Talk:Heroes (American TV series)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

(formerly from archive 9)

Genre

The individual episode description articles describe the show as being a "supernatural drama". I take issue with the word "supernatural", because for me, the term suggests that this show involves ghosts or monsters. Do other editors feel that same way? Primogen 19:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Supernatural drama" is an apt descriptor. Having the ability to fly or read minds is a fairly supernatural characteristic, imo. Jtfolden 07:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really -- "supernatural" suggests things which have no scientific explanation, or involving occult or religious elements, whereas on "Heroes" it's quite strongly suggested that everything does in fact have an ultimate scientific explanation. "Heroes" is not "Charmed", and the usefulness of a category which lumps "Heroes" and "Charmed" together seems to me to be somewhat dubious. AnonMoos 07:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Within the Heroes universe, there probably is a scientific explanation for all of the powers that characters have shown; at least Chandra Suresh believed so. However, in the real world, such things have not been observed, which makes them supernatural. The "supernatural" is not limited to vampires and witches; those are merely one subset of the field. --Psiphiorg 08:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why isn't "Star Trek" put into the Supernatural category? In the real world, teleportation beams have not been observed... AnonMoos 17:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically, they have, justy not to nearly the same level of sophistication. Anyway, I'd consider Heroes, like Star Trek, to be more Sci-Fi. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Every where I've seen it's been referred to as a Sci-Fi series -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  13:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Supernatural" implies above and beyond nature. Heroes twists nature and science to build an impractical reality fitting with the "supernatural" description. Simply because it is being sold as Sci-Fi does not make it so, it falls closer to Fantasy and or Supernatural within the Drama realm. Reenen 01:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a Science Fiction drama. Supernatural is ghosts and demons and undead, and no amount of semantic wiggling or hand-waving will change that. When the show starts talking about ghosts and demons seriously, then I could start to consider it supernmatural. Just because it's not set in the future with spaceships and aliens, and just because there are fictional elements doens't mean it's not science fiction.--Stabbey 16:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Matt is a mind reader, Isaac sees the future, Eden controlled minds, Sylar has telekinesis, Peter (among other things) is clairvoyant, Niki shares her body with the disembodied spirit of her dead twin sister who is otherwise in another realm, DL can travle through solid objects, Micah can change physical structures with his touch, Claire can come back from the dead, and Hiro travels through time under the direction of an outside force (otherwise he would not have ended up in fortuitous places he has. Let me know if this begins to sound paranormal or supernatural. Just because the the Sureshes say genes have something to do with it does not make it any more scientifically realistic than Charmed. Maybe their genes helped too. --thatbobguy 04:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Some powers you describe are usually found in fiction that usually falls in the supernatural genre. But fction about characters who fly, are super strong, can teleport, can heal from almost any injuries, and can pass through solid objects are in fiction more typically described as science fiction or fantasy, rather than supernatural. Usually films about superheroes are usually categorized in the fantasy genre. Conversely, using your reasoning, The Lord of the Rings (which had characters who could read minds, were clairvoyent, communicated with ghosts, were psychokinetic) should be classified as supernatural rather than fantasy.

I do have to add that it is not clear what Jessica's nature is. She may be a disembodied spirit, but she may be split personity instead. Primogen 05:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Since NBC calls it an "epic drama", shouldn't it just be called that? then again, Douglas Adam's called the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy a trilogy of five, so i guess you can't always take the creators seriously.

According to dictionary.com's definitions of the two words, Supernatural means something which is above or beyond nature and unexplainable by natural law or phenomena. Now, that includes anything based on modern day (or the past) which includes stuff unexplainable in real life, basically everything that has happened in Heroes. Fantasy is a form of fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements.

So basically, it's both. As for the "Why isn't Star Trek supernatural then?" It's set in the future. We expect there to be technological advances in the future and suspend disbelief that it's possible other life exists in space, which may or may not have unnatural abilities for humans, but it's just a part of science fiction. Heroes is set in our present day real life, not an alternate medieval world or hundreds of years in the future. Therefore it's clearly supernatural at the least. But since Fantasy includes supernatural themes as part of it's description, why shouldn't it be called a fantasy drama? As far as I'm aware Fantasy is more commonly used for peices of work that take place in another world, whether it's Middle Earth, or even a fantastical society, like the Magic community in Charmed or the Demon community (and the various other dimensions) in Buffy.

In short, I think it's a Supernatural Drama, since it's set in our world with real people thrust into an unnatural occurance. Until we know of the source of Hiro's specially timed random teleportations, or of Jessica's true nature, all we can presume is that it's set solely in our world, which would make Fantasy an ill term to use. What do other people think? Jacobshaven3 10:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Anything set in the future with unexplained elements is science fiction, but anything set in the present with unexplained elements is automatically supernatural? No, sorry, I don't agree with that. Especially since things are currently unexplained because we're only 11 episodes in. It's absoluely not supernatural and I think it's really silly to try and force it into that mode. When vampires, werewolves, demons, arcane and mystical religious rituals, divine interventions, spellcasting and stuff in that vein happens, then it's supernatural. Don't quote some silly dictionary, that's semantic hand-waving which has nothing to do with the actual television shows in the supernatural genre. The manner of storytelling on the show is clearly more science fiction then supernatural. There's a clear difference between "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Heroes". --Stabbey 05:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I think I've better defined my problem with describing Heroes as being a "supernatural drama". "Supernatural" isn't a genre, but fiction of the Horror, Fantasy, and Science Fiction genres may contain supernatural elements. However, I think that when people see fiction described as being "supernatural", they tend to think it must be of the Horror genre, while I think of the show as being more of a Fantasy (or possibly Science Fiction). Thoughts? Primogen 05:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but I've always considered the genre to be simply "superhero". --Milo H Minderbinder 13:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Stabbey... Where does it say supernatural must consist of fantastical creatures and religious rituals? I never said anything set in the future with unexplained elements is science fiction, merely that everything in Star trek that is unexplained, is possible in the future. E.g. Aliens and advanced technology. And don't say quoting a dicitonary is wrong. Since a dictionary definition of a word is the only way to prove what a word really means. Just because you personally only percieve supernatural as a term describing "vampires, werewolves, demons, arcane and mystical religious rituals, divine interventions, spellcasting and stuff in that vein ", that doesn't mean it's the only useage of the term.

Upon further research (see, it's important to do that rather than be a pompous ass) Supernatural's defined as anything that isn't explainable by science. (The world and it's forces were supernatural before we learned about astronomy, do vampires exist in real life?) Since the shows shown that all these supernatural occurances are based in the realities science (the genome etc..) then Supernatural doesn't fit.

To be honest, Epic Drama, what NBC lists it as, seems to fit the bill. Or, as Milo H Minderbinder just said (beat me to the edit :)) Superhero genre. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacobshaven3 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Woah that was quick... went back to edit in my name and Bam... good work. Jacobshaven3 13:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture says supernatural is ghosts/angels/demons/magic and that stuff. You have to really, really bend "Heroes" a lot to fit it into that niche. I'm fine with putting Heroes into any or all of sci-fi, fantasy - or better yet, superhero genres. I don't think supernatural is the best fit. I'll note that The TVIV Wiki calls Heroes a superhero drama. There are enough superhero shows out there for superhero to be its own genre. --Stabbey 18:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What on earth? Popular culture says that supernatural means ghosts etc? I'm sorry but thats a load of rubbish, and tviv is a wiki and therefore not a reliable source. True, Ghosts/angels/demons/magic all fall under supernatural, but that doens't mean the entirety of Supernatural fiction is that. I'll stop now because we've gotten off topic. Jacobshaven3 20:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

New Heroes wiki

This site has far more information than the one we're on!

http://heroeswiki.com/Main_Page

Check it out and make our site better

Tgunn2 06:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Name one thing that isn't speculation. Also, note the blatently ripped of templates and base data. The only original things I;ve seen there are the images, and that's still up for debate. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 07:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm, that's because its using the same, free wiki software that Wikipedia uses (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki). Many wikis use this software and thus appear the same.--NMajdan•talk 16:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

All the plot points, graphic novels, and a lot of things about 9th wonders you don't know about!

None of it is seculation, Ace. Tgunn2 00:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there some reason this isn't in the external links? Any wikipedia page that has it's own wiki should get an external link mention. I've checked it out and it seems pretty good and even were it not yet good, it's a wiki, so it's inevitable. --Jackdavinci 15:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh how you are wrong. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't happen to agree, but even assuming you are entirely correct, a simple refutation is entirely unhelpful and does not advance the discussion. --Jackdavinci 15:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's okay to list one or two fansites among the External links, but they should be the most prominent fansites devoted to the topic (like theonering.net is for the LOTR films). It's too early to tell about this one. Primogen 15:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think HeroesWiki has become to Heroes what Lostpedia has become to Lost. It's definitely the most prominient wiki about Heroes. Whether it qualifies for mentioning on the Wilipedia Heroes page I don't know. HeroesWiki is means to collect all information regarding Heroes wheter it be definitively proven or not. That's the difference between it and a wikipedia.

