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually an empath in the case of comic-like subjects are those who can read and manipulate the emotions of others. I don't think Peter is an empath for that reason, I think he is a mimic.--Dil 21:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On his own page, he is described as a empathic power mimic.  However, this isn't a comic, and as he was described in the show as an empath and with the definition of an empath "a term coming into common usage to refer to a person with a feeling expanded sensitivity or clairsentience", it's an inclusive term for Peter's ability. PureSoldier 22:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give a specific reference for the episode in which his power is named as "empath". — Val42 22:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Fix" PureSoldier 22:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I've added it to the article. — Val42 22:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Petrelli's power 

message: I think Santiago, Tawny, and Leonard should be taken out of the main list now that they are no longer main cast.  Obriensg1 21:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are still part of the main cast for season 1.  Just because of how the season ended, doesn't change season 1's main cast listing. PureSoldier 21:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I know that. I mean the listing under the title card picture. Obriensg1 23:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted your edit, per Wikipedia custom with regards to the infobox. It is not intended to be a snapshot of a particular moment in time; instead, it reflects a overview of the production. Cast members may come and go, but they are still a part of the series as a whole. --Ckatzchatspy 20:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed with PureSoldier and Ckatz. The infobox should include all regulars regardless of current involvment in the show...what would you do if the show ended? show nobody? It may get problemanic if the show goes on for 5 seasons and keeps adding regulars at the rate it currently does but we have a long time before having to think about that. Rekija 23:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, some of the articles about shows with large casts get around the problem by removing the actors altogether in favour of a link to the "Character" section of the article. --Ckatzchatspy 23:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And The Dead Zone (TV series) Ophois 05:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per a discussion on the talk page for the infobox, the intent is to list the cast in an out-of-universe manner, reflecting the body of work as a whole. That is to say, all main characters are listed, regardless of whether or not they are currently on the show. If the list gets too long, replace it with a link to the "Characters" section. --Ckatzchatspy 05:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David Anders shouldn't really be listed. In the first episode of the second season, he's credited as a guest star. --220.233.124.201 09:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: She's not a main character, either. If she's in a couple more episodes, she'll probably be moved to the recurring section. Ophois 17:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Cast list 

message: I believe it also shown in the pool, on the episode where Matt Parkman is at the little girl's house when he first starts to hear thoughts. I'm not sure if that's the right episode but I'm pretty sure it's shown in a pool in one of the earlier episodes. Just thought I would put this up in discussion before adding it to make sure I'm right. I'm not able to check for myself at the moment but if someone would like to check up on it and add it in that would be great. FuzionZero 20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only plot-important examples of the helix are to be added. Ophois 21:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the pool thing was mentioned in the Heroes Unmasked "making of" program, but the person that said it seemed pretty embarrassed about it. — PhilHibbs | talk 08:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that is a very interesting fact. It should probably be added to help shine light on the meaning of the Helix. Any information about the Helix is needed right now because 1- we have no real reason as to why the Helix is displayed in Heroes and 2- to the casual viewers of the program i am sure they are confused as to why a seemingly random symbol is continuously displayed. So anything about the Helix itself (not its appearances except for plot-important instances) I think should be added. FuzionZero 15:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it would be a good addition. The fact the helix is actually mentioned rather then just being appearing is quite notable. As long as it's not implied that it is the solo meaning of the helix...it could mean many things to many people. Rekija 22:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the whole story in the comic, the snake sounds exactly like Sylar. Strange...Ophois 23:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well well well... S02E01 had some very interesting plot-important examples of the helix. It was actually spoken about, which is a first for the show I think. It had only been mentioned by characters in the graphic novel mentioned above. Fine with those additions in there. Rekija 23:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I recently made some changes that brought in the "It Takes a Village" information -  - which have been, for the time being, reverted.  Most of this information comes from "Heroes Wiki" , I merely copied the factual and verifiable information and linked back for the remainder of the original material.  Would you like to see this included? Brion.finlay 07:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Helix 

