Talk:Heroes (American TV series)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

(formerly from archive 7)

Graphic novels - canon?

Are the online graphic novels and other content considered official canon? I haven't heard one way or the other. I know that Brody is more severely injured on screen than he appears to be in the comic, and Claire's Myspace page says she's 18 but the TV show says she's 17. And there are probably other contradictions. If the canonical status of these spin-offs hasn't been determined, I think this should be noted (precedents for this include various articles related to Star Trek and Doctor Who that also indicate if a piece of information derives from a spin-off. Such things need to be noted in the character articles as well. Again using Claire as an example, her article mentions her rescuing Brody, etc. yet anyone watching only the TV show will be confused, as the episode suggests they were rescued by ambulance. 23skidoo 20:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, Ollie explained the age thing. I think the comics are canon, though citation of them should be clearer as to not confuse readers. And, the inconsistencies seem to be in the series alone as well, citing Chandra Suresh's book as just one example. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

He did? I must have missed that. 23skidoo 16:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Said it was because of access restrictions to minors. Makes sense if it's all canon, too. I could see Claire embellishing for more access. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The Table

I'm thinking it be time to either

• move the list of graphic novels to their own article or
• move the information on each novel to the corresponding episode article

one or the other needs to happen and just a general description left in its place, otherwise by the end of the season the table will be twice as long as the character table that I just moved off to its own page! -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  11:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there will always be a corresponding episode, as I recall seeing an interview the producers that the plan was to even have a new on-line comic during weeks that there wasn't a new episode. (I can't recall where I saw that, though, and I don't see it on the NBC site or 9th Wonders!, so unfortunately I can't cite a source.) I'd support moving the list to their own article at some point. --Psiphiorg 00:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with the new article idea. I'd suggest leaving a quick one para "Hey, guess what, there are graphic novels to go along with the episodes." Also, Psiphiorg's mention of non-episode linked issues sounds vaguely familiar, but I can't for the life of me think of where I heard it either. Hemsath 06:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the Graphic Novels should have their own page. Leave the section up in this article, with a link to them, and that's it. The table is going to get unweildy very soon. I took the liberty of creating a Graphic Novels page and if the consensus here agrees we can link to it (like we do the episodes link). Otherwise I'll delete it.Novastarj 03:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect 2

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

Reversion War

What's with the reversion war going on with this article, particularly with character abilities? I don't see how continuously reverting information -- including details that are still subjects of debate -- are serving the best interests of Wikipedia readers. Primogen 23:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

THe GIPU editor is switching IP's and continuing his actions,that's what. You can see on ACS's user talk page that it's all the same editor. ThuranX 01:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, in "Collision" (#4), the conversation between Mohinder Suresh and Nathan Petrelli, Mohinder mentions "spontaneous regeneration." In "Genesis" (#1) during his lecture he mentions "tissue regeneration." Also seen in the pilot is a glimpse of the file tabs of Chandra Suresh's files. One is labeled "Rapid Cellular Regeneration." Obviously the main matter to convey is _what_ the ability is. Best case is to use the accepted, generic term. If a unique term prevails in the show's context we can mention such a term or phrase (ie, "break the space-time continuum"). Hobophobe 05:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, the show itself hasn't determined a specific name yet so we should be using the industry standard for now. Additionally for all future discussion to the two separate revert wars we've had please refer to Talk:Claire Bennet for her issue and Talk:Isaac Mendez for his issue. We want to keep these issues separate and where they belong. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  05:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Powers

Hiro's powers should be changed from the three listed to 'Space-Time Manipulation' Which comports better with his individual entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.10.52.72 (talk • contribs) 02:51, October 27, 2006

I disagree that this would be an improvement for the general reader. Less-geeky readers might not infer that "Space-Time Manipulation" includes teleportation and time-travel; more-geeky readers might incorrectly infer that Hiro is capable of (at this point), say, levitation and telekineses by sufficiently folding the space fabric around himself or an object. The currently listed three powers do a good job of conveying Hiro's demonstrated abilities thus far. Primogen 17:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Much as I wish we could properly link 'S-TM' to a proper article, we can't. I agree that the three do a better job of explaining his power's function, if not it's actual title. It MIGHT be worth adding a notation to the chart explaining the difference between power and listing?ThuranX 00:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the statement above made by ThuranX. What we are attemting to do is put a name to something that has not yet been given one. Time is what we need to better understand the powers of all the characters, not just Hiro. We are looking for answers that haven't even been given to us. Everything will be understood in time. We'll just have to wait until that time comes before we can really do anything. The three listed will do for now, but may be changed when the times comes that we can verify that they need to be changed. Bkid 09:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Has it been verified that Micah actually has a power? Or is that merely fans surmising about the likely result of being D.L.'s and Nikki's son? As far as I know nothing has been seen definetely that he does in fact have powers.

multiple press articles say he does. Premiere or EW or some such had them on the cover and inside it was stated that Ali Larter knows what Micah's power is.ThuranX 21:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

After the episode an hour and a half ago I assume that Micah is a technopath. Some may believe that he controls electricity but he is also like super smart. So I think technopath is the best answer. November 6, 2006

Simone Deveaux as "MAIN CHARACTER"?

She doesn't even seem as important as Mr. Bennet! Why does she have warrant to be as a main character? Gbcue 06:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the producers Credit her as such. Mr. Bennet will be moving to the main charcter section soon, as he is a main character as of episode 11. EnsRedShirt 07:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Added Mr. Bennet to the Main Characters section.Lobot72 05:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review

For those that care I just ran this through the automated peer review script and heres the results.

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
• Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word 'The'. For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • apparently
  • are considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status:On 07:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Images

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

Main Character table

The main character table is becomming VERY cumbersome and is only going to get worse as Mr. Bennet will be joing it by episode 11. I am thinging it may be time to move it off the main article into its own article like shows such as Lost have done and leave an overview summery in the main article. If that idea is not popular then i would suggest that we remove some of the unnecessary columns such as age, occupation and location as these items are somewhat trivial for the main article. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  16:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of getting rid of the pictures. That'll make the table much more compact (since most entries would be a single line without them) and make it easier to use. The pictures are, after all, in the individual articles already. --dws90 01:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of these suggestions. I still feel like users went a little crazy with the template. I won't do anything now,—for once—but if there's no opposition posted here by Thursday, let's make the changes. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Since there weren't any objections and it was going to have to be done anyway at some point i went ahead and moved this off the main article. Alot of work still needs to be done to expand this article past the chart I would recommend merging the minor characters list into the article as a sub section and going from there. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  11:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

I agree that the table was getting unwieldy. I think a very brief text descrptions, which is whata most other articles about TV shows use, works better. However, I don't see the point of linking to an article just containing the table. I think we should lose the table altogether. So much of this show involves the character's changing locations and relationships, as well as new things being unveiled about each on almost a weekly basis, a table isn't the device to give readers a good snapshot of the characters. Primogen 19:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason the table was kept and moved was so that it could be expanded to include all the characters. I'm not sure about the change on the main article though from paragraph style formatting back to a listification. Lists should be avoided when possible and in this case it is. I would refer you to to the Lost article which uses a similar formating and was recently an FA. (On a side note please reference Wikipedia:Embedded list -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  03:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Just signed up here, so I can't change this, but I wanted to make the suggestion of changing DL's super power explanation to "phases through solid matter" instead of "phases through walls", as he stuck his hand through Stripperella near the end of last Monday's episode. UtterVillainy 14:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ando

Shouldn't Ando be in the main characters table? He's had more screentime than Simone and arguably plays just as big a role. --Mister Six 22:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This issue is under discussion here in the Minor characters talk page. --Psiphiorg 22:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

New Graphic Novel

I would add it in myself if it wasn't protected. Available here: http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/novels/downloads/Heroes_novel_006.pdf 160.39.30.231 22:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I added it. Novastarj 00:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Year?