According to Wikipedia:External links, sites that should not be listed in an article's External links include: "wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Primogen 05:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

George Takei to star as Hiros father.

According to a number of news sources, George Takei will join Heroes as Hiro Nakamura's father. [1] [2] This is very exciting news, in my opinion. Where shoud this infomation be put in the article? dposse 03:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw this announcement a couple of days ago, and I thought that it was exciting news too, but I don't think it has a place in any of the articles yet. He should appear in cast for the articles on the episodes in which he will be appearing, once that is determined. Primogen 03:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What happend to the table

There used to be a nice organized table that listed the characters, there powers, and a picture of them. What happened to it? Now the character section on the main heroes page is less organized and harder to read. Will some one please bring it back.

The table was moved to the List of characters in Heroes article. The list that replaces it in this article is organized alphabetically and is written in prose. Primogen 01:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the table format made spoilers too obvious. If someone wanted to skip the spoilers, the table might draw in the eye too much. - Kevingarcia 02:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The artist behind the artist?

Anyone know who the artist is behind the prophetic paintings? Sure looks familiar, but I can't place it. Is it Tim Sale? - Kevingarcia 02:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's Sale.Avenger1000 03:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Isaac Mendez

Why is Isaac's power still listed as being related to his heroin use? Peter mimicked his ability, fact. If Isaac's precognitive abilities were dependant on heroin or any other drug, Peter would have had to get high before he saw anything. I understand that you(other contributors and administrators) want things clearly spelled out before it's called fact in Wikipedia, but come on. Logical deduction should be considered valid. What is Peters power? He mimics others abillities, including details like receiving future 'visions' in the same exact form as Isaac, thus his being able to complete a painting for Isaac. Same vision, same form, if the ability was triggered by a substance, Peter would necessarily have had to ingest the same thing Isaac did to 'trigger' a vision. Therefore, I must ask that you(see above) please change the wording to reflect that Isaac's drug use is impairing his ability, not facilitating it. The heroin has left him unable to reach the state of mind necessary to view the future without it because of withdrawl. I would do the edit myself, but I'm both very new here and quite lazy:) Steveo9009 09:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

We have already discussed this numerous times. As you're new here, I'll tell you, as we've told others. Drawing conclusions such as youv'e done can constitute Original Research, which is discouraged on Wiki in favor of citable sources. that said, please review the talk page and archives. Until such time as Isaac himself uses his power without drugs, the entry will remain as it is. We, the audience, have no clue as to if the drug use didn't alter his brain and pwoers to NEED drugs. ThuranX 12:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Eden say that Isaac didn't need heroin? she said it only helped use the power when he first gained it and he needs practice to use his power drug free—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.249.75 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 27 November 2006

Eden is not a doctor specializing in Gneetics, OR superpowers. She's using conjecture. This is ALREADY in the archives, and the repetition is exasperating to many frequent page-watching editors. Until Isaac demonstrates his power without drugs, we have to assume it is drug induced. he only gets visions AFTER injecting heroin. Thank you for listening and asking back here on the talk. ThuranX 03:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, tonight's episode finally showed that Isaac doesn't need heroin to draw the future. Is this finally settled? Kafziel ^Talk 03:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

THANK IT ALL! NOW we can edit it, and there will be ONE LESS edit war on Wiki. ThuranX 03:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in and say "I told ya" about Isaac's power. Please don't remove comments just because you are embarrased you were wrong. Thanks. (67.110.68.99 17:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

Remember, the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is what's verifiable at the time, not what's true (but not yet verifiable). I don't think anyone doubted Isaac could eventually paint without the use of heroin, but that was not verifiable until last Monday's episode. Primogen 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. It was verifyable the minute Peter was able to mimic the power without the drugs. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.110.68.99 (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

That's not verification; that's analysis ("Peter can use the power w/o drugs, therefore Isaac must be able to as well"), which is against Wikipedia:No original research. To be verifiable, an episode would need to have actually shown Isaac painting without the use of heroin or another character indicate (without the possibility of them being wrong or untruthful) that Isaac can paint without heroin, or a reliable secondary source (such as an interview with the show's writers) must say that Issac can paint without the use of heroin. Our job is to report what other sources say or depict, not to make inferences or deductions. Primogen 17:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone is not sharp enough to realize that's what the episode was TELLING THEM, doesn't mean it's not verifiable. Next time maybe use the 3lb mass of tissue in the skull? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.110.68.99 (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Lol, my "3lb mass" told me a long time ago that Isaac was just using heroin as a crutch and that he really didn't need drugs to use his power, but it also told me that putting that conclusion into the article was a violation of Wikipedia content policy. Again, we report on what is shown and said, we don't report what we think the implications are. I recommend reading the Wikipedia policy pages as well as discussion pages for the various Heroes-related articles to bring yourself up to speed on this issue. Primogen 18:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Wikipedia is not about information that people are "sharp enough to realize". It's about including information that is verifiable and sourced. SuperMachine 18:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Amen to both of those. And could you please sign your posts on talk pages? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets also not forget that Isaac sketched the past while he was sober, not the future. He had drawn Hiro and Charlie together in the diner, which had occurred six months previous.--NMajdan•talk 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ando was in the pencil sketches too. But the motel trance definitely seems to have settled the issue. --Stabbey 19:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Technopath

The line "He is a child prodigy and a technopath, although so far he has only used his abilities to temporarily repair an out-of-order pay phone" was just removed as OR. I don't think this is OR since we see him get a broken phone to work just by touching it. Is there really any doubt that this was the result of a power? How would "child prodigy" explain something that's physically impossible? I also think the Claire info should include the term "spontaneous regeneration" since that term was used on the show. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

See extensive discussion on these topics at Talk:Micah Sanders and Talk:Claire Bennet. Primogen 22:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

IMDb and Other External Links

Hello. I just added IMDb to the external links section. MatthewFenton correctly pointed out that an IMDB link already existed in the info box. I do understand the desire to reduce duplicate information, but this seems a case where having the same information in two places seems logical--even helpful. I'm fairly Wiki savvy by now (though still learning), so I used the TOC to go directly to the External Links section. It never even occured to me to look near the top of the article on the right side of the page for the link. It also seems a bit of a double standard, because the "offical site" is listed in both places. I'm not arguing with Matthew's decision (he probably knows this article's history, and I do not), but I would like to understand the thought process here. Thanks! --Willscrlt 12:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia:Wikiproject Television or Wikipedia:Wikiproject Films put forth the guideline not to list the IMDb in both the infobox and Enternal links. You might fid an explantion for the rationale in the talk sections in one of those articles. Primogen 14:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Primogen. I figured that there was probably a policy or guideline somewhere. This was my first TV edit, and I did not know about the project guidelines. I'll be sure to read those before attempting any edits in the future. It's still my personal POV that IMDB is an important enough resource to be listed in both places, but obviously there is history and some policies I need to read. I might even change my POV after that "light reading". :-) Thanks for being kind and helpful! --Willscrlt 14:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Primogen was right (and I was, too, in a way). Wikipedia:Wikiproject Television#External links clearly states that both the official links and the IMDB links should be in the Info Box and not be repeated in the External Links section. So the official site link should be deleted in addition to the IMDB one that MatthewFenton already deleted. I will go make that change now. --Willscrlt 14:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Niki/Jessica

Currently, the line about Niki reads (emphasis mine): "Niki Sanders (Ali Larter) is a webcam stripper who lives in Las Vegas with an unrestrained alternate personality. When this other personality, a manifestation of Niki's dead sister, Jessica, takes over, she exhibits superhuman strength." It's speculation that it's a manifestation of Niki's dead sister. Yes, the Jessica persona seems to think that, but I don't think we've seen enough evidence to determine that "the real Jessica's" conciousness somehow got transferred to Niki. Stabbey 22:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. There's no evidence that Niki is possessed by Jessica, but I had a different interpretation of the word "manifestation" than you did. Anyway, I addressed your concerns by changing it to "who identifies herself as being Niki's dead sister." Primogen 22:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's better. Thanks. Stabbey 22:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal

Who in the hell removed my article. I like it back up please, now!74.195.3.11 22:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, "not a collection of unverifiable speculation." Until your statement becomes fact in the series, it has no place in an encyclopedia article.--NMajdan•talk 22:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

(comment deleted twice) This isn't a rumor/spoiler site, this isn't a place to chat, and discussion here should be on-topic, namely about the show in regards to the article. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, you're deleting comments? Don't remove my stuff. You guys are either jealous or mad that someone knows something that you don't and I dont care what you have to say, Milo.74.195.3.11 22:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

please remember WP:Civil when replying to other editors. Also, Wikipedia is NOT a forum, it is an encyclopedia. We require citation and sources. Thank you. ThuranX 01:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Did I say it was a forum? You might as well call it that since its in that fashion. If not then what is it, then? Hmmm? You wanted sources and I flickin gave you your sources to you. What more could you ask?74.195.3.11 13:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable sources. Saying "I kow people" gives us nothing. We're not "taking your word for it". End of story. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You need too and it would if you opened yup your friggin ears. And it's not "my word," it's from E!, Entertainment Tonight, CNN, and NBC's site. God, get a grip/clue.74.195.3.11 21:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, nevertheless, this is an encyclopedic article about the show so it would still be best to wait until it actually happens before making any changes to the article.--NMajdan•talk 22:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. Can you prove any of the names you dropped actually made the same claims you are? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why, yes of course.74.195.3.11 22:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional Trivia

Newcomer here. Got some interesting trivia that you may or may not have picked up. It relates to the first episode ("Genesis"), and occurs roughly in the 37th minute of the episode.