message: Im a little confused on Heroes Origin. Is it considered the 2nd season? Is it the one starting this month? If it only has 6 episodes wont it be over after like a month and a half or is it going to have longer intervals inbetween the new episodes. I looked on the Heroes Origin page and it said it starts in April and goes well into May. Was that this year and I just completely missed or is it next year or is the article wrong? Im just confused with what exactly is Season 2 going to be and when, since the Heroes article calls the season thats starting this month Season 2 and then in Plot theres Heroes Origin which the article for it says it starts April. Can someone just clear this up for me. Thanks. FuzionZero 14:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heroes Origin will air during Season 2's midseason break. Ophois 22:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Origins is a spin-off. Featuring new characters. As far as I understand each ep will be a standalone episode, each about a new hero. Popular ones may cross over later...but the main point is to be able to tell different stories in the same universe. Season 2, if it goes by any other name, will be Generations...although that title may not last the entire season. Rekija 02:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So the Heroes that will begin airing this month is going to be Origins, which will be an inbetween series that does not deal with the plot that occurs in Season 1? Then after Origins will be Season 2 of Heroes which will continue the plot from Season 1? If so, when will Season 2 begin? FuzionZero 03:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, Origins will air during Season 2's midseason break (around January). Ophois 03:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ahh OK. I think it might be a good idea to include in the article how Season 2 and Origins are seperate, and similiar. Aswell as how they will tie into Season 1. FuzionZero 15:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added that origins will debute April-May (according to comic con, if someone could source it would be great) which should make things clearer. Origins does have its own page which explains the difference more. Rekija 00:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Ckatz for cleaning that up. There we go that should prevent confusion. Rekija 00:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: On that subject why is there still a list of characters on the main article if there is a sub article covering all of that? FuzionZero 16:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little confused 

message: *
Something to establish notability with for each episode article. Alientraveller 19:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EW ranks the first twenty-three episodes 

message: Does this section really belong in this article?  It seems really out of place.  The scene that gave rise to the whole brouhaha was in the pilot, and it seems like an issue that would be better dealt with in that episode's article.  Blackeagle 06:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's notable enough to be mentioned in the main article, since the lawsuit went against the parent company and received significant media coverage.  More to the point, in the current climate on Wikipedia individual episode articles are being deleted at the drop of a hat. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 11:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It received media coverage back when the episode originally aired.  The entire thing is resolved now, and it's really of no ongoing interest.  As far as the episode page getting deleted, if it is, the section could always be put back in this article.  Blackeagle 07:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emerson Lawsuit 

message: I think the Cockroach should be added, it's obviously an important element, as seen in the ending credits of the unaired pilot.
--Caligvla 18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I third the motion.  I don't remember where I read this, but Tim Kring himself said that the cockroach wasa an important recrring symbol in the series. Specialk22 14:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to add it, we need references to back up the claim. It cannot be because Wikipedia's editors want it. If you can find the Tim Kring statement, that would help. --Ckatzchatspy 18:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recurring elements section 

message: Do we really need two citations for statements in the article? I say we pick the one that works the best and trim out the other. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trimmed a dead link out, leaving one reference. Seriously though, we should probably cull a lot of the redundant citations. For example, I removed two vestigial citations from the Lead that talks about the renewal of the show for the second season. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is generally considered good practice to have several references if they are available, especially given that some can (and do) go dead. Otherwise, what is properly referenced material today may become uncited, deleted text a few months down the road. --Ckatzchatspy 21:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I can see that. It just seems cluttering and distracting.
On a side note, what is up with the black-colored text box at the bottom of the article. Is that a wikiproject template gone wild? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple references 

message: Can someone grab a screenshot of the title card without the NBC watermark?-Wafulz 23:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I got rid of the watermark. I also uploaded the logo for the show. Which should be used? The title card or the logo? I don't believe the title card with the eclipse has been used in the second volume/season yet and could be obsolete...Fancypants09 20:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The eclipse title card has been used in Volume 2. --GSK 00:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title sequence 