I believe that it should be added that this series takes place in 2 the year 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by zak123321 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I gotta be honest with you, I have no idea what you just said. Are you saying it takes place in 2008? If so where did you hear/see that? Do you have a source? -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  06:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it takes place in 2006, since Hiro time-travelled to November 8, and the newspaper's headline was about Nathan's performance in the election. In 2006, the election is on November 7, while in 2008, the election will be on November 4. It makes more sense to run a story about a "landslide" the day after the election, not four days after.

Also, I seem to recall seeing a "2006" somewhere in the show, though I cannot recall where offhand. --Psiphiorg 07:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What year was on the newspaper, or was there one? Bio 19:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Easter Eggs?

Should there be a different section for other (non-Graphic novel) easter eggs? Example-if you go to the main nbc heroes page and click on the "Come Visit" sign (to the right of Mohinder's head) in the flash picture, you get some of the Text messages between Ando and Niki (not sure if this can be considered an easter egg or not). Also, there is a link to Claire's MySpace page if you go to her cast description and click on the bookbag/book in the background of the flash picture. --arrow61095 17:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes there should be a separate easter egg section since there are many of them, it would make sense... --131.94.253.111 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would start one myself if it wasn't protected. --arrow61095 15:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

ROFLMAO nice try, why did you self support yourself? The suggestion is legitimate. I would actually recomend though that we first determin if this information can go elsewhere. For example I've already been thinking we may need to start an "Other Media" section for talking about the web comics, claire's myspace and other such tie ins where these easter eggs would fit perfectly. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  16:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I also see that you have no contribs, not trying to rag on you since again your suggestion is legit, just want you to know you don't have to do it this way -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  16:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I would completely agree that an "Other Media" section would serve to better organize this type of information. Actually, the first two posts in this section are reposts from, "Graphic Novel Easter Eggs" which was Archived in archive 5. I admit that at the time this line of questioning was first touched on, I probably should have started a new topic section. However with "Graphic Novel Easter Eggs" being archived so soon after my addition there (and 131.94.253.111's reply (which I reposted here)) I felt that more input was needed on the subject before changing the actual article. I was also hoping that anyone else who had come accross similar "Easter Eggs" may post (at least to the discussion), so that when such a section is created there may be few more "Easter Eggs" to add to the section. As for not having any contribs, I prefer more often to post to the discussions contributing indirectly than to directly edit the articles as at times my grammer and spelling are atrocious. --arrow61095 19:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, (usually best to note that your referencing an arcived discussion), let me think on what exactly should be there and then ill start -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  00:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you are correct- I should have referenced. If I find anything else that may be of use I'll post here. ----arrow61095 17:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

One curious thing that I just found. If you go to the main group wallpaper on nbc's site (http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/images/wallpapers/heroes-downloads-desktop-group-1024x768-01.jpg), you will notice that Niki's reflection in the water is different than her current pose -which fits her doppleganger power. However, I can not tell who (or what) the reflection beside her is. It doesn't quite look like Matt although he is standing close. Can anyone tell who/what it is? ----arrow61095 19:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this means, but if you go to the main nbc page of heroes and click on the building with an "M" in the flash picture, It prints on the screen

REFECTIONS ON THE FUTURE

NEW YORK CITY

with "NEW YORK CITY" overwriting the MONDAYS 9/8 NBC print.

Here is something else interesting. If you go to Mohinder's character page (http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/cast/mohinder.shtml) and click on the diploma on the wall it says that he has a degree in parapsychology. I thought that he was a genetics professor... Or was that just his father that was the genetics professor? Or does he have degrees in both? --arrow61095 22:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

References to non-NBC Shows

Near the beginning of the episode "Better Halves," when Niki and Micah are startled awake, sitting in plain view on the nightstand is an orange Mold-A-Rama wax lion. There's about half a second where it's in focus, but it's quite clearly the smooshed-faced wax lion from Wonderfalls. —Ricky 04:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Bryan Fuller was a writer/producer on both shows, so that's probably why they referenced WF. --Psiphiorg 06:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This may or may not be a tribute to an ABC soap (One Life to Live), but Niki Sanders (aka Jessica) shares names with 2 characters from that show who have split personalities. Viki Davidson's evil alter ego is named Niki and her daughter, Jessica Buchanon Vega has an evil alter ego named Tess. So, in the show One Life to Live, there is a Niki and a Jessica, one bad and the other good.

This possible reference is discussed in Talk:Niki_Sanders#OLTL_connection. Primogen 02:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

added Category:Heroes Images

I've created Category:Heroes Images and tagged ever Heroes related image I could find with it. If you see any I missed please add them. Also we have "duplicates" of some actors/characters as mentioned above we need one of the more lawyerly editors to go through them and determin which to keep and which to toss. Before that happens though it would be nice if everyone went through and checked the images for proper licensing, referencing (where the image came from) and fair use rational (if needed). This will make it much easier when determining which pics should stay or go. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  08:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Tbh.. all charcater images need to be redone and cropped (look at Clares and you will see why..) - cropped from an episode them self then the {{tv-screenshot}} can be claimed, all images also need a FUR. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Importance of Graphic Novels vs. TV Episodes?

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

There is a discussion above, at #The Table. Check it out! --Psiphiorg 13:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Similarity to Broken Saints

Does anyone else find Heros substantively similar to Broken Saints? Sandy McArthur 20:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems Heroes is similar to a lot of stuff. Don't think too much of it. Like Tim Kring said Jeph Loeb put it: "It's been done...fifty times." Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

ratings

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

Just put a link to Neilsen Rating or go there yourself. Tazzy531 02:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Supporting Characters section

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

Lexxdark 22:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC) This was discussed before as far as I know. The main ideea is that the main characters are determined by what the showmakers say.. And none of the above was mentioned as a main charcater by the show producers..

Six or five weeks...