When Hiro and Ando walk into the bar to have a drink, two guys are singing karaoke on the stage to the Backstreet Boy's "I Want It That Way". This is a reference to a popular YouTube video ["i want it that way spoof"] that features two Asian men doing a spoof performance of the same song. The men in the bar in Heroes are dressed in the same orange basketball jerseys, and one has a white sweatband around his head.

Ghostridah za 08:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That piece of info can be found in the Genesis (Heroes) Article. EnsRedShirt 08:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. Thanks. Ghostridah za 09:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No Problem, by the way Welcome to Wikipedia.. EnsRedShirt 09:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not a reference. I talk to the people who made that then also asked Jeph who works on the show and its just a coincidence.74.195.3.11 13:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ted Sprague

"Ted Sprague doesn't emit heat as a power any more than Hiro has super speed. Ted emits radiation which can cause heat as a by product." - JacobsHaven3 Ted Sprague DOES emit heat and ionizing radiation. Saying he emits microwave radiation is speculation. He has heated doorknobs, computer keyboards, burned photographs. --Stabbey 18:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: In fact, I'd go so far to say that he emits heat and radiation is the byproduct. --Stabbey 18:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How? A microwave oven emits microwaves which excite water molecules and heat them. A fire doesn't cause radiation poisoning. If it was heat causing radiation poisoning, then his wife would have burned to death before being poisoned by radiation. Jacobshaven3 18:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Microwave radiation is still a type of radiation and was used as an example. Heat can't cause radiation, its caused by a transfer of energy, either by radiation, conduction and convection. Jacobshaven3 18:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but how much water is in a computer keyboard, photograph, or doorknob (three things definitely seen charred as if burned in his house)? He was certainly emitting ionizing radiation, but the available evidence suggests that the method he's using to create heat isn't microwave radiation, which I agree would have cooked his wife. He seems more able to control the heat then the radiation. In any case, "emit radiation and emit heat from his hands" is more accurate, just as "teleportation, time manipulation and time travel" is a more accurate description for Hiro's powers then "manipulate the space-time continuum". --Stabbey 18:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Heat is not the same thing as ionizing radiation. Why is this fact such a contraversial idea? --Stabbey 04:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Just read the other talk page. If the producers say his power is "Induced Radioactivity", then I'll leave it as it is, but I'd like a source. --Stabbey 04:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Newcomer here. May or may not be relevant, but any undergraduate chemistry or geology student will tell you that heat is a byproduct of radiation- this is why the earth's mantle and core are so hot (radioactive decay). Ted is explicitly mentioned in the show as emitting radiation AND heating things up. To say that he can control one and not the other is contradiction in terms- they are not one and the same thing, but they are a cause and an affect. The reason he doesn't burn up everything around him all the time while radiating is because it takes a certain amount of radiation to excite the molecules in surrounding matter, and since he is not always radiating at high levels, this only happens when he gets excited.

I think it is correct to say that he has the power to "emit radiation" and perhaps adding "thereby inducing heat, radiation poisoning, and other side effects of radioactivity". (Ricyteach 12:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC))

Heat as a byproduct is what I meant. Ted doesn't control heat, thus it shouldn't be listed as his power. However, heat is a side effect of radiation, and therefore it can all be explained as radiation control. I don't understand why their powers need to be placed in more detail than necessary, if it's included he can control heat, it makes out to the non viewer that he can do both, not that one is the side effect of the other. Ricyteach's example: "emit radiation, thereby inducing heat, radiation poisoning, and other side effects of radioactivity". Is a very good description. Jacobshaven3 13:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I bow to the experts. I would add that Ted can produce heat through use of his power, I think that's a clarifying statement, not a redundant one. It's not an obvious connection for the average person. --Stabbey 14:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not an obvious connection? Are you kidding? It's obvious to anyone who paid attention in high school chemistry OR high school physics. I'm an average person and I saw the connection immediately Ted started causing the water to heat up, burned the nurses arm, caused the dosimeter to change colour (comeon dude, can't get more obvious than that - they detect radiation above a "safe" background level) and induced bone cancer in his wife. Seeing all that, I remarked "Cool, this guy can emit ionizing radiation from his hands!" Maybe I'm just more intelligent/more observant than the average Joe but I definitely would qualify as "the average person". And Ted himself doesn't produce the heat. The heat is INDUCED by the radiation he emits, just like electricity is induced by fluctuations in a magnetic field. To say that he produced it when it's a secondary by-product at best would be wrong - and this has already been pointed out several times to you. If you're going to bow out, then really bow out. 59.100.99.169 21:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll weigh in on this too. "Heat" is merely the evidence of thermal energy which has been converted from some other source. It would be highly illogical to assume that Ted has separate heat powers when heat is a direct by-product of all forms of radiation. Until we can see direct evidence of Ted using only the heat part of his abilities without any radioactivity occuring at the same time it would be speculation (and a counter to WP:OR) to say that he has powers of heat and radiation. What you can say is that his power has been used to burn things, which will get the point across just fine. -- Y|yukichigai 23:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Heroes

There's a new article called List of Heroes that's basically just another character list, which we already have a better version of. I'm starting the deletion ball rolling with a proposed deletion. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge discussion started at Talk:List of characters in Heroes#Proposed merge. Input is appreciated. Kafziel ^Talk 20:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously.. You are kidding me? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The guy put a lot of work into creating that list, and it (technically) does contain info not found on the original list; pages shouldn't be made into redirects unless they are completely redundant. We can discuss it for a couple of days, and if consensus holds that it's not notable, I'll nominate it for AfD. Kafziel ^Talk 20:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly Why I redirected it.. so his efforts are not deleted and so that the content was still in the edit history. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? See WP:MERGE. If you want to make it into a redirect without discussion, you need to merge any of the info that's not redundant. It has nothing to do with edit histories, it has to do with article content. Kafziel ^Talk 20:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You might wish to read that to your self: "Merging is something any editor can do, and if you are sure that something should be merged, you can be bold and do so. If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided." — If you wish to merge that content you are welcome to do so, I am actually busy doing something else however. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, merging is something any editor can do. Turning a page into a redirect without merging the content is not the same thing. I'm not convinced that the information in the new list is notable, so I'm not sure it should be merged. That's the purpose of the merge discussion, and that's why the merge tags should stay for a couple of days. By now you could have simply joined the discussion over there. Kafziel ^Talk 20:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Narration by Mohinder Suresh

• Genesis (Heroes)
• Collision (Heroes)
• Hiros
• Better Halves
• Nothing to Hide (Heroes)
• Fallout (Heroes)

Those six articles need the Narration by Mohinder Suresh either added or expanded. If anyone out there has the episodes recorded, please add the Narration beginning and ending to all six of those articles. thanks. dposse 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fallout didn't have any narration, surprisingly. I might still have Nothing to Hide recorded somewhere, I'll add anything missing when I get a chance. --Stabbey 21:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've got someone to transcribe narration for some of the episodes. You can get the missing narration for Genesis, Collision, Hiros and Better Halves" from The TVIV Wiki, since all you're taking is the direct quotes from the show. Of course, other information requires attribution. Technically I think the narration is by Mohinder Suresh, not the actor Sendhil Ramamurthy because Sendhil doesn't naturally have the accent Mohinder has, but it's a minor point. --Stabbey 19:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Correcting number of appearances from various characters

Guys, here is a list of all main characters and their appearances so far, so you can check my changes.

Claire 11 (All); Hiro 11 (All); Micah 10 (All except ep 8); Mr. Bennet 10 (All except ep 7); Niki 10 (All except ep 8); Peter 10 (All except ep 8); Isaac 9 (All except eps 7 and 10); Mohinder 9 (All except eps 7 and 10); Nathan 9 (All except eps 6 and 8); Matt 8 (All except eps 1, 6, 9); Eden 8 (All except eps 1, 5, 7); DL 6 (Eps 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11); Simone 6 (Eps 1-4, 7, 9); Haitian 6 (Eps 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11); Sylar 5 (Eps 3, 8, 9, 10, 11) Renenarciso 18:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason to list the number of appearances for each character? Do any other series list this information? SuperMachine 18:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree - it's not necessary. Some of the lists of characters from The Sopranos (like this one and this one) actually list the title of every episode the various characters have been in, but the Sopranos lists have been completely out of hand for a long, long time. Kafziel ^Talk 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Bennett's Powers

I reverted a change that said that Mr. Bennett has the power to block other heros' powers and that the Haitian is just a cover. This is speculation. There are no facts to support this. If there is, please provide a citation.--NMajdan•talk 20:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the Haitian was nearby when Bennet made the statement that the persuasion wouldn't work on him. SuperMachine 20:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

--

7 December 2006 - Clues to support that Mr.Bennett has the power to block are as follows.

examples taken from various source's, that the Haitian is misdirection.