message: I'm new here to Wikipedia.  However, I would like to add information regarding the new 5 characters that have been released as entering the cast for this Second season.  In Entertainment Weekly's new September issue they have a "New Heroes" page with brief bios, names, and a new cast photo.  I would like to include bits of this information by adding these characters to the season two cast list in doing so keeping it up to date.  I would like some information on what I need to do to get this done, thank you.
Learys 00:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of what you added was already in the article - Anders, Davis, and Ramirez - but in the standard format (by character, rather than by actor). Some of the others - Ortiz and Bell - are not main characters, and as such not covered in that section. As for Cabrera, Cypress, and Roberts, they're already mentioned in "Season One". If you can provide a source for Anders' quote, I'd like to work that in. Hope this helps. (Welcome, by the way, and thanks for the contribution.) --Ckatzchatspy 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious though, because as it stands the way it is shouldn't the 5 new characters be listed in a new character section for season two.  They may not be main characters but still merit being listed.  The list formatting I proposed and put up for this looked great and had little information for each, its more confusing the way it is up as now.  It lists Sylar and Ando again as a character as if they are new and lists them again in the description part. But then lists other characters who actually are new in the middle.  But doesn't list 2 - 3 of the new 5 I have information on.  So i'm just curious why we can't either make a New character section for season two - only show the new characters in the season two listing as the season one characters will be returning.  The quote from Anders comes from the Entertainment Weekly article.  So what would you like from me to source it as?  I have the EW website where it states all of the info from the article. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20058002,00.htmlLearys 01:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three of the five you listed are already in there; the other two are not main characters, and as such are described on the "List of characters" instead of here. Sylar and Ando are in the "Season two" section because they are now main characters; they did not have that status in season one. As for the reference, if you can provide the URL, I can write up the reference coding for you (if you want.) --Ckatzchatspy 01:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The URL is listed above and here again, http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20058002,00.html  Thanks. Learys 01:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can see how that could be confusing, and I think there is a lot of room for improvement. The cast list is only regulars, and Sylar and Ando (despite being important characters with plenty of screentime) we're not regulars in the first season (they are listed as guest stars). I would not be opposed if it was done in a way such as "Regulars introduced this season" kinda thing, so that Ando and Sylar got mentioned in season 1...they wern't regulars then but they are a regular in the series who was introduced that season. I don't think it's as confusing as what we currently have, but also a lot more verifable then simply adding who we think are important, or adding everyone with a speaking role. Rekija 01:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the season-based list is too confusing, then drop it and just list the main characters alphabetically, making sure that there is no doubt about when they became main characters. --Ckatzchatspy 09:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In addition, there are several references that indicate he was upgraded from recurring to main cast, including one that has Anders himself stating that he is a regular. --Ckatzchatspy 09:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Dave Anders is listed in Entertainment Weekly to have powers that, when reveiled will affect ALL of the Heroes world.  So we will certainly see him in some form of a large recurring role in the season.  Learys 01:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: From an interview with David Anders (ref. #23): "I will guest star in the first couple, but then will be a regular for the rest of the season." --Ckatzchatspy 05:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: (repeated from #28 below)  As it relates to Sylar, [main/recurring] is a minute and uninformative distinction to hang one's hat on. Ando is supplementary, agreed. But placing Sylar's short character bio under Season Two is just dopey. I would suggest that someone take a look at how the Fonz is listed on "Happy Days" for an instructive example.208.120.227.63 00:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season Two Cast list 

message: hi, im not sure how many times but i keep seeing cockroaches in some episodes. The two i can remember are when sylar is on the floor in a cell and on the season 1 finale crawling over the drain which sylar's blood is flowing into. 
im not sure if this truely is a recurring element but thought id ask ahref 15:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Kring himself said cockroaches were a thematic component to the series, or at least to the first season. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cockroaches - Recurring elements 

message: Shouldn't they be removed from the cast list now, as they both got killed in the first series?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepmix (talk • contribs) 20:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Santiago Cabrera and Tawny Cypress 