Lexxdark 22:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC) On most of the places I have seen I saw that Hiro traveled 5 weeks into the future (even in the movie the dates were october 2 and november 8 if I remember right), but in the comic strip (The Crane) on the first page it says six weeks... Why is that? Maybe I haven't noticed something... Should this be noted next to the comic book link?

Graphic Novels on own page

I suggested this above, but I know it'll get lost in the mess so I'll say it again here. The list of graphic novels I believe will get unweildy very soon. I think it is better to move it to its own page, to make the page more on topic with the TV show itself, and also ease some pressure on this talk page. I made a page for the Heroes graphic novels. Assuming I get a consensus here, we can link to it from the main page like we do for the list of Heroes episodes. If not, I'll delete the page. Novastarj 03:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Something like this (an ever expanding list) is generally not very contrivercial since it's going to have to happen at some point (like the episode list. Be Bold! go for it! -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  06:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I split and linked the page. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Solar Eclipse

After the last episode the symbol of the solar eclipse seems to be more and more important. Currently there is a section on the symbol and I am wondering if it would make sense to broaden the section to _Recurring Themes_ or _Symbology_ or _Recurring Symbols_ Jrasmussen0 13:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

At present we really don't know too much about what its significance is or where it shows up. At first it seemed like it was related to unlocking their abilities somehow, but then it was revealed that (for instance) Niki had her super-strength before the day of the eclipse. So I dunno. It is definitely worth analysis but I don't think there's much to go on just yet, certainly nothing that wouldn't be original research. Vignettelante 05:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Another symbol and explosion theory

There is another symbol in the show. First on the radioactive man, then on matt's neck. Everybody wanna rename "the symbol" to "Symbols" for more clues and symbols. Maybe the nuclear man will meet up with Hiro and Ando and Distroy NY by mistake. Maybe Future Hiro is from a Mad Max-like universe he inadveringly made Tgunn2 18:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I incorporated the second symbol. However, please refrain from wild speculation on the discussion page. We discuss article improvements here, not the plot and predictions. (that said, I have a hypothesis I will post on my own user page for the historic record, lol.) ThuranX 22:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering something about the symbol. It is stated in the article that it is RNA like, but I fail to see the resembelence... Is there some official source saying that is what they intend it to look like? 207.172.78.4 02:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

From writers Joe Pokaski and Aron Coleite. Q :One thing we noticed about the symbol that keeps popping up is that it looks like part of an RNA molecule. Now, we know you can't reveal all about the symbol (we're trying to be patient!), but are we on the right track? A:Kind of. (http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=8817) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 610:13, November 10, 2006 (talk • contribs) 71.192.235.116

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

Characters

As the other character's occupations are listed, I added that Peter Petrelli is a Nurse. Gerren McKnight 03:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is this section back? It is pretty much the same info as on the Characters of Heroes page except in a harder to read format. Should the table be brought back to this main page? Joshua Friel 00:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No the table was moved to its own page as main articles are not supposed to contain lists but rather be prose. I moved the table off and replaced it with prose and someone reconverted it to a list when it should not have been. I will re-convert it to prose over the weekend. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  09:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hiro's Sword

I know this was just changed, but even though the characters only recognized it as a sword, it's also a katana. Unless someone who knows swords more than I can say it looks more like another type, I think we should leave it as "katana". PureSoldier 20:21, 8

November 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Hiro Nakamura#Katana or Tsurugi? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Louis reed 19:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)A Japanese sword is a katana (katana means sword in Japanese); I don't think that it would matter all that much if it is referred to as a sword or a katana.

However, in English, "katana" refers to a specific type of sword, associated with the samurai, and not, say, the wakizashi. Primogen 20:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I remind both Louis Reed and Primogen that there is a link right above for discussing this. ThuranX 21:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Page Edit

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

Of the two, I think the the superhero power definition, Radiokinesis, is the more appropriate one for describing a superhero power. Primogen 19:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(formerly from archive 8)

Archived

In an effort to clean up this talk page I've archived most of the discussions. Going forward please keep all discussions specific to characters confined to the talk page for that character and try not to make duplicate sections (IE we dont need 5 seperate discussions of the symbol.-- Argash | talk | contribs 04:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done some more archiving of this talk page and split the original archive up into a few smaller pages as it was extremely large. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  04:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There are too many archives, It makes finding articles a real pain in the ass. Plus nobody is going to look in the archives to see if something has already been discussed, so it will lead to more duplicate posts. Wikipedia should change it where new post are at the top of the page instead of the bottom, that would make a lot more sense.75.21.125.177 07:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Actually, now that I'm looking at the archive pages, they're also large. But since they're archive pages, do we need to make them into smaller archive pages or leave them as is? fmmarianicolon | Talk 04:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive pages can be unnecessarily large. That's why they're archives. The important thing is to keep the main pages in check. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, just wanted to make sure. I've archived another group (#7) to keep the size down. fmmarianicolon | Talk 20:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Episodes

how many episodes are going to be in this season -aaronpark

Ratings II

I added details up until the known episode which is number 10 “Six Months Ago”. After the episodes have aired someone can just add the rating information as it becomes available each week until more episode information is released. Gerren McKnight 03:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A listing of rating is total cruft info and doesn't belong. I'm removing it. CovenantD 00:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically, it can be considered compariable to the "(critical) reaction" and "box office" sections of film articles. Still, the way it's currently setup does seem troubling and Lohot isn't helping matters. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Lose the ratings section. Crufty. ThuranX 04:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Second. Anyone can look that up. Ratings are just glorified trivia. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can easily look up the information now, but in two years it may not be so easy. The information is relevant as it pertains to the show's notability and cultural popularity. How easy it is to find the information elsewhere does not factor into the determination of whether or not it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Additionally, I notice that all the proponents of removing the information are using the argument, "it's cruft," with nothing else. Let me be blunt and to the point: "Cruft" is another way of saying "I don't like it." That has never constituted a viable argument on Wikipedia, and it never will in the future either. -- Y|yukichigai 21:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Good luck.. many TV shows have ratings boxes. I believe them to be encyclopedic as it is the best way to gague the popurity in the american culture.. EnsRedShirt 05:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

True, television ratings have some encyclopedic value and help to guage popularity, but not at a week by week level as presented here. I can't imagine many readers being interested in the weekly ratings even two years from now. As time goes on, this information will devolve into minutia and the table will dominate the entire article. I see value in discussing the ratings of the premiere episode and eventually the seasonal ratings, but this table brings in a level of detail beyond the scope of the article. Primogen 23:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The detail provides information regarding the rise of the popularity of the show, which is relevant. However, it is possible this information could be better presented as, say, a graph or image as time progresses. This would retain the relevant information, but reduce the impact it has on the flow of the article. Thoughts? -- Y|yukichigai 21:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, if you don't like 'cruft' as a reason, try this. It's NOT useful information, as pointed out above, to have the ratings for every episode once we've got a full season, or multiple seasons. Eventually we'll have a big fight about whether or not 'Weekly ratings for Heroes (TV Series)' should be a page. That'll definitely be speedy deleted as a pointless exercise in lists, or under wiki's not a crapfest, or some other fully acceptabel reason for deleting. Unless you intend to provide ratings and market share info for every series ever aired, including the Simpsons and M*A*S*H, which both have VERY long runs, good luck keeping this. It ought to go as being trivial. I'm fine with 'it debuted in X slot in the rankings, with Y viewers, and averaged Z in the ratings system in it's first A Seasons.' That's plenty of ratings info. ThuranX 22:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, calm down. This is a discussion, not an episode of Jerry Springer.