• Mr.Bennett even says it himself in a way when he is talking to Sylar. He says, no one has more than one ability except for you. If the Haitian can alter people's minds and damp powers, that would count as two
• When he instructed the Haitian to "clean people out" (Matt, the Quarterback) he always left the room before the Haitian did it.
• When he instructed Eden to persuade Isaac, he was outside the room when she did it.
• Six months ago, Claire's cut bled freely as HRG was there but was healed w/o a scar shortly after
• Matt's powers did not work in the interrogation room in the vicinity of HRG and Claire
• Sylar's abilities didn't work when he was in the room and I guess while he wasn't there there was nothing for Sylar to throw around
• Peter started coughing as soon as HRG came into the room as if the healing effect reversed itself. he was better after Claire asked for a moment with him.
• "Six Months Ago" ep, Mr Bennett tells Eden something to the effect that "Your powers won't work on me."

from signed git 7 December 2006

--

Rebuttal to those points.

* Telepathy can cover blocking mental abilities and altering memories.

* So what? Unless a reason is shown for this, reading anything into it is speculation.

* So what? Reading anything not shown is speculation.

* The episode was full of other people's powers activating for the first time. Nathan hadn't flown before, was Mr. Bennet hanging around him all the time?

* The Haitian was nearby, we saw this. The Haitian was in the bar, Mr. Bennet was not (assuming he was is again, speculation).

* If Mr. Bennet or the Haitian was the only reason Sylar's abilities didn't work, then he wouldn't dare leave Sylar alive in case he tried to escape again when he or the Haitian weren't around.

* No, the coughing continued even with Claire there and Mr. Bennet outside. He also didn't look well. On an video interview on NBC.com, Milo Vemtimigila himself said he was sick from being near too many supers in close sucession (Sylar, Claire, Matt, Nathan).

* The Haitian was right there. He was blocking Eden. --Stabbey 16:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate on point six: it's possible Sylar's powers only work (or work to a significant degree) when he's in the presence of other 'superhumans' (note: this is just an example, it shouldn't be added to the article). Lots of things are possible right now. But until we know the answer we need to err on the side of caution in this venue, and say he doesn't appear to have any superhuman abilities. If and when that's categorically proved to be false then I'm sure the article will be rightly edited to reflect that. --Careax 16:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This comment is easily negated, as Sylar uses his obtained power of telekinesis around Chandra Suresh, who didn't have a power. Also, erring on the side of caution would be to say that it is unknown whether or not he has a superpower. Definitively stating that he doesn't is just as much speculation as saying that he does. 141.161.73.100 18:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is all good example of why Wikipedians don't do research, including analysis of a published work (in this case, a TV show). We will say he has a power when we're told directly and unmistakeably that he has a power. Primogen 19:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I've need the same things about Bennet's powers posted on the talk pages of three separate articles now. Let's bring this discussion to Talk:Mr. Bennet (Heroes)#Power, or some kind of Tech? so we don't have to post the same thing in three places. Primogen 19:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Git you said that the Haitian has two powers, so then Hiro would have three powers time travel, stopping time and teleportation. As for Mr. Bennet, it could be that the Haitian put a mental block on Sylar, Matt Parkman and Eden from using thier powers on Mr. Bennet. IG-2000 07:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hiro has one power: the ability to manipulate the space-time continuum. Its one power that enables him to do all three of those things.

The Haitian has one power too, and both the mind wiping and the power negation are facets of this one power. If I had to say what power the Haitian has I'd say it's the ability to shut down mental processes, be they memories, mental powers, or maybe even consciousness (it seems like he was the one who knocked Sylar down in that hill). Renenarciso 12:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparing Heroes with other works

I have just removed (for the third time) a paragraph comparing Eden's powers to similar powers seen in Dune. I was asked by Otto4711 to cite the guideline that prohibits this type of comparison. Here is a quote from the Guide to Writing Better Articles: "The most readable articles contain a minimum of irrelevant (or only loosely relevant!) information."

Dune characters have some similarity here, that is true. But the subject at hand is emphatically Eden McCain, and not anything else. If we allow the Heroes articles to wander into these sorts of comparisons, they will soon become filled with other similarities to every comic book, movie, manga, etc that any editor feels has a passing resemblance to the subject at hand. Therefore, I, and other editors, will continue to remove such comparisons. 209.103.222.35 20:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Brent

I'd also like to add that it is a content policy violation for Wikipedians to be determining similarities themselves, as per Wikipedia:No Original Research. Any analysis or arguments presenting a particular point-of-view, even if every editor happens to agree with the assessment, needs to come from a verifiable source. Primogen 20:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

To expand and clarify a bit, this is exactly why it is acceptable for the Claire Bennet article to refer to the X-Men character Wolverine: Hayden Panettiere compared her character to Wolverine in an interview with SuperHeroHype.com, so that comment is a verifiable source that's not original research. Until or unless Eden McCain actress (Nora Zehetner) or one of the show's producers refers to her power as being Dune-like, such comparisons are out of place in a Wikipedia article. --Psiphiorg 23:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the best way to resolve this is for someone to write a Voice Power article or section that both Eden and Dune can link to. Primogen 20:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Haitian

Shouldn't The Haitian powers be memoeries wipe and the power to cancel othe powers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.89.117 (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

See Talk:The Haitian#His power description. Primogen 01:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also see Talk:The Haitian#Interference of mental-based superpowers. dposse 18:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam

Would a link to NBC's page where you can see all the episodes be considered spam? Each episode is divided into about six parts, and you have to watch an ad at the beginning of each. Prometheus^-X303- 05:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

it's a commercial link, so it could be, and it's also subject to re-editing, a la the sink incident. I'd say it might make sense to add it at the top of this page with a note that it's a resource for editors and should NOT be archived, but left there? That's the best compromise I can see, since putting it on the article page is almost certainly both advertising AND controversial due to the editing concerns. ThuranX 05:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Leonard roberts

The article states he joined the cast in episode 5. However, by appearing in promotional stuff before the series even started, it's clear he was cast quite some time ago, but only first appeared in episode 5. This should be reflected in the article. ThuranX 21:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the original paragraph on the number of actors in the full-time cast after reading so many complaints about why "Ando" or "Sylar" isn't listed among the main cast. I originally wrote that the NBC cast page lists 10 actors, not counting Leonard Roberts, who did not appear until in the 5th episode but who was the eleventh member of the full-time cast. (Later, Jack Coleman was upgraded from a recurring role to become the twelfth full-time castmember as of the 11th episode). However, someone else inserted the bit about "and promotional materials" in reference to the ten that are listed on the NBC site. So, I rewote it again, and I hope now it is both clear and accurate in explaining why there are exactly 12 main characters: the ten on the NBC cast page, plus Roberts and Coleman. Primogen 22:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems almost confrontational, static and defensive to say "full(-)time" the way you do, Primo. No offense, but Simone certainly wouldn't count in that way. Could we use better wording to indicate their "main" status? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I derived "full-time" from the source cited for Jack Coleman's status upgrade (Variety: "joins the series full time in its 11th episode"), which is why I decided to use that term instead of "main", which I believe is terminology coming from Wikipedia editors. (I don't know how NBC or the production company refers to these twelve cast members.) However, I think of the term "full-time" not in relation to the number of episodes they appear in but rather how they are paid. That is, rather than being hired episode by episode (like a part-time or temporary employee), I would think they are contracted by the season (a "full-time employee", if you will). I would imagine that each of the "full-time" (or main, if you prefer) cast or guest/recurring character's amount of screentime or number of episode appearances is really dependent upon who the writers happen to feel about writing about for any particular episode. But I don't think using "main character" instead will help -- I've read lots of complaints on talk pages and in edit summaries about this or that character not being counted as a "main character" even though they get more screen-time than Simone. Primogen 23:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your last effort looks great. Thank you. ThuranX 23:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(formerly from archive 10)

Heroes premiere in the UK

Hello! Heroes will be shown in the UK in February on the SCI FI channel. I work for SCI FI, and I believe this is relevent and useful information for this Heroes page (particularly for the significant number of readers based in the UK). It is factually correct, most importantly. I suggest mentioning it in the introductory paragraphs. Indeed, I already entered it, but it was deleted. Please let me know what objections there may be to this addition. SCI FI UK 16:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Put it in the section entitled "International Broadcasters".--Ac1983fan 16:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying, but surely an encyclopaedia should be neutral, and not favour one territory over others in this way? Of course I appreciate that it is an American show, but it will receive a worldwide fanbase, notably in Great Britain, arguably the second most important TV audience in the world. A small mention at the bottom of the page seems to be somewhat short shrift. SCI FI UK 17:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason that the US premiere is mentioned in the first paragraph is because that was the original airdate. Including information on international premieres is certainly important, which is why an entire section is dedicated to this purpose. SuperMachine 17:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Showing bias would be what you were doing, BTW. Cute attempt to turn it around Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you shouldn't be posting here at all. Wikipedia has prohibitions against corporate exploitation of Wikipedia, and posting about a future debut on your network would be advertising. thanks, but no thanks. ThuranX 23:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