message: I have removed this fromt he article to here. It seems fairly complete, but it needs connection this particular article in the form of citation connecting the two series. I cannot see it returning without it:
::::Inspiration to Heroes	
::::In 2003 a twelve-episode miniseries was aired in Sweden, "De drabbade" ("The Affected"). The series main theme was about how different Scandinavian persons from all walks of life suddenly find themselves in possession of supernatural powers. The background story is different; the powers are not attributed to genetics, but to an ancient prophecy. The struggle between good and evil use of these powers is similar, as are the powers themselves (e.g. precognition, telepathy, healing, persuasion, invisibility). According to the creators' webpage, "De drabbade is a series about human strength and weakness. About the choices we make and their consequences. It deals with what happens if we, in the midst of our daily lives, discover that we suddenly possess supernatural powers. It is about free will and what we make of it... How will we steer our free will when we have the possibility? Towards the light? Or towards the darkness?... We want to tell what happens when somebody like YOU wake up one morning and [you] realise that you with your will alone can do impossible things. Things you did not believe possible... What will you do?" The obvious similarities betweeen Heroes and De drabbade have been noted by Swedish television journalists. Although there are huge differences in overall quality and budget, many believe that Heroes has borrowed and been inspired by De drabbade.     
::::Here is a list of things in De drabbade that Heroes probably has borrowed:
::::* One female character is a web stripper. There is a web strip scene. She kills an unpleasant guy. An obvious inspiration to the character of Niki Sanders
::::* A recurrent graphical symbol (seen in books, old manuscripts, dreams, house façades, etc.), cf. the Heroes helix.
::::* A homeless man uses his invisibility to steal food and eavesdrop. Cf. Claude (Heroes)
::::* A precognitive person sees the horrible future and kills himself. Similar of Isaac Mendez’ failed suicide attempt.
and its revision:
::::Similar series
:::The 2003 Swedish series "De drabbade" ("The Affected") involved Scandinavians from all walks of life who suddenly find themselves in possession of supernatural powers. The series shows the struggle between good and evil use of powers such as precognition, telepathy, healing, persuasion, and invisibility, although the powers are attributed to an ancient prophecy rather than to genetics. According to the creators' webpage, "We want to tell what happens when somebody like YOU wake up one morning and [you] realise that you with your will alone can do impossible things. Things you did not believe possible... What will you do?" Swedish television journalists have made comparisons to Heroes, with some claiming that Heroes has borrowed and been inspired by De drabbade.     
-Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Section 

message: Should the Season 1 Characters be updated with new info? It still says that Parkman is a cop and that Nathan is a Congressional candidate, among other old things. Ophois 14:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Parkman still is a cop - though detective might be more appropriate, given his "promotion". As for Nathan - "Drunk" just doesn't have the same flavor that congressional candidate does. We could put "former" - though, technically, he did win, and later resigned the office (per ). So maybe "Former congressman". ZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  16:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 1 Characters 

message: Reasons for cleanup- Article Too bloated. Took me a whole 1/2 hour to understand / read!
Spoiler tags also added to "Plot" section (for UK and others on later timetable)
Request for Approval, well... requested :) --Leach139 18:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't use spoiler tags where it is obvious that there will be plot details.  I've added a  tag to the start of the article so that readerw will understand that this is new stuff that they're unlikely to have encountered already (as if that wasn't obvious already). --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers and Cleanup 

message: I was part of the original discussion on this matter months ago, and it appears that it's time to discuss this again. I've read the discussion on this page. I should remind those editors seeking to add this information that Wikipedia is not a list on indiscriminate information, nor a list of trivia. There are other wikis better suited for that purpose. There are a small number of occurrences of the helix which directly affect the plot (the symbol on the photos of Mrs. Petrelli and Mr. Nakamura) or are directly tied to a character (Nikki's tattoo, the Haitian's necklace). Appearances of the helix in a pile of rocks or in graffiti are, until shown be otherwise, irrelevant to the story. These secondary occurrences exist to please the fans and while they may be interesting they are not deserving of mention on Wikipedia. Once again, there are better places for an exhaustive list. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 03:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand about Wikipedia there is never a state at which the case is closed.  Any situation is up for discussion and any article can be edited.  As SigmaEpsilon stated, there are better places to note every last detail of this series.  Heroswiki is dedicated to just this type of information.  It has no need in Wikipedia.  The CASE is most definitely NOT CLOSED.  Padillah 04:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe we should have someone start a vote and see what the other users think.  We need to vote on whether to keep it or not keep it because this discussion is getting really hot and sometimes personal.  this might be the most fair way of doing things. --Chrisisinchrist 16:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we don't. Wikipedia is not for voting. There's clearly a lack of consensus, and unless you con convince us to include all incidences, then the old consensus stands. ThuranX 16:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I was of the opinion that these minor references should be allowed to stand subsequent to connection, but ThuranX (while unnecessarily edgy and brusque) is completely correct; its inclusion is a crufty disaster in the making. When and if some grand over-arcing connection is made somewhere down the line tying the appearances of the symbol to events (or types of events), then we include a citation to connect these instances, which is what Ultraexactzz just said. And since they are on a wiki somewhere, we don't have to worry that these instances fade into the background hum of previous edits. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here we go again... 