Secondly, I don't disagree that displaying weekly statistics once we go past the full season mark will likely constitute "overkill". However, we aren't there yet. We can worry about displaying weekly statistics once we get to that point, but at the moment you're putting the cart before the horse. Weekly statistics are quite appropriate at the moment. -- Y|yukichigai 22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I gave a long list of non-crufty reasons to drop it. there's no bombasticism or screaming in there. The fact that a long list of reasons gets dismissed as jerry springer-ish motivates my boldness. ThuranX 05:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Episode-by-episode ratings? It's silly. Definitely drop it. JJL 00:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I decided to see what the guys at WikiProject Television were doing about ratings, and they don't even recommend having a Ratings section at all: "Remember that Wikipedia is foremost an Encyclopedia and that articles therefore should try to be prosaïc instead of lists of arbitrary information that you can pull out of TV.com". All they are doing for ratings is an infox with a single ratings entry per country. Primogen 00:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The biggest flaw of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit anything. All I see on here is people fighting over what should or shouldn't be posted. This whole rating's fiasco could be solved if Wikipedia had a template people could use to set up these articles. I think until there are more season's of heroes the episodes should be listed on the main page, some people get too link happy. IG-2000 03:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There is such a template, and it doesn't include ratings information. Primogen 19:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I should have stated a template like ebay has for listing auctions, basically fill in the blanks. IG-2000 03:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Theories Sections?

Is it possible to have sections for theories that people come up with for characters and such? This is a great feature on Lostpedia, and I think Heroes deserves the same types of discussion. (CinematicESP 23:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC))

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not for speculation. Perhaps one of the Heroes wikis (such as heroeswiki.com) allows speculation. --Psiphiorg 00:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

However, we do not support this or consider it a good quality for a purported wiki/'pedia. Spec=bad. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What to do with Bennet...

This guy is starting to pop up everywhere. Currently, he's listed on both Minor characters in Heroes and the main article, but he's not listed on Characters of Heroes. In addition, he also has his own article. I don't think makes much sense to have him in both the minor characters list as well as the main page (which is otherwise exclusively major characters. Therefore, I recommend we either: a) remove him from the main page, or b) remove him from the minor characters list and add him to the table on the Characters of Heroes page. Are there any opinions as to which one? --dws90 23:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think option A sounds better. Perhaps this should be made into a poll? --TorriTorri^{Talk to me!} 00:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Option B is the correct one though.. as he is a main character as of episode 11, he should be treated as a main character. EnsRedShirt 03:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No polls, and don't claim "correctness." This is an encyclopedia, not a democracy or bureaucracy. Now, what, exactly, is so bad about multiple links? He's not officially "bumped" status-wise yet so excluding him the minor characters article isn't best. Listing him here shouldn't be a problem, either. Chillax and deal, people. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 08:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fansites: spam or info?

I don't understand why they think fansites with wonderful info are getting such a bad rep? Tonight, we're adding only informal fansites, not blogs and forums.

If should disagree, be my guest !

Tgunn2 00:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, first off, don't call us "bitches." Second, why the confrontational message? Civility, ever hear of it? Third. read Wikipedia:External links. And, I repeat, name one thing that site has which we don't. Specify; don't just making whorish claims. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 09:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Links to other movies

Should anything be included about parts of this movie that link to other films? For example, in Genesis when Mohinder meets the "Horn-rimmed glasses" guy, the man says that Mohinder's last name must be popular in India, like "Smith", or "Anderson". Those are the names of the protagonist and antogonist of the Matrix series (Smith and Neo Anderson) Bio 19:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not unless you are aware of a source that proves that the reference was intentional. And even then, this is pretty trivial trivia that's more appropriate for a fansite than an encyclopedia. Primogen 21:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a film. Gahhh...Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Number of episodes to be aired for the first season

I'm almost positive I read somewhere (I think on wikipedia somewhere) how many episodes would be aired for the first season, but I forgot the number. What was it?

22... -Xornok 13:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

plot: to harness their "super DNA" for his own ends.

can someone please provide a source for that last paragraph or remove it? thanks. dposse 01:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Here. Primogen 21:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Request typo fix (he -> she)

Please fix the heading under Simone Deveaux to reflect the proper gender - "... boyfriend, Isaac. He has no known superhuman abilities."

Some Random Bloke 19:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It was properly changed to "she" about 9 hours before your post. Primogen 19:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Powers?

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

Claire's powers

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

Font?

Anyone know what font they use for the show? It's very comic-like. I'd like to know the name.--Richard 03:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't recognize it. THey got Tim Sale for the paintings, it's entirely possible they hired a letterer to custom scribe a font for hte show, it wouldn't be the first time a ashow's done that by any measure. ThuranX 04:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Jessica's RNA Symbol

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

What would it be called then? Bio 19:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to call it anything. I took out the words "as a tattoo". Primogen 20:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Mohinder so far exhibits no superhuman powers himself."

Just curious about this last line on the main page...Is it necessary now, considering Mohinder has finally accessed his father's file on all the Heroes and he is not listed? I understand the concept of him just being an undiscovered Hero but assuming he was close to his father as a son, and just in general about being family, you would think if he was one his father would know. As we know, not all the important characters are Heroes, such as Ando and Mohinder, as each has a role in this story. Mohinder's time at home made him realize his destiny was to help the Heroes,so it's likely he won't be one but just be the guide for the rest. In case you find this unreasonable or otherwise a complete waste of the Talk: page, I apologize, as I do not generally talk in the discussions here but I was just voicing a thought.User:Navex 4:36, 21 November 2006

The list was never shown in it's entirety, nor is it guaranteed that every single person with superhuman powers is on that list. Mohinder could still possibly display powers in the future 67.183.178.171 17:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the description to say, "he has no known superhuman abilities" so that it matches the wording of descriptions of other main characters who have not demonstrated any super powers on the show. Primogen 18:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Helix sighting

so a new helix symbol was spotted on the greyhound bus sign http://www.9thwonders.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=37705&st=0&#entry90248 here is a link to a screencap Totallycharged 02:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Totallycharged

hey thanks for posting it

Caitlin

This is a discussion question...please do not remove!
I was just wondering if we need to include the fact that Peter never rescued her. Is the plot line going to continue into Villians, or did I miss something? (Wikirocks2 (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