AGF please. There intentions are obviously not malicious. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I never said anything about malice, I said it's exploitive. I never said 'obviously' either. I simply informed him that wikipedia has rules about such conflicts of interest. ThuranX 23:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Most other articles about shows and movies on wikipedia have the air/release dates of the show/movie in other countries. The article for the British show Dr. Who mentions the premiere of the show on the American Scifi channel, so does that mean that info should be deleted? I don't see a problem with a blurb about the premiere of the show in the UK, not everything revolves around us Americans.IG-2000 10:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a whole section about international broadcasting. I don't think anyone has proposed deleting this information. SuperMachine 12:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How about as a compromise, we move the international broadcasters table higher in the page so they come right after the lead? Kyaa the Catlord 10:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd oppose such a move. It doesn't make sense to discuss international broadcasting so early in the article. I think it's fine where it is. SuperMachine 12:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with leaving it where it is. I'm not sure what the complaining is about, there is british info in that table - if the air date has a reliable source, add it to that table and cite it. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

We haven't officially released a tx date for Heroes yet, but when we do (pretty soon now) I shall make sure it is reflected in the table. Please don't mistake my presence here as an evil corporate agenda to hijack the page, it was a genuine attempt to improve the article and give English fans a bit of useful information, prominently displayed. I completely understand how my appearance could be alarming, of course.

Even if I wasn't an employee of SCI FI (the name of which which continues to be formatted incorrectly in Wikipedia, and yet I am too new at this to correct it, sadly) I am still a UK-based fan of the genre and the show, and as such would have liked to see the UK premiere date somewhere easily visible. I completely understand and respect the consensus, that the international broadcasters table serves a similar purpose. I think the argument for a 'world view' that isn't dominated by America is an interesting one, but perhaps best led elsewhere for now. SCI FI UK 18:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The page has a world view. The only reason the US broadcasts are more prominent is because they are the first broadcasts. While the foreign broadcasts are interesting and useful, they don't really merit being at the top of the page. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Zach's sexuality

A user recently tried to add this issue with the series. While his attempt was poorly worded, steeped in POV and OR, it's valid information about the show, and someone should add it in soon. ThuranX 23:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

X, no offense here, but work on the spelling and caps. Typing in general, I guess. It's getting a little...weird.

I see no "cotnroversy" or controversy of any kind. That latter word is really abused, I find. (e. g. "KFC" redirecting to "niggers" is a "KFC Controversy".) Anyway, Zach's sexuality is really a minor thing, especially now that the character and actor seem highly unlikely to return. If it were Peter, and Nathan had a problem with it, ala Wedding Wars, I'd see the import. As is, a recurring character on hiatus was the subject of gay speculation/bashing. How about we mention Ando's perversion on the main page while we're at it? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking closer, and reverting the user's idiocy myself, it looks like vandalism, or, at best, content still not suitable for various reasons. Common sense, people. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There has definitely been some controversy about this, although I don't know how much if any coverage there has been in the mainstream press. Tim Kring himself has even publically given a message of excuse/apology. To be honest, I'm surprised it took this long for someone to add it. I'll give it a shot tomorrow if someone hasn't done a decent version by then. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There's an issue. Okay, fine. This still doesn't seem like something for the main page. Add a blurp to Zach's section of list of characters in Heroes and be done with thus. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a two part thing, Ace. One, there's a valid issue that the page needs. Two, there's a rude editor taking WP:BOLD too far with total disregard for grammar. Part one matters, and should be addressed. Part two should continue to be reverted, as both you and I have done. as for my typing, I type fast, and on a keyboard that, regretably, has kiddies getting crumbs on it at times... sometimes i hear the distinct 'crunch' of a crumb going to powder, and I have to hope it don't ruin another key. Half the sensors for my 1 and left SHIFT and CTRL keys are shot, requiring a harder touch than my touchtyping leaves. As for the rest, I type fast and even faster when on a roll. ThuranX 04:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Fair enough. I just don't want to clutter the article with a character specific issue of limited notablity. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We can edit it out over time, but it's worth including for now. Not because he's minor, but because gay characters on TV is a more siginifcant issue nowadays. ThuranX 04:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The show isn't about someone being gay, and I don't see the point of making a big deal about it on the main page. Show's like "Will & Grace" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" has kinda made the whole gay character thing, "so last year." IG-2000 09:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, it'snot about one character being gay, the controversy is that the creator/writer said he was, and NBC executives forced the change in response to outside forces to increase marketability and to appease moralists. that sort of controversy about a show IS worthy of inclusion. ThuranX 12:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. There's a big backlash right now in the gay press and community (I first read about it in TV guide and IMDB). Although the real reason for the change is unknown right now - I've been reading that it wasn't NBC itself, but the actor's management. But at this point that's pretty speculative. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A source for what you spouted would be great, X. Kind of hard to imagine the network that kept Will and Grace on the air ten years would buckle to homophobes. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a source on it supposedly being due to the actor's agent [3]. More here: [4] [5] I think there's enough verifiable info to mention that there is a controversy (which is hinted at in the list of characters), but the reason behind the change still is speculative at this point. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. How about something in the Homecoming article ala the "alternate version" section of Genesis? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page cleanup

Today I created archive #9 for our main Heroes talk page. Hurray for us working actively on the WP pages for a great show! The top section of our talk page has a lot of info boxes, however. (Sorry, not sure of the proper name for those boxes.) Can any of the boxes be moved or removed? fmmarianicolon | Talk 23:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You could also use Werdnabot for archiving as well.--NMajdan•talk 17:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

George Takei to star as Hiros father.

According to a number of news sources, George Takei will join Heroes as Hiro Nakamura's father. [6] [7] This is very exciting news, in my opinion. Where shoud this infomation be put in the article? dposse 03:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw this announcement a couple of days ago, and I thought that it was exciting news too, but I don't think it has a place in any of the articles yet. He should appear in cast for the articles on the episodes in which he will be appearing, once that is determined. Primogen 03:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Narration by Mohinder Suresh

• Genesis (Heroes)
• Collision (Heroes)
• Hiros
• Better Halves
• Nothing to Hide (Heroes)
• Fallout (Heroes)

Those six articles need the Narration by Mohinder Suresh either added or expanded. If anyone out there has the episodes recorded, please add the Narration beginning and ending to all six of those articles. thanks. dposse 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fallout didn't have any narration, surprisingly. I might still have Nothing to Hide recorded somewhere, I'll add anything missing when I get a chance. --Stabbey 21:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've got someone to transcribe narration for some of the episodes. You can get the missing narration for Genesis, Collision, Hiros and Better Halves" from The TVIV Wiki, since all you're taking is the direct quotes from the show. Of course, other information requires attribution. Technically I think the narration is by Mohinder Suresh, not the actor Sendhil Ramamurthy because Sendhil doesn't naturally have the accent Mohinder has, but it's a minor point. --Stabbey 19:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

From what we know, Micah does have a confirmed power

He is a technopath. What other power could repair a telephone? Nikki never said outright "I have super strength" but we know she does. Micah does not have to outright say his power for us to know what it is. It should be allowed to put that Micah is in fact a technopath 71.253.41.191 13:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)December 25, 2006

We've discused this already. Until Micah or someone else says that Micahs power is only Technopathy and not something else, it is considered original research. The same goes for The Haitian. dposse 14:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Then if that is so, then you must not put Nikki's power there either, because "it might be something else" she may just be crazy and work out alot.71.253.41.191 20:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)December 25, 2006

Insanity and human fitness wouldn't explain her breaking open a safe with her bare hands. Plus, she's kinda thin. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha. We actually have a source for Niki/Jessica. [8] But for now, we don't have a source for The Haitian or Micah Sanders. Until it becoes more clear in the series, or until we get a story like that one in the media, we have to wait. dposse 21:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

What happens if those two powers are never "officialy confirmed" and left to the audience to confirm it themselves? Is it also not allowed to put what an unconfirmed power is similiar to? 71.253.41.191 09:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC) December 26, 2006

As you can see through the archives, this question's come up before. One good way to be sure is to wait for comfirmation. barring that, the media. Only third, by blatant repeated demonstration on the show, should we validate a power. For example, we knew Jessica was superstrong long ago, but couldn't add it. Now, with that EW report, we can clearly explain her powers. IF we saw a scene in which Micah interacted with machinery in a way wherein he got results so out of spec that there's no good explanation BUT technopathy, we could use it. if we could see him changing TV channels with a remote OR (gasp!)getting up to turn them manually, we'd have a clue. If we saw him using a computer without touching it, or touching it but NOT typing or clicking, that'd be a good clue. and so on. Given that Micah's been shown to be fairly UNafraid of his powers, I doubt it'll be much longer before we see him use them in a more overt manner. I recommend some patience. we've still got half a season to go. ThuranX 15:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