message: would it be okay if i added a heroes page about the crew? like the executive producers, producers, directors, writers, etc.  just the main crew of the show.  is anyone opposed to me doing that?  or, since i am new and dont really know all of the editing functions is thier someone who wants to do it?  u can reference all your info from nbc media village website.  just click on heroes and it list everyone on the production team.--76.168.220.243 20:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than showrunners such as Tim Kring (Who is mentioned in the article currently), do the crew members change for each episode? I know the director and some of the cinematographers rotate regularly. It might be sufficient to note who directed each episode on the list or on the article for that episode. Good idea, though - the crew deserves love as well. Best, ZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  12:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  crew 

message: Did anyone notice the reference to the NCC 1701 (the first Enterprise vessel from Star Trek). George Takey, as Hiro's father, has a car with this license plate. You can see it when he leaves, near the end of the episode.
Where can we put this kind of information? Mahaus (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already at Distractions (Heroes).  –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode 14 - Star Trek reference in car plate 

message: Volume 3 is going to be the start of season 3. So why is it that it is still listed as part of season 2. The writers and Tim Kring reworked Powerless to be the season finale of season 2 because of the strike.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.237 (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They rewrote "Powerless" to serve as a potential season finale.  If the strike ends soon, volume 3 will still be part of season 2.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volume 3 

message: Is the main plot planned from beginning to end (like "Lost" claims to be) or do they make up the plot on the go? 88.68.205.32 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They claim to have the general idea of five seasons planned.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planned or spontaneous? 

message: Please check these two pages: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroes_%28TV_series%29: []
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroes_(TV_series): []
They seem to be the same but the part about the third volume (Volume three: "Villains") is different in each page. The latter seems to have more information than the former. Is it only in my computer or does this happen to others as well? How can this be happening?
:They seem the same to me. Maybe you had a cache issue (or maybe i'm not paying enough attention!)Ged UK (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mine too are the same. Щіκі RoςкЗ(talκ) 14:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just hit refresh (but I doubt that you still have the problem).  –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you replying to me? Because I didn't have the problem. I was just saying that the pages are the same on my comp. lol. Щіκі RoςкЗ(talκ) 16:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was replying to the original poster.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ??? How can this be happening ??? 

message: Does anyone know where I can find some out of universe information on the mythology of Heroes?  Like interviews, press releases etc.  Not about the recurring elements, but the mythology of the Heroes world and the mythological elements.  Also, I need some out of universe information on The Company.  It has been tagged for so long, and I have had a difficult time finding third party information from newspapers, mags, interviews and press releases. I will also be posting this topic on the project page.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: try entertainment magazines at the library, esp. Empire, which has featured the show's cast a couple times. ThuranX (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  out of universe information 