No, i don't think we do. Events happened so fast that we never saw what happened to her. We shouldn't speculate. Personally, i believe that she returned to the present after Peter destroyed the virus. That would be in line with how most science fiction shows work their time travel paradoxes. But, that's just my opinion. dposse (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please take this discussion to a fansite. this is not a forum for idle discussion on the show or to post speculation. Please only post things that relate to improving this article. thanks.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no fair, stealing my line! Seriously, while this does border on fan discussion, it is about a character in the series. As far as we know, Caitlin is stuck in a future that - due to Peter's actions - no longer exists. Dating heroes has its consequences. Perhaps she would have been better off pulling pints for bent Irish longshoremen. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for [possibly] answering my question, and i wanted you guys to know that you can delete this question if you like. I never was going to include the fact that Caitlan is stuck in the future, I just wrote it that way so it wouldn't get deleted again. :P Sorry. (Wikirocks2 (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

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

It will probably be like Back to the Future 2, were Jennifer and Einstein are in an alternative 1985, and Doc and Marty go make to 1955 and stop Biff from getting the Almanac, Doc says that space-time continuum is corrected and the alternative 1985 will go make to the real 1985 and change around Jennifer and Einstein, that probable what will happens to Caitlin see fine as the future changes with the only memory of that possible Future-RREDD13 (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

External wikis

Hey there. Long time reader, first time contributor so be gentle. =) Taking a step back and putting aside previous discussions for a moment, why is it that we keep removing an external link to Heroes Wiki on this article? It doesn't seem to actually be a violation of any policies since we have links to external wikis on the following articles for example:

• Scrubs
• The Simpsons
• Battlestar_Galactica
• Chuck
• Family Guy
• American Dad
• 24
• Smallville

That's just a brief list of shows I know off the top of my head. If simply including links to external wikis was a violation of policy then I'm sure they wouldn't still be on some of these popular articles. I perused some prior discussions and it does seem like Heroes Wiki meets the guidelines at least as sufficiently as the wikis the articles above link to. I'm just confused why we here keep removing it since I see a lot of revert comments that claim it's because it violates a policy like WP:EL, but I think those reverts may just be happening out of habit. I know others have discussed this before and I don't want to ruffle any feathers especially since I know that I, too, am guilty in the real world of sticking to my initial beliefs and trying to find every little reason to back up my original position. I've tried to become more aware of this tendency and try to approach new discussions with an open mind. =) -Centish (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is an excert from the policy on external links that you may find helpful

1. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Wikis that meet this criteria might also be added to Meta:Interwiki map. Please check the link to see if heroes wiki has been added. I say no to heroes wiki because it so speculative. but we need to follow policy on this one, and not opinion--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
   • Hey there. =) On the Heroes Wiki they have policies against including speculation on the main articles, so any speculation on their articles is probably a mistake and hopefully fixed quickly. Also concerning the open wiki section of WP:EL I believe your quote is from there are several wikis on the list above that have even fewer editors than on Heroes Wiki. This is why it gets a little confusing. =) It's hard to figure out where the major difference is between the Heroes one and the other ones that makes the Heroes one not suitable at the same time as making the others suitable. --Centish (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that the Heroes Wiki IS quite speculative. Every time (or, if multiple times in a day or from the same editor, the first time)I've reverted the addition of the link, I've jumped over there. There's still tons and tons of WP:SYNTH going on, lots of WP:CRYSTAL, and so on. It's a fanwiki, not a well referenced encyclopedic wiki, and shouldn't be linked to from here. When they get some actual policies and enforce those policies, then a link can be added. But for months, all I've seen is synth synth synth. (Addendum: The Cuck Wiki is similarly plagued by OR and opinion. Adam Baldwin's page over there has editor interpretations ofhte characters he plays as fact instead of as opinion.) ThuranX (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, ThuranX. =) The point you made in your addendum is what has actually been confusing me. If the Chuck Wiki has a ton of OR and opinion AND if that is immediate grounds for not including a link then why is it allowed to remain on the page? In the page source they even mark it as having passed WP:EL. Also a good point to keep in mind is that for links to satisfy WP:EL they don't need to satisfy WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The latter two are concerned with Wikipedia content itself and are not viral. --Centish (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thuran, I have no real opinion on the wiki, but being a "fan wiki" is not much different than being content on Wikipedia, considering how many of us are fans. -- Ned Scott 04:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, original research is hardly a concern for an external link. The reason we discourage it is because Wikipedia is not a place to publish original thought, not because the concept of OR is bad. -- Ned Scott 07:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• An interesting situation. What's also interesting is to find that NBC also hosts an official wiki running Mediawiki software, which I thought was pretty cool (but does not appear to be under a free copyright license). I haven't looked at heroeswiki.com in depth, but it does seem to have a fair amount of activity for an independent wiki. Too bad their content is under CC 3.0 noncommercial, which makes them incompatible with our own content.

• There's also a Heroes wiki on Wikia, but with far less activity, and far less content than the other two. -- Ned Scott 04:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

After thinking about it some more, I would not have a problem with linking to heroeswiki.com. -- Ned Scott 07:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems I actually took a look at this site not long ago on Meta:Talk:Interwiki map. I didn't realize I was looking at the same wiki. A very well done wiki, and has my full support to have a link. -- Ned Scott 08:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ned, sorry, but your edit has been reverted. One, there has been significant opposition both past and present to including the link. Two, discussion here is still under way, so any change must wait until it finishes. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Opposed - there are numerous examples of OR and speculation on the site. Some examples, found at random:

"Like The Breakfast Club's Andrew, Crash is psychologically hurt by these degrading remarks from a tough father." (opinion and analysis)

"Due to the Writers Guild of America strike the full run of the second season was cut short, making this the finale." (from the article on "Powerless"; no citations, incorrect information per referenced text here.)

The article on Peter Petrelli includes speculation as to his abilities, details which have been considerd and rejected here due to a lack of verifiability. There's even an entire section on fan theories and speculation, and the style guide demonstrates how the site has a very different attitude than Wikipedia. It is a fan site - nothing wrong with that per se, but it is not a suitable EL candidate. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually read WP:EL? One, having original research is not a bad thing, it's just not something that Wikipedia does. Who cares if it has a very different attitude than Wikipedia? Why is that even an issue? Reading the archives on this talk page is very bewildering. No, really, go back and read WP:EL. This has to be one of the best independent wikis I've seen in a long time, and the people here are actually fighting against linking to it? -- Ned Scott 11:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

indeed, there are some pretty wonky applications of WP:EL being demonstrated here. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Further - if people here think that having OR is a reason not to link to an external wiki, then I suggest they get busy removing the 100s of links to Wikia that exist on this site - make sure the enforcers don't catch you removing the links to Jimbo's cash cow. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue I would have adding links like this is that this appears to be an official link and would lend support to the OR and speculation we are already having a huge problem with. Between the problems we are having keeping Peter's and Angela's articles clean I'd think we don't want to add encouragement. Padillah (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Surely if a site has content that Wikipedia can't accept (like OR) then that is more of a reason to link it, not less. If the content of heroeswiki.com was purely encyclopedic, then we ought to incorporate that content into Wikipedia rather than linking to it. However, since it would quickly be deleted from here as fancruft, OR, speculation, or whatever, then we need to link to that instead. (Note - heroeswiki.com is not a wikia site, so this isn't a COI) Angela. 23:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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

So, rather than put the OR here, we should link to it and endorse it by association? That doesn't sound like it enhances the article much. I've been thinking about this and I have a theory about why this (and other fiction articles) is difficult: there is no factual reality to base it on. If you take a look at the FA Evolution you'll see the links aren't to sites that have several different arguments about the good and bad of evolution. They are to sites that have evidence or expound more on the idea, not the proof of the idea. However we don't have the luxury of having reality to back us up so we have to rely on "official" sources. Of all the sites you mention above the only one that is a FA is The Simpsons and I'd have to argue that there are much fewer (I believe the total is 0) theories surrounding the Simpsons and the Simpsons Wiki looks like it doesn't contradict the WP article so much as extend it. There is a valid point in allowing an outlet for those that would rather entertain the speculation of what is Angela's power, but the above is my viewpoint. Take it for what it's worth. If we need a consensus vote I say call for one. Padillah (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Some very interesting opinions. Thank you, Padillah. =) I do agree that documenting worlds of fiction can be quite tricky, though it seems to me that external wikis can do an even more comprehensive job since they're not trying to be general encyclopedias. As Ned Scott said, there's nothing wrong with OR. We just don't incorporate it into the bodies of our articles. In any case I think there will always be people with a personal preference whether they're interested in linking to an external wiki, but if I'm correct the only factor that comes into play here is WP:EL. I believe that's the only policy that needs to be met since we're only referring to an external link rather than inclusion of specific information from the site. If there's agreement that it meets WP:EL then it shouldn't be removed from the article when someone adds it. --Centish (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we have some great arguement here. But, i oppose. The reason I oppose is because heroeswiki is because it is so speculative. I understand that they are attempting to clean things up, but man, sometimes I read articles on heroes wiki and think to myself "where the hell did they get that from?" I dont like all the OR that they put it some of their articles. It is like a huge fan site that has called its self a wiki. I think all the OR and speculation needs major overview. Heroes wiki looks like what the heroes wikipedia page would look like if editors allowed all the OR and spec that comes through the page on a daily basis. I oppose.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, Chrisisinchrist. =) I think perhaps the point some of us are making might not be explicit enough. A few editors have pointed out that presence of OR isn't grounds for excluding an external link. OR is not a bad thing and is only prohibited when it comes to the specific content we're adding to our articles here. As Angela, who's been here way longer than I, pointed out providing links to external wikis even when they include OR can be more of a reason to externally link to them in the first place. When discussing whether to include a link to the external wiki the only policy that comes into play is WP:EL. Do you have any opposition that is based on WP:EL? If it passes WP:EL then according to Wikipedia policy it is permissible. --Centish (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Chrisisinchrist, since I do not follow the show it's hard for me to tell, but since heroeswiki.com does try to mark speculation, I assume you mean that over-all speculation is still abundant on the wiki, not just what is marked as such? -- Ned Scott 05:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I do watch the show and I don't come across much speculation except what they have cordoned off on their theories articles. In the relatively little time I spend there I do see them explicitly removing speculative info that gets added to articles from time to time just like we have to. To me it's a very nice site even if its purpose is very different from ours and I personally wouldn't consider it a "fan site that has called its self a wiki", but we're all entitled to our opinions. --Centish (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The link passes WP:EL, I not sure what we are actually discussing anymore because it's surely not that. As a sidenote, some people some people seem to have Wikipedia and Wikis confused in their minds. Wikipedia is a wiki, not all wikis are wikpedia - there are not inherent properties in regards to content that must be present before something can be considered a wiki. The other arguments presented here (and explicitly so) are WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Oooooooooh, you certainly told him! Good job.....and oh yeah, I vote in favour of the wiki, per all the arguments above. (  Wikirocks  13:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

Well, I didn't mean to tell him off. I guess that last sentence was a little harsh, I apologize for that. I got out of hand. For what it's worth, I vote include the link as well. Fredrick day is right, personal "like", in the end, has nothing to do with it. It's a viable link and does conform to all the requirements of WP:EL. Thanks for putting up with us through this. Padillah (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

In my own personal opinion, I oppose heroeswiki. However, based on wikipedia policy, I have to support it, because it does not violate the policy. policy says it has to have a substantial amount of editors and it does. so, i will support it.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I was completely unable to participate in this overthe past few days, and while policy states that linking to off-site wikis is allowed, and so on, that doesn't inherently mandate it either. We've previously had the wikis linked, and that became fodder for more vandalism and cross-pollination of crappy fan theory and speculation, which was 'sourced' to the offsite wiki, using the logic' well, that other wiki has it, this one must have it as well. Then we spend a great deal of our limited resources constantly reverting vaguely good faith vaguely vandalous entries over and over. Many such editors do not care about our policies and use OTHERCRAPEXISTS to get around our real content policies. there's only so much feeding the TROLLS and BEANS i'm willing to see this page plagued with. ThuranX (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Hi everyone. =) It's been about a week with no additional comments, so I just wanted to check and see if it's because everyone's been busy with the holidays (I know I have!) or whether there is indeed now consensus that policy does allow the link to be added. If there's any additional information that hasn't yet been addressed above, feel free to contribute! --Centish (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Should we list the characters in alphabetical order according to actor's last name?

- I know this is a little trivial, but they list the cast out of alphbetical order in the beginning of every episode, so I think this page should follow suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.73.145 (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a reference site, and the most logical way of listing names is alphabetically. On-screen cast listings may well vary over time (depending on the power of agents mainly!) and we'd be forever having to check and update. Ged UK (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If the show did not list the actors alphabetically and actually had a main character, then they would be listed that way. I think that it is by the characters' and not the actors' last name because the section descibes the characters. –thedemonhog talk • contributions 19:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sylar and Ando are main characters in series 1

Sylar is a main charcter he appeares in nearly every episode in series 1 and without him Claire isn't a main character. Ando is a main character because without him Hero would never kill Sylar. This in itself is another reason why Sylar is a main character because if Sylar wasn't in series 1 then Hero would have no point either. (Electrobe (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC))

This has already been discussed several times in the archives. Please look it up. NBC decided this, not us. Though your point is valid, it is original research. Thank you. Magkaz (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

First off user:Electrobe you have violoated the three reverts rule several times. You need to get your facts straight. If you have a verifiable ref. to state that ando and sylar were on the main roster one season 1, fine, post it. this has been discussed several several time. during season one, they guest starred. they were not credited as main characters. they were upgraded to the main character roster on the second season. please stop reverting the edits or you will be reported. you have no verifiable source. while their are several source in the character section that support that sylar and ando were not main characters in the first season. we have verified sources and you have none. so stop...thanks.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You ask for proof for my cause but seem to produce none for your own. And although you ask me to stop undoing your edits can i point out you are doing that to me and so stop being a hypocrite. (Electrobe (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC))

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

Magkaz has also violated this rule and has undone my editing while this dissucion is undway while i explicitally asked him/her not to. {Electrobe (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)}

Four different wiki contributors responded to you on this Heroes talk page or on your talk page and two additional contributors have reverted your edits throughout the day. What kind of response are you looking for that six different contributors to wiki haven't provided? Please, there are links to articles that support what we are telling you, check them out before you continue. Otherwise, provide a source for your edits and they probably won't get reverted. Just asking someone to not revert your incorrect edits isn't gonna do it. It's already been decided to go with what NBC says. I haven't violated any wiki policy with my actions. Magkaz (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Eletrobe, you are attempting to cite something as fact, without a citation, where as, we all have reverted your edits, because we have citations to back up our claim. you are attempting to light up an issue that has been dead for serveral months now. sure, we would love to determine who is a main character and who is not, but that is not how we roll here. this is a verifiable encyclopedia, where things need to be factual and verified. we have not violated any policy because we have sources and you do not. please stop with the edits. --Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Electrobe is being a deliberately tendentious editor. I left a message for him about the Sylar thing yesterday, and he deleted it from his talk page, and continued to make the same edit over and over. Seek a block from an admin. He's violating the rules, and knows that he's breaking rules, ignoring policy, and is fully aware of his disruption. ThuranX (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You guys (and others online, including NBC) are confusing "main cast" with "main characters". The first is a production term, the second a writing term. Sylar was not part of the main cast, but I wouldn't call the statement "Sylar was a main character" incorrect. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with "TheDJ". What he (or she) is saying is true. "Main cast" and "main characters" are very similar, and people usually mistake them as the same thing, including me. Sylar and Ando ARE "main characters" in season 1, but they aren't part of the "main cast" according to NBC. Maybe we should change the subheading from "main characters" to "main cast"...but then wouldn't we have to change the order of the table...thus going back to the argument above....changing the order per actor's last names....but we wouldn't have to. I don't really know anymore.  Wikirocks  11:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

While I can see the technical point regarding terminology, we still cannot be the ones deciding whether or not Sylar and Ando are main characters in season one. It has to be someone else's assessment, giving the most weight to the producers and the network. Otherwise, we're right back where we started from, and anyone who feels character X is "main" will feel free to write it as such. (For example, Wikirocks feels Ando is a main character. I disagree, as I see him being used primarily as a tool to develop Hiro's character. Those are our personal opinions, however, and neither qualifies for inclusion without sources.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet that you see Simone as a tool to develop Peter and Isaac. I don't think any terminology should be changed. It does say "starring seasons" and not "Main seasons." –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, when we start deciding who are main characters/cast/whatever, that becomes OR, no matter how obvious it may be to some people. We should only tag them as the Main Characters/Cast if NBC has tagged them as such. QuasiAbstract (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

OK now I am kinda angry. Why do people always misunderstand me? Did you actually read what I said? TheDJ was explaining the difference between "main cast" and "main characters" and I was merely saying that I believe that the two are "main characters." That doesn't mean anything. What really matters is if they are a part of the "main cast" and they are NOT! That's why I was saying how I was confused a bit and how I wasn't sure what we should do. Why do take what I say and change it and attack me??? (OK and I admit I went a bit crazy in this post) (  WikiRocks  02:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC))

The virus is not a symbol

The virus isn't a symbol in the sense of everything else under that section. It's not a motif and it doesn't symbolize anything, it's just a plot point. 87.97.80.167 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The section is called mythology, not symbol or elements. mythology is define as follows: The word mythology[1] refers to a body of myths–stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity. Mythology also refers to the branch of knowledge dealing with the collection, study and interpretation of myths, also known as mythography. Mythology are the fictional things and elements that make up the show and the virus, which is 100 percent fiction, is apart of the shows overall mythology.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Chris, there was no need for a snarky remark - and no need to revert again. Two people disagree with you - so why don't you discuss *before* restoring what appears to be a misplaced block of text? If enough people agree, it can be restored - but don't edit war please. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? it seems like individuals need to be babied here at wikipedia, and that is not okay with me. But, to address the issue, this issue has not even been discussed. The issue should be discussed before it is just removed from the article...not the other way around. you feel like it should be removed and then discussed, when it should be discussed then removed. this topic hasnt even had time to resenate. i mean, just because two users feel it is okay, doesnt mean that is the end of the discussion. this discussion only started this morning, so how is it already resolved? just because two people feel it should be removed, it doesnt mean to just remove it. you should at least give this topic a couple of days before you make a conclusion. i reverted the edit originally because someone removed the virus section from mythology without discussing it first and i felt like that was wrong. the user should have came here and discussed it, and then once the discussion ended, then we should have either removed it or kept it. but to just remove it without coming to the talk page isnt right. this discussion began less than 12 hours ago, and you seem to already feel like their is a concensus. i dont think so. the virus may be a plot point, but because it is fictional and becuase it is peppered throughout the series, is also envelopes the mythology of the show. for it to be removed and then discusssed is backwards. it should be discussed before it is touched and the section should be reverted back to its original state until such a discussion is resolved. if you saw me and another user disagreeing on the idea of putting the virus, why would you just revert the idea because you agree with that user and not me? that is why i said you are not special. you werent even apart of the discussion, yet you felt like it was your job to make the final say? No, i dont think so. you are not special and you dont run this page. i think it was wrong for you to come and just revert to the side you supported while their was still an active discussion on the talk page. that seems okay to you? who are you? i support the virus in the mythology section. if you dont support it, than say so, but dont just decide that you are going to answer the discussion for the other user and i who were discussing it. you could have at least given the other user 24 hours to respond. now, with that said, i am reverting the edit to its original state until it is finished being discussed, since the discussion just started this morning.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I did give it a couple of days, seeing as I posted it five days ago only to be ignored until now. :/ Also, since the title has now been changed to just Mythology, why not add every single element of the plot while you're at it? 87.97.80.90 (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The virus isn't a symbol... it's just a plotline. Ophois (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If we accept the objecting editor's, we would have to classify every element of the story as "mythology" since it is all "100 percent fiction". --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is nice. Users are acutually discussing an issue before making changes. I love wikipedia. This is what wikipedia is all about. Let the discussion continue! I wont fight it...if you all want to virus removed, remove it...i just wanted to make sure it was discussed. also, user with the IP address 87.97.80.90. are you new to wikipedia? you seem experienced, yet, your contrib history only deals with this issue. wierd. i sense sockpuppeting. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Just curious--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a dynamic IP and can't be arsed to register. Removing. 87.97.126.215 (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

whoa! you have a lot of IP addresses. Is this allowed? I think that violates wikipedia policy. I just noticed that you have posted from three different IP addresses. that is definetly sock puppetry and is a violation of wikipedia's multiple IP address policy. you need to review the policy and strongly consider registering from a home computer or personal computer--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be sock puppetry if I claimed to be someone else to support my own opinion, which I didn't. A most cursory glance at the WHOIS data of all the IPs I have used reveals that they belong to the same ISP. Stop the drama, please. 87.97.126.215 (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not sockpuppetry, but it does make it easy for you to avoid, or pretend to avoid, any talk page replies left for you, including civility warnings, which you're due for after your last couple responses. Getting an account would make your contributions easier to take seriously. One, not everyone can WHOIS handily, nor do those who can WANT to daily to make sure it is 'probably' you we're talking with. Two, when messages can be left for someone, it's easier to work with them on pages they like working on. There are other benefits to having an account, like the watch-list and so on, but actively dodging around IP to IP to avoid such things, as you're clearly aware you're doing, isn't that impressive nor does it contribute to a good atmosphere when trying to work with you. ThuranX (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ThuranX on this. I've been trying to stay out of this, but Mister Dynamic IP there needs to get off his ass and register an account. He may not purposely be socking, but is socking nonetheless. We have no real way to know who the anon user is, and the user could post as one and support the edit with another, and it would be a pain in the ass to verify. If you don't want to be treated like a sock, don;t act like one. Period. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) Politely bringing the discussion back... (though I do think registering on wiki is a good idea)... I think at the beginning of the season (even back in s1), the virus was surrounded in more mystery, such as the other recurring 'mythology'. Once the story arc of volume 2 began to center around the virus more, we learned more about it and it became a central plot point of Heroes. I think at this point, it's evolved past any of the other recurring elements and should maybe be incorporated into the volume's synopsis. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magkaz (talk • contribs) 01:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Magkaz. This user presented an arguement that makes perfect sense. i will support this and not fight the change. I also encourage the user with the multiple IPs to register...thanks.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

but if he doesn't want to, then he shouldn't - this is wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The fact that he has a dynamic ip is neither here or there and has nothing at all to do with socking. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No one said they couldn't edit. No one is arguing that he must register, they are suggesting that they should. If they (or you) are wondering why, check out WP:WHY. And I bet that if you look you'll find that having a dynamic IP does, in fact, have to do with sockpuppeting. It facilitates it, it mimics the results, it misleads others into believing that the user is actively trying to sockpuppet... so, yes, having a dynamic IP can very easily be misconstrued as sockpuppetry. We are trying to be informative and friendly, we are trying to let this user know that other people may see their situation as sockpuppetry. Padillah (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a flat out accusation of socking puppeting - He may not purposely be socking, but is socking nonetheless., so I'm afraid your statement doesn't match with what has actually been said on this page - indeed, I'm so sicking of the bullying that goes on with our good faith IP addresses, I'm going to give up my id and go back to being an IP - and yes I have a dynamic IP. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not bullying, for one. It's simply an explanation of why registering can help. The fact is, he can, and probably will, miss any messages left for him on the IP talk page. If he makes a request for a change, and the change is made, short of him coming back to the page, there's no way to let him know it's been done. and sicne many IPs drop in a request then go poof, never to return, their requests are often dismissed out of hand, because it's the experience of many editors that such drive by commentings never get followed up by the requester. Finally, I specifically stated that he's NOT socking, but making it hard on himself and the rest of us. As for Arcayne's backhanded accusation, I don't know what to tell ya, but if you think making your own wiki-experience harder by giving up your watchlist and such is the way to handle it, then good luck. And logging in to check, then logging out to edit each time seems absurd. ThuranX (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect, my accusation wasn't all that fair; it was based on another sock-puppet last year who offered the same defense. I should have AGF's a bit more, instead of jumping to the conclusion that the situation was the same. I tender my apology for it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Edit warring on this article

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

I agree...lets all get along and work as a community.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Return of Heroes

Apparently Heroes is coming back the 14th of January? It was from the December 17th article of The New Yorker. http://www.newyorkercollegetour.com/websites/readerlink/sections/index.html There it is.-Babylon pride (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

not sure how up to date that infomation is.... It's basicly an ad and may have been created and paid to run before the current issues.harlock_jds (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No, volume 3 of Heroes has been postponed indefinitely. No new episodes have been completed, nor will they until the conclusion of the writers strike. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My friend had the magazine in her hand. I highly doubt she would've had 2006's. I know it has been postponed (not really indefinitely. Just until the writer's strike is over and they expect it to be done with next September) but it's from December 14th's. You can check the site: there was a December 14th issue. I just found the article and posted it. Maybe I'm wrong with the date. Don't get snippy, thedemonhog. But yeah, it is an ad more or less. It's just a magazine. I'll double check. Also, sorry about the wrong URL. http://www.newyorkercollegetour.com/websites/readerlink/images/ss/323.jpg That's the only thing I can link to since it keeps linking me back to the sections.-Babylon pride (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Just adding it wasn't 2006. I just checked and it was January 22nd that the hiatus stopped. And the 14th is a Monday. But NBC clearly says Volume Two is wrapped up so now I'm wondering why there's such a fluke from an issue just a day old?-Babylon pride (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

i know it wasn't 2006 ( i checked the dates) but i think that ad might have been designed and sent to the times before the strike impacted the dates... i'm sure the origional plan was to come back on the 14'th but the strike prevents that because they have nothing they can do (and no ep's filmed)harlock_jds (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How was I snippy? –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't being snippy. I know snippy, and Mr.thedemonhog is no snippy. Seriously, snippy involves calling someone an ass-clown who Jesus and the Twelve Apostrophes unanimously agree need to be called that. On another note, do you have a citation that says that the season is actually concluded? There was some minor tumble about that a few weeks ago. I'm just making sure we aren't going to see another kerfuffle about it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In an IGN December 14 interview, show runner Tim Kring said that they shot some scenes from the next two episodes, but have no complete episodes, nor will they until the strike is over. Director/producer Greg Beeman stated in his blog that if the strike does not end soon, the second season ends with "Powerless." If the strike does end soon, Heroes will resume production and make more of season 2. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

(←dent) Good to learn (I for one thought the season was done). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

NBC.com says it's concluded. I saw it yesterday in a rush to see if that article was a mistake. I know that disproves it but felt like mentioning it. It was on the right hand corner saying that now that volume two is done, (which may not mean season two. I dunno) fans are wondering what Angela's power is and to talk about it on the boards. But I can't find it since the site changes the little ad parts there so often. Sorry. -Babylon pride (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that season concluded with one volume concluded and the next one beginning, we need confirmation that the season, and not the volume are indeed finished. Otherwise, season 2 is still rolling. We wait for citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)