So can i delete this whole section then? 141.158.127.15 01:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)December 26, 2006

What if the pay phone was simply out of power, and Micah provided an electrical charge to power on the phone. Oh no, look at that! He's an electrokinetic! (Is that a word?) That revelation would totally debunk any speculation about Technopathy and prove us wrong if we put that into the article. Hm.. I'm starting to actually wonder if maybe his powers truly are electrically based. Static Shock, anyone? Check out Electrophoresis if you get an opportunity. ;) ^{Anticrash / _Talk 07:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)}

I would ask for people to check this interview out: http://www.comicspodcasts.com/?p=500, when asked if Micah could "communicate with machines and electronics", a writer said "Yes", now as far as I'm aware, that is what Technopathy means. Is this enough of a source to finally put Technopathy as the power? Jacobshaven3 21:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If he charged it then we can put he either has electrokinetic power OR a technopathic power LordArthas 14:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This section needs to be deleted, I am the person who started this talk page (yes I signed in) and now that Micah does have a confirmed power, this section needs to be deleted. Please to not revert it once removed.LordArthas 16:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sections of talk pages are periodically archived, but comments are rarely deleted unless they're vandalism. No harm is being done by leaving this section here until it's archived. Thanks, SuperMachine 16:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Haitian symbol

Should we do something about the Haitian's symbol? Like...move it to his article? It's only appeared a few times, only on two people. It can't be considered a "symbol of the series" like the RNA S. I was iffy about the placement here to be begin with, and now it just seems like some misplaced, largely irrelevant detail meant for another article. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It makes sense that his symbols go on his page, just as Isaac's paintings go on his page. Although I have a feeling that the symbols may not be due to the Haitain but to Mr. Bennet's organization in the end. fmmarianicolon | Talk 01:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this. It seems silly to me, considering the multiple places we've seen it. It's much more of a symbol of the series then it is a symbol of the Haitian. I don't really need to list the dozen places it's shown up unassociated with the Haitian, do I? --Stabbey 14:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about t5he symbol on Matt and Ted's necks, not the RNA. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was confused. But if that symbol were to be moved, I think it would be just as at home on Mr. Bennet's page. There's nothing to indicate that the symbol is a result of anything the Haitian has done to Matt and Ted. --Stabbey 18:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Stabbey, the parallel marks could just as easily be marks from some kind of surgery from biological testing/experimentation performed by Bennet's team; it might not have anything to do with the effects of the Haitian. ^{Anticrash / _Talk 16:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)}

Whatever the case, I'm removing it from the article as irrelevant and reinstating the title "The symbol". Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How can you make a judgement like this during the hiatus? Wait until after the hiatus, or wait until we know more, before removing it. Now, i'm replacing it because it is part of the Heroes plot. dposse 18:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As I'm the one who added it, I added itto the main article with the intent of noting it as it was currently known. NO one has been able to explain the RNA either. Until we are sure that the parallel lines aren't a 'symbol' in the direct sense, but resultant scars after surgery, or something else, leave it here. The producers of the show saw fit to focus the cameras on it and to have Matt Parkman (the cop) notice the similarity in a clear, unambiguous manner. That said, Leaaving it here until it's explained makes far more sense to me. Once we can explain or dismiss it, then we can adust it. ThuranX 19:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Flag in infobox

It's fairly common to use the {{USA}} template in infoboxes. That's why the template exists. What exactly is it harming? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 04:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It harms the readability of the template, over-emphasizing the location where none of the other items have, or should have, a flag. It harms navigability, in that anyone clicking on the flag is sent not to the appropriate article on the United States, but to an Image namespace page with a picture of the flag—because the purpose of images is generally to be images, not navigation tools, and there is no reason in this case why the flag would be needed for navigation. The commonality of a bad practice does not make it a good practice. Often, practices are common simply because someone looked around and saw a bunch of uses of it, saying "oh, it must be standard practice, I must put it in the infobox". Or, some flag aficionado goes around with a semi-automated tool and replaces all the infobox location items with flags. It also implies that the show is somehow specially related to the flag, when it just so happens that it was produced in the United States (and other things may have been done elsewhere anyway); it is unlikely the producers decided to produce it in the United States to work under the flag or declared the pledge of allegiance before filming every day. The main reasonable use of the template is for sports infoboxes, which is a genre where it is common to say that a person is representing a country and where the flag is often included. It is also useful in these and similar cases where the full name of the country should not be stated every time; the first use has the flag with the country and then subsequent uses have only the flag, e.g. to save space in a table. —Centrx→talk • 23:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no harm to the readability, and as it is a standard practice, I'd suggest that the Village Pump would be the place to discuss this, and not try to make a stand here on one article page. Bring it there, see if they reference you to a WP or an existing debate. As to whether or not the images should link to articles on the nation, it's flag, or simply it's image resource page, I definitely think that the VP is the place to bring your concerns. In the meantime, I recommend you let the flag stand, until such time as a citable policy is evinced oppsing the use thereof. ThuranX 23:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not standard practice (see, for example, anything in Wikipedia:Featured articles; such as Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, James Robert Baker, Make Way for Ducklings, Only Fools and Horses, Elliott Smith, etc., I clicked on about 40 persons, television shows, films, etc. and found only 1 that had flags (and which used them in a different way)) and there is no "citable policy" for including the flag. If you want though, see Wikipedia:Images#Image choice and placement and Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity, and disparate parts of Wikipedia:Manual of Style. —Centrx→talk • 02:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Like SigEp, I've seen it used elsewhere in Wikipedia, and sometimes on similar or related pages, suggesting that multiple editors have added the flags to clusters they work. I'd suggest bringing it up on the Talk for Images, as you linked. ThuranX 04:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)(Also, Wikipedia:Images isn't policy not guideline, and the talk only identifies is as 'Descriptive'. I really think that rather than get contentious, it would be great to get some thoughts from those over at WP:Images, ee if they can generate a guideline, and then all of WP will have a reference for this issue.)ThuranX 04:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)(edit conflict here)

So is there any reason why it should be included in this article? —Centrx→talk • 04:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason you can't wait and get some feedback from those who focus on image use? ThuranX 04:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

All images in Category:Heroes Images need to be double checked

I have just finished going through every Heroes article I could find and tagging all the images with Category:Heroes Images. While doing this I noticed that most if not all of the images lack a description and more importantly lack fair use rational. Because of this many of the images have already been tagged for deletion. I'm fixing to head to bed so someone else is going to need to take aver from here but at least all the images are in one place now. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  12:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

CFD notice

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Influences on show premise

This press release for the debut of Heroes on New Zealand's TV3 quotes Tim Kring on being influenced by The Incredibles and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind when creating the show's idea. I thought about adding this to the article, but I don't see where it would fit well. Should the information be added or not? If so, where should we add it? fmmarianicolon | Talk 19:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Heroes Wiki (p2)

Do you think that the Heroes Wiki has "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors"? I want to add the website to the links section, but not before I know that it meets Wikipedia:External_links. --Joshtek 02:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a glorified fansite that blatently rips us off. Nuff said. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Fan Site or not, it is still an in-depth resource of information on the show. From first glance it even seems to have far more information on Heroes than is listed on Wikipedia. You shouldn't be so blatantly biased towards it. ^{Anticrash / _Talk 05:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)}

Ohh! People's choice award! Stop the fucking presses. You want to add more data to this article and this wiki? Please, go right ahead. I love how people say "they have way more!" yet do nothing to balance the scales. And frankly, I'll take quality over quantity. For example,

“ Peter believes he has a greater place in life than just saving one person at a time, and he's willing to sacrifice himself to save the world.

His brother, Nathan, seems to disapprove of Peter's choice to become a nurse. Nathan also considers Peter the less favored son of their father.

”

Who needs a subjective, and ultimately redundant analysis like that? The second line is mostly about his brother anyway. They do excessive, episode by episode summaries of even the most irrelevant details. They miscapitalized, misspell and overall miss the point. For us, anyway, it's not about recording every little detail. It's about properly informing the reader. No amount of content can make up for all that site's failings and issues.