message: Hey, I found some interesting interviews with Writers Joe Pokaski and Aron Coleite. They commented in a series of interviews titled Behind the Eclipse that fans of the series Heroes should be watching for the number nine (9) to have a significance in the show. (I qouted this from heroeswiki).  Take a look at the link I posted to heroeswiki and of course the links to the interviews with Coleite and Pakaski. I was wondering if, based on those interviews, if the number nine should be added to a mythology section in the article...links below--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to be careful about sections like this, as the Helix section almost ran away with itself.  It should be limited occurrences that are sourced if any are listed at all.  I looked at the HeroesWiki page and had a flash from the movie The Number 23.  If you look for the number, you'll find the number.  We don't want it to go to far.  "Well, see that dog? If you add the number of legs a dog has to my brother's roommate's age, you get 33.  If you multiply 3 and 3, you get nine! It MUST be added intentionally by the writers.  Wikipedia, here I come!"  Maybe too lengthy of an example, but you know someone will try it." QuasiAbstract (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree.  I just thought it should get a mention as a part of the overall mythology of the series and maybe thats it.  if you read the interview with coleite and pokaski, they give some interesting stuff...thats all that should be added...that out of universe stuff.  the occurances should be well well well sourced if they are going to be added, not just random occurances like on heroeswiki.  i only linked heroeswiki so that i could credit them for the research...but we can probably do a credible write up about the mythology of number 9 in the series in like 2 or 3 sentences--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your support.  Yeah, the real topic is not the number 9, because we have already established that any info on the number nine will be from a well sourced third party source and absolutely will not be a list full of random occurances and fan cruft.  what really needs to be discussed is a mythology section similar to that of the LOST page, with various mythological elements from the show (listed above) and discredited theories.  Any thoughts on that?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of a Mythology section. It kind of reminds me of the Mythology page on the Lost article (since everyone seems to be comparing Lost and Heroes nowadays!).  Yeah, I support it.  I like the ideas too.  I think Activating Evolution should be included as a part of the Mythology too, and not the Elements section.  If Mythology relates to the fictional elements of the series, then the list if good. I think the scar, the eclipse, the cockroach and the symbol should be in the elements and symbols section and Activating Evolution should be included within the shows Mythology.  Oh yeah, the Virus too. That is a huge part of the shows Mythology.  Okay, I am rambling. Gotta Go!!!--76.168.220.243 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: thanks for your thoughts about it.  i have been doing some research and i think uluru has been discredited.  i found an interview with tim kring stating he will only live in the comics and not within the series...i am going to keep researching that...other discredited stuff i found is the lost and heroes connection theory and the theory that peter and claire will hook up within the series.  so, these could be possibilities for the section.  i have great sources for all three of those discredited theories.  i removed uluru from the mythology list and added the virus and pop suresh book.  uluru may still be included in the mythology section if he is notable enough.  anymore thoughts?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythology 

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) 23:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centralized TV Episode Discussion 

message: I made some changes to the main page.  I hope everyone likes them.  Please make sure to take some time to read the changes and make any corrections and improvements.  I modeled some of the changes after the Lost page since it is a featured article.  I think this article can become a featured article we just need to continue to improve and expand the stub and weak sections. I made sure that everything I added was well sourced.  if you have additional sources, please add them, but be assured that i added no original research.  Also, in the cast and character section i added some info about supporting characters.  i know there has been an issue in the past with contributors stating actors as main and recurring.  please keep in mind that characters are billed. they are billed as main, recurring or guest.  i place supporting because supporing is not a cast billing necessarily.  supporting also means that the cast member is not apart of the main cast, but supports those characters and the storylines.  i hope i stated that clearly as to not create confusion. thanks.  please feel free to make any changes and post all your oppositions for discussion. i hope i made good qaulity changes.  the expansion to the production section was done based on the request made on the project page.  basically, i tried to complete some projects from the project page.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as the paragraph on supporting cast...i modeled it after the paragraph on the Lost page, which is a featured article and will be the featured article on January 31st.
Numerous supporting characters have been given expansive and recurring appearances in the progressive storyline. In the second season, Rose Henderson played by L. Scott Caldwell and tail section survivor Bernard Nadler played by Sam Anderson were featured in a flashback episode after being reunited. Mira Furlan as Danielle Rousseau, the shipwrecked Frenchwoman, appears throughout the series. Some of the "Others," including M. C. Gainey as Tom, William Mapother as Ethan Rom, Tania Raymonde as Alex Rousseau and Nestor Carbonell as Richard Alpert have been shown in both flashbacks and the ongoing story. Similarly, Jack's father Christian Shephard (John Terry) has appeared in multiple flashbacks of various characters.
The paragraph I wrote is exactly the same, i just changed the names and character names. Is this OR?  It has no source...yet it is still fact because these are supporting characters...thoughts???--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The fact that you arbitrarily chose to label certain characters as supporting without reference is OR, or at least POV.  Claiming that certain characters have made impact without outside sources is POV.  The section sounds like an article from a magazine, not from an encyclopedia. QuasiAbstract (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed. What Lost has is an example of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, an invalid argument for inclusion. As such I have also removed the paragraph. ThuranX (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me...no big deal--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I attempted to rewrite the section in accordance with wikipedia policy. re read the section and let me know if this has no OR and POV.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that all the changes you made are great and the article is on its way to WP:GAN and eventually WP:FAC.  Nice work and keep going, –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I am glad you like the changes user:thedemonhog.  I know you do A LOT work on the lost pages and i modeled a lot of my changes after all the stuff you guys do on the Lost page. I love the Lost page and i always thought the heroes page could be just as good since the shows are so similar in production and the whole serial huge cast drama series category. anyway, i hope everyone keeps working to improve this page to the standard that lost page has set.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I made no additions to the casting section, seeing how the main page did not have a casting section before today.  Casting is very important for a television show and it is real world out of universe information.  As far as the information that is being disputed, i would like to urge users to look at a comparison...one from the lost main page which is a featured wikipia article and the second is what was attempted to be added to the heroes main page which wants to be a featured article.  i like users to address the pros and cons of the two exerts and give thoughts to it.
first is from Lost a featured article:
Numerous supporting characters have been given expansive and recurring appearances in the progressive storyline. In the second season, Rose Henderson played by L. Scott Caldwell and tail section survivor Bernard Nadler played by Sam Anderson were featured in a flashback episode after being reunited. Mira Furlan as Danielle Rousseau, the shipwrecked Frenchwoman, appears throughout the series. Some of the "Others," including M. C. Gainey as Tom, William Mapother as Ethan Rom, Tania Raymonde as Alex Rousseau and Nestor Carbonell as Richard Alpert have been shown in both flashbacks and the ongoing story. Similarly, Jack's father Christian Shephard (John Terry) has appeared in multiple flashbacks of various characters.
second is text i attempted to add to the heroes article:
Numerous supporting characters have been given expansive and recurring appearances in the progressive storyline. Angela Petrelli, portrayed by Christine Rose along with season one antagonist Mr. Linderman, portrayed by Malcolm McDowell have appeared throughout the series. Claude the invisible man, played by Christopher Eccleston and The Haitian, portrayed by Jimmy Jean-Louis both worked for The Company and Noah Bennet within the series. Other supporting characters that were introduced included Molly Walker portrayed by Adair Tishler, who was first introduced towards the beginning of the season and reappared towards the end.  She played an even bigger role in season two.http://cdn.libsyn.com/wordballoon/WBheroesvol2wrapup.mp3 Bob Bishop was also introduced in the season season as the head of The Company.  He is portrayed by Stephen Tobolowsky. Hana Gitelman, played by Stana Katic is the guide for Heroes Evolutions; she has only appeared in two episodes, but has appeared in fifteen graphic novels.
Thoughts? I am not giving OR or POV. I am just stating the characters that we here at wikipedia have determined as notable because they have their own pages.  Similar to the rationale done on the Lost page.  Secondly, I dont think that an encyclopedic section shouldnt be added becuase we dont want to invite fan cruft or give people the idea to add OR.  We just revert like we always do and add hidden text...that will help lessen the problem. --Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: One thought: Plagiarism. classy. A second thought. It's still an 'Other Crap exists' rationale. That's not enough, and not all the characters do, or should, have their own pages. We had a list of characters page that met the needs for those characters. That someone else passed Lost as an FA with that says something about the reviewer. It's a fluff 'graf. I reverted it. leave it out. ThuranX (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think any in the casting section is word for word.  i ref everything.  and if i did make a mistake and word for word some text, lets work together to rewrite the sentence or the information.  we should be working together to improve the sections, not bashing one another about a mistake.  i didnt copy and paste anything but websites for the lazy refs.  but, if i did type something word for word it would be a better use of your time to fix it or improve it rather than accussing someone of plagiarism. classy. secondly, it is all POV and OR if you really want to talk about the character pages for Bob, Angela, Linderman, Claude, Molly, Hana and the Haitian, as most of their articles are written in-universe and have hardly any real world content.  yet, we all agree to keep them.  What third party source do any of us have that states that those seven characters are billed as recurring characters? None, but we give them notability because of the impact their character has had on the series.  I am simply doing the same thing.  In the paragraph, i never gave those cast members a billing as recurring or main cast members.  i just stated that Numerous supporting characters have been given expansive and recurring appearances in the progressive storyline.  How is this OR? These characters have had the most apperances and explanded storylines than any other non-main character or cast members.   I am not billing them as a recurring character, like sylar was or ando...i am simply acknowledging that they have a pressence on the show and have had several more appearances than Lynette the waitress or charlie andrews for example.  I would like to also say that it is not okay for you to judge other peoples contributions as you did with the lost article.  several users have worked hard on that article and are proud that it is featured.  a lot of work went into that page and a lot of users here on the heroes page also contribute to the lost page.  thanks...smile--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The opening statement is lifted directly. ThuranX (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Copyright problemsMaybe you should review this policy to learn more about Plagiarism because you may not be fully aware of the policy.  The casting section is well sourced and nothing that is listed in the casting section is posted without a source. some of the sections have two or three sources...all to accredited newspapers and entertainment websites...--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Chrisisinchrist: I am just stating the characters that we here at wikipedia have determined as notable because they have their own pages… I am not billing them as a recurring character, like sylar was or ando...i am simply acknowledging that they have a pressence on the show and have had several more appearances than Lynette the waitress or charlie andrews for example.  Agree.  ThuranX: Other Crap exists… That someone else passed Lost as an FA with that says something about the reviewer.  The Lost article was promoted to featured article status in September 2006.  Standards for featured content have changed since then.  The references are not well formatted and I would support demotion, however the Lost article does have great information.  Raul654 passed Lost as an FA; he passes everything because he is the featured article director and decides when there is consensus.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't really been following this discussion, but I do agree with Chrisisinchrist. He is a good editor and I believe he knows what he is doing. Щіκі RoςкЗ(talκ) 05:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I wrote "agree" after quoting you in my most recent post (I think that it should be included).  –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! Lots of activity over the last couple of days! Wow!  Well, I agree with Chris. I don't see a problem with the paragraph.  If dumbo users want to vandalize the section, then it can easily be reverted.  I support adding the paragraph because it highlights the most notable characters in the series. I think the changes to the mainpage are very good.  The "conception" and "casting" sections are good.76.168.220.243 (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements and Changes to main page 

message: I saw a book at Barnes and Noble.  I think it was called "Save the World a Heroes Guide." Can that be included somewhere in the article?  I do really know how to include the information in the article.  I think the book may have been written by someone involved with Heroes or maybe a fan.  I don't remember the arthors name.  I think it was something like Lynette Potter.--75.28.139.135 (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked out this book's page on amazon.com (Saving the World: A Guide to Heroes), and, from the looks of it, it falls more along the lines of "unofficial guide" type books. If this is indeed the case, then it probably doesn't really fit in the article. I'm sure we'll see a lot of media coming out that tries to capitalize on the success of Heroes, but isn't really a part of the Heroes universe. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On a related note, how much stock can we put in such things as sources? I'll try to review this one and see what it actually offers. ThuranX (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i remeber reading that books when i was at the book store.  i glanced through it. lots of fan speculation. i remember reading a section in the back about the characters abilities and it said something about mohinder suresh possibly having a dream type power, similar to one sanjog used to show him his fathers murder.  that has been discredited of course by everyone from heroes production.  but, it may have some good stuff on the conception of heroes and all that.  i am going to take a look at it tomorrow and see if i can find any useful verifiable info.  maybe for now the book can be listed under fandom.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book 

message: This weekend I will be starting some work on "The Mythology of Heroes."  I have been working all week to find verifiable third party sources to support the things that will be included.  If you have any opposition, please state so.  I will be tagging that section so that their wont be any edit conflicts until it is complete.  After it is complete, anyone who needs to go through and improve the section should feel more than free to do so.  I will be semi-modeling the section after Mythology of Lost article.  Please check this article out so that you can have an idea of what I want to do.  I will only be including themes and elements in the mythology section that have been confirmed and verified by someone on the production team at heroes (kring, beeman, loeb, etc.).  If you have any thoughts, please include them here.  I would hate for the mythology section to be full of cruft.  thoughts?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 18:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a question not regarding this. Why has QuasiAbstract just signed his/her name? I don't understand. ЩіκіRocкs(talκ) 04:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Check the edit summary for QuasiAbstract and thedemonhog's messages and the joke should make more sense. =)  --Centish (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK...lol. Now I got it. I previously only saw QuasiAbstract's edit summary, and I thought he was being a ****head, but now that I saw thedemonhogs's summary, I see he was trying to be funny. And it was...in a way. ЩіκіRocкs(talκ) 06:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for the talk page disruption.  I was suffering from a lack of sleep at the time.  Moral of the story: "You shouldn't edit Wikipedia while sleep deprived." ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 09:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heroes Mythology