Oh, and I repeat, it's redundant. "Just to itself?" you ask? No! To us. Adding a link to that cesspool would effectively be linking to a craptastic substitute that tries to out do us. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean you don't want it listed in the Links section? ^{Anticrash / _Talk 06:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)}

I'm going to oppose such a link as well. THe whole wiki there lacks truly good citation, instead mimicking citation to mask OR and SPEC. I looked through a number of articles, and found trouble all around. For exampple, the article 'brain' redirects to vbrain removal, and then only talks about sylar, instead of being it's own article. Neither brain as redirect nor brain removal bother to mention, in all that spec, that if Sylar's removing the brains and getting the powers, and even Eden McCain blows her brains out so they're ruined, then the brain must house the powers, even physically manifest powers like Jessica's super-strength or Claire's rapid healing. Since even the Spec isn't well thought out spec, since there's a lack of references that actually support objective facts, since there are the grammatical errors observed by Ace, and, among other reasons, WP prefers as a policy/guideline to limit the number of fan sites, I'm going to go with a general 'No.'. ThuranX 06:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry ThuranX, just to be clear, I was not supporting this proposal. My last statement was meant to be sarcastic since Ace made his point with a vengeance. I hadn't even heard of this site before Joshtek posted it so I was neutral on the subject. I just wanted to be sure that it wasn't be rejected simply because it's a Wiki (since not all wikis are wannabe Wikipedias). But as long as thats not the case and the site truly is, as you say, lacking in references and objective facts, then I'm with you. ^{Anticrash / _Talk 06:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)}

"Humor" only goes so far, Anti. If you want, we can make a mock survey and definitively test the waters of consensus. However, I'd hope a reasonable user would realize, simply from these comments, what the consensus already is. Furthermore, you don't seem slow, so I wonder why you keep making these little "jokes"(?) of yours. Remember, there's a thin line between "persistance" and "annoyance", especially your argumant's failing/failed. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 06:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You're the only one arguing here, Ace. ^{Anticrash / _Talk 06:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)}

Don't know many meaning of the word "argument", huh? Ever read a dictionary? How about wiktionary? Whatever. I'll just slowly explain which meaning of the word I was using.

From Wiktionary:argument... "A fact or statement used to support a proposition; a reason". In other words, your argument is your weak attenpt to sell us on using the site. You are half-right about one thing: this isn't an agrument. You're wrong and the proposition you're supporting has been opposed by two people in a matter of hours, if not minutes.

In the future, also avoid:

• making the same rejected proposal twice. (Can I do this? Can I do this now?)
• asking a question with an obvious answer to. (Can I do this now? but what do you really think?) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 07:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• editting other user's comments.

Wow, Ace, you have a harsh tongue. 1) I never supported this proposal, and 2) I'm sorry if my actions have somehow offended you. Now I know better than to engage you in discussion of any kind. You've proven yourself the alpha dog, and I will no longer reply to any statements made by you. I hope this resolves any issues you have with me. ^{Anticrash / _Talk 07:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)}

I cracked up laughing at this: " m 21:40 Heroes (TV series) (diff; hist) . . (-99) . . Ace Class Shadow (Talk | contribs) (Undo revision 99172368 by Cuardin (talk) See talk. I have to revert this again, an admin might be notified.)" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus to add it, Matthew. You know...like the way your friend El edits project pages. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems there's still trouble with this. I'm going to try another explanation: The heroes Wiki lacks the disciplined level of citation Wikipedia demands. There is a lot more colorful language, conjecture, and fannish writing. As a result, it is probably less factual and authoritative in most regards. Linking directly to such a site from Wikipedia would be bad, because users coming to the WK Heroes page may follow the link to the HW, thinking it meets WP standards for verification, which it doesn't. Finding information there that isn't contained on Wikipedia, they may be tempted to bring it back to WP, citing HW. This sort of breeding ground for incestuous unverified information seems counterproductive at best, and a stupid self-defeatist behavior at worst. Until and unless HW begins to take on the burden of serious citation and scholarship, we'd be feeding the beast of bad (yet AGF-ish) edits, creating WP:BITE style confrontations we should instead be avoiding. The best way to do this, short of invading HW to get it citation'd up, is to simply avoid the tacit endorsement that a link constitutes. ThuranX 05:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good, X. You hit the nail on the head. Thankfully, Anticrash denies supporting the link, and Matthew seems to be more disagreeable/agrumentive—nothing new—than genuinely interested in debating us or adding the link. Best thing now is to let this rest. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Threatening to notify an admin if it's added again? Don't be ridiculous. I think you guys are misinterpreting WP:EL and mostly resorting to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's hypocritical to complain about lack of citiations when most Heroes articles here on wikipedia (and the vast majority of TV articles) use few if any citations. Which isn't necessarily that big a deal since the show itself is the primary source. External sources aren't required to follow all the wikipedia policies, just meet EL, and that wiki does seem to contain info beyond what is here, and generally be factually correct (which is the relevant criteria for linking, not whether they use citations like wikipedia). This seems to be a fairly common attitude in the wp TV articles, an unwillingness to link to other unofficial sites (maybe out of a sense of rivalry?), whether a link is appropriate or not. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"maybe out of a sense of rivalry?" - That's what I originally thought, since it seemed that the site was being bashed simply because it was a Wiki (as if it was a wannabe Wikipedia), hence my original reply of "blatant bias" toward it. Though, somehow my defense of the site's integrity got twisted into me suddenly supporting it's linkage in the article, which is *not* the case as I am still neutral on it. I really don't care if it's listed or not, but that is beside the point. Since you brought it up, Milo, the IDONTLIKEIT Attitude seems to be pretty common around here, not just in this article but among others I've contributed to as well. It makes it somewhat difficult to reach a consensus when people assume more authority than they are warranted and make collective decisions on their own.  Anticrash  talk  17:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's just it, guys. Well, half right, anyway. I have nothing against most external links, really. I didn't really care/know about the whole "no fansites" thing until at least mid-2006. Still, the perceived rivalry goes both ways. Normally, Wikipedia links to sites which are dastintly different from it. In this case, we're linking to substandard copycat. And why? "More data"? For the reasons I stated above, that argument—chill, Anti—doesn't hold up. If I must repeat myself, the fact is that we could, logically have any data they have. Their format is supposed to mimic/match ours, for christ's sake! Anything they have that we don't probably isn't fit data anyway. And I don't want anyone trying to bring their crap from that site to us. It's just not...kosher. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the difference between the two sites is level of detail. A specialized wiki can go into complete details on the show, while wikipedia articles should maintain an encyclopedic level of detail (meaning keeping trivia to a minimum). The Heroes pages here absolutely should not have all the data they have. And I don't see the relevance of calling it a "copycat" based on use of the wiki format, there are tons of wikis and wikipedia certainly wasn't the first. Unless they have actually plagiarized this site, making accusations of mimicing just seems petty. Do you have an example of specifically ripping these pages off? --Milo H Minderbinder 23:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you need an example, Milo, is proof you aren't paying attention...and that's trouble. Heh. Okay. Let's try the freaking HCB. I present to you exhibits A: the heroes character box as it originally was, B: a recreation of that original template, C: Peter Petrelli's article, after I first added that template, D: a more accurate depiction, as both the article and template have changed to much for my point to be clear, E: the first two edits to the "Heroes Wiki" version of Peter's article and F: see for yourself. Now, I'd also like to add that I couldn't do much with the Heroes Wiki data because they only let registered users edit. So, I'm actually lucky they didn't wise up and change their ripoff template much, beyond shifting the matching green/aqua to any color differences. Oh wait. Your honor, I'll submit exhibit H: the original version of "their" template. Now, I'll admit, most of the blatent plagerism comes from a user called "Admin". Still, that's not a good scene, either, right? Yeah. So, I'll admit the tiniest bit of bias against a site that, to put it simply (and maybe immaturely) STOLE MY/OUR TEMPLATE/DATA! Of course, that's just one example...from long ago. I'm sure they've improved. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You're pulling versions out of their history from months ago to claim that they are presently copycats? Do you have any examples of pages that are currently still copies from Wikipedia? I do recall an issue a while back where they forgot to properly attribute some of the pages to Wikipedia, but going through the site those pages have long since been rewritten. Plus at that point their only issue was that they didn't atrribute them properly, something it looks like they promptly fixed. Sounds like you're just holding a grudge... which is a bit odd given that the GFDL does allow reproduction (which admittedly they did incorrectly at first, but then fixed). It seems rather inaccurate to claim they "stole" anything given the licence by which the content may be reproduced. --68.32.149.98 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, the template is still a blatent rip, minus the color change. They're idiots. Linking to them wouldn't be any better than linking to some fan blog. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite honestly, Ace, you are the only one who needs to chill; you are the only one getting bent out of shape over this. I don't know why you think I need to chill, but I've been pretty calm and composed during this discussion. It seems that you have an issue with interpreting tone. Many thanks to my college Speech class for teaching me how to have a proper conversation. Anyways, since I have stated several times already that I am neutral on the Wiki's inclusion in the links section, your argument about "more data" against the site is void. The argument brought up by Milo, and supported by me, concerns the misuse of WP:EL and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He did not say anything about the Heroes Wiki specifically, nor did I in my reply. Also, Ace, I am concerned about your overtly aggressive behavior.  Anticrash  talk  23:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Testy. Who needs to chill, again? I was just referencing your inability to comprehend my uses of the word "argument". Didn't want to have to school you...again. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you misinterpret my tone, Ace, I didn't intend any sort of testiness in my response. If that's how you perceived it, then I'm sorry. Anyways, again with the aggressive tone. Why? I don't understand why you feel the need to be so hostile. Also, you seem to obsess with my understanding of the word "argument." What relevance does that have? You have some major ego dominance issues to deal with, and from this point on I will not acknowledge your hostility until you can respond in a mature and civil manner. Your "colorful behavior" is borderline harassment, and it has to stop.  Anticrash  talk  00:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

When yu two are both done ramping up the incivility and having a Size contest, please focus on the problems with the site. As for citation, I believe my point, above, which hasn't been addressed, is that unlike show based observational reporting, which we all agree is acceptable, the Heroes Wiki editors engage in speculation, and draw conclusions NOT supported in the show. Linking to such a speculative wiki implies endorsement of the content. Enthusiastic editors who read WP's heroes, go there, find 'information' that they think our page should have, and come back to WP and post it without citation, can rapidly pollute the page with Spec and Crystal Ball'ing. If the Heroes wiki was more strict about it's edits, then we could accept them, but there's rampant guesswork, fanboy ideations, and so on. Opening the door to let that stuff in is a foolish decision. I'm firmly opposed to the addition of the site in any way as it currently stands. I'd suggest going there, tracking down their admins, and bringing our reservations to their attentions. If they can shape up their site, then we can link to it. As it stands now, no go. ThuranX 03:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

We already established that the site wasn't to be added to the links section. The last two-thirds of this discussion wasn't even about that. Case closed.  Anticrash  talk  03:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Linking to such a speculative wiki implies endorsement of the content." Since when? Links on Wikipedia do not imply endorsement of the content of the sites in question. They are provided as a resource to the reader. To consider an extreme (and risk invoking Godwin's Law), consider the link to the Nazi propaganda archive at calvin.edu from the Nazi article. I doubt many people would consider that link to indicate that Wikipedia endorses Nazi propaganda. It is provided as a resource for the reader. Likewise, a link to a Heroes wiki site would not imply endorsement of everything on that site, and should not be excluded on those grounds. There may or may not be other reasons for excluding it, but this is not one. --ΨΦorg 04:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, ThuranX. If they eliminated the content that you mention as being a major stumbling block then the information remaining would be virtually the same as what's available on Wikipedia already so at that point a link would now be moot anyway. It's the additional material that sets them apart in the first place. In theory the concern about the material making its way back into Wikipedia could be alleviated by adding a disclaimer that the site contains unverified information if there is a concern about it. I think the problem might be that it's being treated as if it's Wikipedia just because it's a wiki. Not weighing in on whether it should be linked or not, just bringing up some thoughts that came to mind. --68.32.149.98 04:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. Linking to a site doesn't imply endorsement, and doesn't mean that a linked site does (or should) follow WP policies. I don't even think speculation on a link is really that big an issue either, as long as speculation isn't presented as fact. I also believe the opposite of ThuranX in terms of the relationship of content between the two. I think if there's a link to a site with cruftier content, users will be more inclined to take info at a level of detail (trivia?) beyond what WP wants to go into there. And then editors here can even recommend taking material over there if it isn't appropriate here. Different audiences are looking for different levels of depth - I don't see the problem with pointing those in search of a fan level of detail to a site that offers it. And Ace, I'm addressing your incivility on your talk page. Please cut it out. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

uh Clair....

I was reading clair's power definition on this article and I saw that it said that she had the power of spontaneous regeneration. Spontaneous is something that happens randomly regeneration is the restoring back of what previously was there. These these terms do not explain clair's powers at all, she can't randomly heal, she is healed when she is hurt. Can we change this to the power of accelerated healing. 12.218.84.165 07:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't make up the terms, GIPU. The show has referred to her powers as such. It's either that or "healing factor", honestly. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 08:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Spontaneous-

   1. Self generated; happening without any apparent external cause.
   2. Done by one's own free choice, or without planning.
   3. proceeding from natural feeling or native tendency without external constraint
   4. arising from a momentary impulse
   5. controlled and directed internally : self-active : spontaneous movement characteristic of living things
   6. produced without being planted or without human labor : indigenous
   7. not apparently contrived or manipulated : natural
   8. Random; sudden, without warning

Her power is self generated (1), without planning (2), arises from a momentary impulse (4), produced without human labor (5), not apparently manipulated (6), sudden, without warning (8). Her power seems to satisfy 6 of the 8 definitions for spontaneous. I would say her power could be called spontaneous. PureSoldier 08:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Spontaneous" does not mean "randomly"; it means "instant," or without catalysis. PureSoldier has it right. Numbers 3 through 7 are the best fits. Basically, an instant natural reaction. Her healing factor activates instantly and is a natural occurence, therefore is spontaneous. ^{Anticrash / _Talk 10:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)}

Wikilink usage question

This might be a better question for the Help Desk, but since it applies to this article I wanted to ask here: What is the guideline for how often to wikilink? For example, in the "Characters" section Leonard and Jack's names are not wikilinked next to their characters because the wikilinks are in the intro paragraph. However, Isaac is wikilinked twice in the same section ("Symbols"). Sylar is wikilinked in "Plot" and then later in "Symbols". Is it OK to wikilink twice in different sections of the same page, or should a name only be wikilinked once in an article? fmmarianicolon | Talk 17:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely okay to link once in each section, if deemed necessary. Not every reads all of the article, and the order in which they go is relative. I'll make a few touch ups, though. I would say that it seems odd a person misses how text is repeated within lines of eachother, especially if it's wikilinked. I mean, I'd think there's something wrong with that person, or they just aren't paying attention. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Links - 09th January 2007

Hi. Well there is a current problem with the fact that external links cannot be added. When will this change as this policy is not adopted for other TV shows so why this one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.44.163.54 (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

See the section above regarding the Heroes Wiki for the current discussion about this, thank you. ThuranX 21:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible vandalism?

Has anyone noticed the "Heroes" main page recently? There have been some inflammatory changes to some of the by-lines and descriptions e.g. "Lack of Plot," "Rectal Links," and the ongoing war of words concerning the title card appearing on the main page. It appears completely unprofessional.

Regarding character development, can someone offer me any reason as to why Simone is listed with the main characters? If anything, her presence is more of a recurring role than that of Mr. Bennett (HRG). Sure, she was around from the beginning, but her relationship with Peter Petrelli adds nothing to the plot or character development for either Simone, Peter or Isaac. I feel that her entry on the "characters" page should be moved to the main article "List of Heroes Characters," only and not referenced here.

Also, because of the duality of Nikki/Jessica Sanders, I propose renaming her link as Nikki/Jessica Sanders.

Thank you.

Kcvocals 22:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is vandalsim. Multiple Admins are aware of the problem, and are following up. The Editor has had one IP blocked, and soon will have another.

As to your other questions: Simone is there because the inital press material had her as a major character, and we have often talked of waiting till the season is over to assess such changes. Similarly, we've elected to wait regarding Niki and Jessica. We hope you'll join us in working on the page, but please read through the talk page and archives. given the pace of the show, we have two options. hundreds of rapid small changes week after week generating lots of argument, or patience and slower changes that have greater consensus. We hope you'll work with the rest of the regular Heroes page editors to make this page great! ThuranX 22:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be me. Take your unprofessionalism and turn to God, the one true judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.174.42 (talk • contribs) 02:02, January 13, 2007

Isn't that irrelevant?--St.daniel 02:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ignore the vandals, Daniel. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to Lose

.. was deleted via AfD (with no actual consensus for deletion) - I've started a DRV here. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What info about that epsiode is actually available and verifiable? Do we even have a reliable source for the episode title? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have always been under the impression that this was just a rumored title for the episode that turned out to be "Nothing to Hide", and that listings that included the title were just keeping it around because they didn't realize the title was inaccurate. I'd also like to know which official sources confirm this title as being accurate. --ΨΦorg 16:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Heroes (TV Series) in popular culture (Too lazy to archive search)

I have been noticing lots of Heroes jokes and references in various US programs shown on Australian television lately. Should there be a == Heroes (TV Series)#Heroes in popular culture section, as other (granted longer running) tv shows have, and also has this already been discussed? The specific ref i saw that prompted me to post was on E!'s Daily Ten program, where Debbie Matenopoulos said in reference to Patrick Dempsey getting preventative marriage counselling, "Save the marriage, save the world" WookMuff 09:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of that if very notable. dposse 17:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk is cheap. Let's wait till there's more than news, talk shows, et cetera. Most popular culture sections/articles list overt references made in the form of visual parodies, homages and such. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose. I always forget that "The Soup" is a talk type show WookMuff 09:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Links

Under the links the official Heroes Myspace page is actually http://www.myspace.com/heroesofficial and not http://www.myspace.com/NBC_Heroes.NwrksBigBoss 20:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetical Order

Just wanted to say, unless we know Mr. Bennett's First name, then "Bennett" comes before "Bennett, Claire", Alphabetically speaking WookMuff 23:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sylar and Ando

There seems to be a lot of edits where people have changed the season of Sylar and Ando. They are constantly being reverted, and a small edit war has started. Can we do anything to stop this vandalism?  Wikirocks  07:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I just added some hidden text using <!-- and --> telling contributors to not move the "1" from the guest starring to starring field. Semi-protection could be requested, which would cause the information to stop being changed, but I do not think that the IP's changing the information would learn why it was changed. Looking at their contributions, it appears that they were only trying to help and are unlikely to visit the talk page or find out why their edits were reverted. –thedemonhog talk • edits 08:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's good. I was thinking of doing that too (I really was) but was not sure how to do it. (  Wikirocks  09:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC))