Talk:Heroes (American TV series)/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Scar

Since this had such a short shelf-life and has been removed from the series as a plot device (for now) can we ditch the section altogether? I think we should at least cite the episode where each person is shown to be marked. Since I don't have the DVD I can't do that but I put {{fact}} tags on them all. I'm not disputting Ted and Matt are marked, I just think it would be nice to cite the episode. I did remove West because I have no idea when he was marked. If there is a citation for that then, by all means, put him back in. Padillah 15:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The scar is still important. SPOILER ALERT. If you watched the preview clips over at youtube for tonights episode, you will find out that on tonights episode Claire is going to discover the SCAR on another character with powers. THE PLOT THICKENS!--Chrisisinchrist 16:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. Since I am fairly sure you are not in possession of a magical crystal ball that foretells the future, you might want to adopt a more 'wait-and-see' attittude. And dude, what is with all the capital-lettered words? It's the equivalent of shouting, and its continued use makes you look like the village madman, screaming in the street. Learn to use italics to stress those phrases you feel need extra oomph. Otherwise, turn down the editorial volume, wouldja? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. It is funny how someone words can get twisted around. I think what Chrisisinchrist was trying to say was that the scar is still important because nbc put up some scenes from tonights episode. You can find them on youtube or at nbc. Basically, what I think he was saying was that the scar will return tonight. In a scene tonight, as shown in the video previews, Claire is going to kiss West and discover the scar for the radioisotopes on his neck. She is going to ask him about it and he is going to tell her that all he remembers is blacking out for a day and meeting a man with Horn Rimmed Glasses. I think he capitalized spoiler alert so that anyone who didnt want to be alerted would know to stop reading. Also, I thik the Plot thickens part was him being funny and using it as a cliffhanger. Sorry also, my sign button isnt working so I cant sign. (75.28.129.127)

When your sig button isn't working, actually type four tildes (~) after your post, which will automatically add your sig.

As well, you need to understand that YouTube isn;t considered a valid source of any info in Wikipedia. As well, Wikipedia isn't a fan forum, so we don't use Spoiler alerts anymore. If people don't want to know what's going to happen, they shouldn't be readign or working on the article. That's pretty basic. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing, we KNOW what the scar is. It's not mythology or recurring, it's just part of the Company, it should go on that page. Everything else is still mysterious, except for the book, because once again, we KNOW what it is. Both should be removed in my objective opinion, putting the scar on the Company page. BioYu-Gi! —Preceding comment was added at 19:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Heroes Unmasked

I've scoured the article and can't find a mention of this show, was it official? Was it a BBC only production (it was shown/still is shown in the UK on there), was it just a snippet of information already on the DVD's? 86.21.74.40 04:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Heroes Wiki has some info on it over here. I can't find an article here on it yet, only a redirect to the main Heroes page. --68.32.149.98 04:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The article Heroes Unmasked has now been changed from a redirect to a stub article on the show with a small bit about Heroes - the official Radio Show on BBC 7 as well. Nanonic 17:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we put a link to heroes unmasked on the main page or no? Is their going to be a link to that page other than in the talk page. It is heroes related. I hear that it airs in the UK and this is a english speaking wikipedia. What do you guys think? I am just asking?--Chrisisinchrist 19:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Heroes Origins broadcast date

Is the broadcast date for Heroes Origins correct? No date is given in the show's article and April-May sounds a bit late. My understanding was the spinoff was to air during the Christmas hiatus in order to prevent the ratings bleed that occurred with the split-season last year. 68.146.41.232 11:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Virus

I think that a change should be made to the virus section in this main page. Maya seems to show a virus spreading ability but I think this is completely unrelated right now to the virus that is killing/hurting the heroes, also the hero virus only affects heroes, as of yet, maya's virus only has so far shown to affect humans. So I think this distinction should be made. Also I don't understand where the reference is for niki having the virus is. Just because she says "can you cure me" doesn't mean that she has the virus, she might mean a mutant cure where she no longer wants her powers. These two individuals at least, need a reference. Jjkayes 18:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. While I think the virus will be a major plot point, there is no proof that Niki has the disease (as she looks fine), that Maya has it (same reason), or is the cause (as you said, it affects normal humans unless every one in the caravan, their aunt, the cops, and that American guy were evolved humans). I have removed these two characters until this matter is resolved, as that is "speculation" and I have been annoyed by it repeatedly. BioYu-Gi! 18:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've posed the same question over on Niki's talk page. Every hero that's had the Virus has been incapacitated. And, if it were deadly, Niki would make sure Micah was cured before she got herself cured.

As for Maya, no. Her disease is much different than the Virus. First thing is Maya's disease kills almost instantly causing fluid to ooze from the eye sockets. This is completely incongruent with the lingering suffering the Virus has displayed. Padillah 19:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the disease Maya is spreading is a virus? I don't think I've seen any information about Maya's disease in the series, and it doesn't seem to be a reasonable assumption, since the disease travels instantaneously and even goes through the car windows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.195.197 (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary

In the plot summary section, is there a need to include how each arc is resolved? A casual reader of this page who has not seen all of season 1 will see unnecessary spoilers. The UK for example is only half way through showing season 1 on bbc.The dead don 00:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Plot summaries don't get 'spoiler alerts', per a lengthy revision of policy some months back. If you read a plot section, you have to expect spoilers. ThuranX 03:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've said it before, if you look for information on the show - expect to find information on the show. It was decided that WP is not a fan site etc. etc. and is simply listing the information as reference material. Therefore, spoilers are out. Padillah 11:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the plot summaries slightly by just removing the resolution of each arc. For example, stating the love triangle between Peter, Isaac and Simone is fine as a summary, there's no need to mention that it ends with the death of two major characters.The dead don 16:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note my comment below on the season 1 & 2 summeries as I feel the spoiler filled season two summery is far different than the over arching summery of season one. Learys 00:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone had the plot summary changed to say FAG at the end and not show the season outlines. I changed this to keep the article looking respectable, but did not check any of the content in what was already there for the seasons, so someone may want to check that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.68.102.230 (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Season 1 & 2 summaries

Could someone please take a look at the summaries for both seasons? I just edited the content for season 2 as it was horribly written. Really bad. I had re-written it in a list format, like season 1 was written, only to find the recommendation to turn it into prose. I essentially just turned it into one paragraph, though I could use someone else checking it to make sure it is ok. Season 1's summary needs changing into prose. Please and thank you! Magkaz 02:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I revised one statement, because I feel it assumed facts not in evidence, and was somewhat clunky. Overall, though, it's a vast improvement. does it need more, yes, but as the cigarette ad says, you've come a long way, baby. ThuranX 03:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! -MagKaz. Bettering herself daily since 1982. Magkaz 04:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is just me, however. I feel that the season II summery is essentially not a summery but a huge spoiler of what all of the events of the season has been down to each characters stories. Whereas the season one summery is more vague and is an overarching summery. I of course understand that it is more difficult to produce a summery of a season that is not completed, but I feel some revision is in need. They are so drastically different in style and content I feel they should be equalized. Thoughts? Learys 00:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Helix Tattoo

Currently on the list is a helix as an unfinished tattoo on Peter's arm. However, IIRC, wasn't it the family's symbol tattooed on his arm, but his healing abilities caused it to go away (briefly showing that the helix was part of the family's symbol)?Ophois 04:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the helix in there at all. I think any such inclusion would lack verifiability. Wait till next week, see if it develops. (In terms of the show, I have a theory about the use of the tattoo, relative to Jessica's superpower, and how Peter's using it unwittingly, and that we may see the tattoo appear again later, but I might be wrong.) ThuranX 04:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sylar and Ando Second Season Characters?

Why are Sylar and Ando listed as such when they were among the main characters of the first season, particularly Sylar, the entire season's villain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.71.245.81 (talk • contribs)

Because they did not recieve starring credit, I.e., listing in the intro of the show, until the second season, and that is the standards we measure cast lists against. ThuranX 11:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As it relates to Sylar, that's an minute and uninformative distinction to hang one's hat on. Ando is supplementary, agreed. But placing Sylar's short character bio under Season Two is just dopey. I would suggest that someone take a look at how the Fonz is listed on "Happy Days" for an instructive example.208.120.227.63 23:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you not insult the editors here as 'dopey'. We've used that simple standard and it works well. ThuranX 03:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The editors aren't dopey-- the arbitrary distinction is. That "simple standard" is NOT being used on the "Happy Days" page, and it works better. The information in the "Heroes" article as it exists is counterintuitive and less than fully informative. You're valuing the contractual particulars of a cast list more than the actual content of the show this page is about. But I know better than to invest my energy into a editing dispute about a sci-fi/comics-type topic. That way lies madness.208.120.227.63 04:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Heroes 360 experience

Hey guys! NBC has changed the name of Heroes 360 to Heroes Evolutions. You can read more about the change at the Heroes homepage on NBC.com. I am just wondering if we can update the Heroes 360 to say Heroes Evolution and then make a note saying the name was changed for season 2. Just asking before I do it. Thanks.--Chrisisinchrist 16:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Crew page is finished

I did a crew page, but i am not that good a making pages. So, if someone can clean it up that would be great. I especially need help in citing the references. I put the references at the bottom of the page, but i dont think they are fomatted correctly. if someone can fix it that would be great. --Chrisisinchrist 16:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Cast section

In an effort to ward off the persistent manipulation of the section (usually Sylar or Ando-related), I've made a few tweaks. There's nothing major in terms of the text; it is primarily a rearrangement of the existing copy to create a combined list.. Please see what you think. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks great! Much easier to read and better formatted. I like it a lot. Thank you so much. Magkaz 18:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is something to the tune of what I had originally wanted to do but then it caused a huge hoo-plah uproaring. So i'm glad to see some resolve on this.Learys 00:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to 4400

I've posted the following addition to the "comparison to other works" section and seen it removed several times now. Wikipedia is a democracy and if everyone here feels this should not be included, then I will stop re-adding it. However, I do feel that it is relevant. Reasons given for its removal include: Heroes is similar to a lot of shows; and that the information is not verifiable/neutral. I disagree with both of these points. Here is what I wrote:

The show is also exceedingly similar in premise to the USA Network show The 4400, which is about a group of 4400 people who were abducted at various times in the past, altered in the future and returned to the present where their new abilities were meant to change the world and avoid a future catastrophe. The 4400 premiered on July 11, 2004, more than two years before Heroes debuted.

While many shows are similar, the premises of The 4400 and Heroes are notably similar, and to illustrate this fact, I summarized the premise of The 4400. I've watched The 4400 since its debut and when I heard people describe Heroes, I thought it sounded like the same basic premise. As always, I looked up Heroes here on Wikipedia and read in the first paragraph "The show tells the story of several people who 'thought they were like everyone else... until they realized they have incredible abilities.' These people soon realize they have a role in preventing a catastrophe and saving mankind" it struck me as exceedingly similar. I think most people would agree that both of these shows feature people who discover emerging new powers, the origins of which they are initially unaware of, and that these new powers are to assist them in preventing a future catastrophe. Few other shows on TV at present could be said to be this similar.

Furthermore, my addition is verifiable in that, having linked to the article on The 4400, readers may compare the two premises. And it is neutral because I have stated no opinion. The shows are similar in premise, and I believe the section on "comparison to other works" is deficient without some mention of a show so similar. Stovelkor 10:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the addition is that the comparison is unsourced. What's needed is a reliable source that discusses the similarities between the two shows. Without such a source, the claim that these two shows are similar is original research. That doesn't mean the claim is incorrect, but keep in mind that, per the verifiability policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Chaz ^Beckett 11:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree.Daniel Walker 13:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Def in need for a source. I'm sure some notable TV critic must of mentioned it. Find it and I don't mind seeing it added. Rekija 00:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't feel bad, Stovelkor; someone should have explained it to you before it was reverted again. It's a normal mistake made in WP; there are a lot of smart people here, and the collective feed from everyone else usually outguesses the oh-so-clever writers of the subject. We just have to find someone who sees what we do, and then publishes their insights so we can cite it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Since The 4400 went off the air, Heroes has debuted, gaining a large, mainstream audience The 4400 can't compete with. It's a shame, since while Heroes is a great show, The 4400 has been a very solid and entertaining series for several years now, with a similar focus on ordinary people developing super powers. From The Wrath of Graham review at IGN.

I know there's more, but this is the first one that came to mind.--Nohansen 01:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Stating the Obvious

You all missed a spot; Recurring Elements = Evolution. --Is this fact...? 03:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

yeah, its fact. the sources on referenced at the bottom of the page. also, u can check out the heroes evolution page on nbc.com--Chrisisinchrist 03:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"is it fact?" wasn't a question, it's an obnoxious signature. Further, the 'evolution' is a theme, not a recurring element. ThuranX 04:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks, ThuranX. Ophois 04:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no neet to get violent. That is a good point about evolution being a theme, though. It's the way it keeps on causally being bought up so many times in dialogue that got me to point it out.

Anyhow, what about the book Mohinder's dad wrote? Shouldn't that be mentioned? --Is this fact...? 06:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I DO agree with this. Activating Evolution has been a major element especially in this season where Maya and Alejandro are trying to enter into the US specifically because they want to get a hold of the author. Jjkayes 18:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I respectuflly disagree with the interpretation. ThuranX is correct in that evolution is in fact a theme of heroes. The helix symbol is a recurring element to the show. There is a difference. I think that the two terms are getting mixed up a bit.

As for Maya and Alejandro, maybe I missed the part about how they were trying to reach Mohinder's dad; was that expressly stated in one of the episodes? I thought they were trying to get to the US to find a doc to fix their problem. I wasn't aware that it has been stated that the elder Suresh was the doc in question. And again, no, their flight is not an element; it is a plotline (or minor arc, if you will). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Maya is reading Activating Evolution in the truck on the way to the border in "Four Months Later..." She comments that "This man has figured it all out." Alejandro answers "Yes, if he knows the cause, there must be a cure." It may not blatantly be stated that they are looking for Chandra but it's pretty safe to assume they'd love to bump into him as soon as possible. If someone pushed back I'd have to say they didn't specifically state they were looking for him but I think it's a pretty safe assertion. Padillah 21:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to be blunt, that's an assumption, not an assertion. Do we know precisely why they are headed to the US, or has it not been stated as of yet? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Season 2, Episode 4 states specifically that Maya and Alejandro are looking for Dr. Suresh. BTW, just one fannish thought: is there any possibility of these characters ever becoming interesting? Making black stuff come out of people's eyes is a super-power? Stan Lee, where are you?Kjdamrau 16:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)kjdamrau

Not to be pedantic but you can assert an assumption, look them up. To assert something merely means to state it as fact. To assume something means to think it is a fact. Therefore if you think it's a fact and then say as much you are asserting an assumption. All of which is beside the point, it's now been blatantly established that they are, indeed, looking for Dr. Chandra Suresh for help "curing themselves". What little doubt there was after the conversation in "Four Months Later..." should now be gone. Padillah 17:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Heroes Portal

I'm really sorry, but I started making Portal:Heroes, not realizing until after the fact that it's not needed in the slightest. Could someone else nominate it for deletion? I'm not sure how.. --Is this fact...? 23:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You can put a {{db-author}} tag on it. — Edokter • Talk • 11:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Starring cast Versus Main Characters

I feel like the heading template on the heroes page needs to be changed. I think Tawney, Santiago and Leonard need to be removed as it has been established that they have been written out of the stories and are no longer starring in the series. However, I still feel they should remain in the main character section because thier characters were vital to the heroes universe, but to continue to put the actors in the starring section doesnt make sense. The starring section of the template should have the current starring cast. The character section should be the only section that has characters that were on the show but were killed off the show and written out.

If you look at other wikipedia articles for shows like Smallville or One tree Hill, the starring section has the most current starring cast and the characters section has the main characters and actors who were killed off. Tawney, Santiago and Leonard are gone from the show and currently are not starring, but the mention of them should still remain in the character sections. what does everyone think? in another note, tawney cypress is starring in another show called k-ville on fox, so why would we continue to say she stars in heroes?--Chrisisinchrist 06:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed repeatedly - the simple fact is that the series does star those actors during its run. Wikipedia is not meant to be "in the moment" - it reflects the entire body of work. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Chris makes a fairly valid point I think (though anyone citing One Tree Hill as a reference is kinda lame). If certain characters in season one aren't returning, then it is unencyclopedic to keep them as main cast characters. Perhaps a different section is called for, designating season 1 and 2's characters, and recurrent characters can be bold'd, but not wikilinked, or something akin to that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, but it's not a valid point. It would be unencyclopedic to remove them. While the three actors in question are not main cast in season two, they are main cast in season one. We treat a series as a complete body of work, not just as of the most recent episode. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Read my post again, Katz - I wasn't opting from removing them; I was opting for sectioning them off as Season 1 only. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chris. If we keep all main cast of the series, how would it be if there was, like, five seasons? ShellSchocker 20:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

plot summary for season 1

It is mentioned on the heroes page that the plot summary needs to be in prose and not listed. what does that mean? do you want it to be a paragraph form? also, do you want a paragraph of simple plot significant points without giving spoilers or do you want a complete run down and overview of the season? i just want to know because i was thinking about working on it, but i want to follow the guide lines so the page is deleted or removed. so are we looking for simple plot significant points or a full detailed overview. seeing how season one is the only completed season, a few paragraphs in an overview might be effective. however, for lack of making the article too long, we could just do one paragraph of plot significant points by basically taking what is already listed and putting it into a paragraph. let me know because that prose tag is getting annoying. one of us needs to work on fixing it so that tag can be removed. so, does any editor have the answer for me?--Chrisisinchrist 08:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Our style guide, WP:Writing about fiction, will aid you greatly in this respect. Marasmusine 10:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How about something like this:

Season One of Heroes introduced the audience to a disparate group of people discovering they have super powers, and following them in their reactions to the discovery, and how the discovery affects their relationships with those around them. While coping, the characters are drawn, willingly or not, into a conspiracy to control superpowered people, and into a race to stop a bomb from going off in New York City, destroying the metropolis and millions of inhabitants. Throughout the season, the predatory stalkings of a serial killer affect the characters directly and indirectly. All of this culminates in a climactic meeting of the characters in New York City.

With a link to the season one article Chris seems to be preparing. ThuranX 15:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. It doesn't get bogged down in details or names. Rekija 01:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Who are Maury Parkman and Arthor Petrelli?

Someone on the Company page keeps putting Arthor Petrelli and Maury Petrelli down as members of the original 12. When were these first names verified, because there are no citations or sources added? Can someone please verify the source of Dallas first name as Arthor and Parkmans dads first name as Maury, because no sources were given and I cant find any. --Chrisisinchrist 05:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Maury Parkman's name is, according to Heroeswiki, revealed in the Heroes Mobile Phone Game. I have no other source. According to the List of Heroes Characters, Arthur Petrelli's name is revealed on the 9th wonders site here. Both are confirmed to have been members of the group of twelve in The Kindness of Strangers. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we have a citation for that, pls? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Theories

I am pretty new to Wikipedia and its standards and practices. Are theories completely discouraged in wikipedia?Jjkayes 13:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they generally fall under the Wikipedia:No original research policy. — Edokter • Talk • 13:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As well, make sure your references all come from solid sources, not blogs or fan forums. All of Wikipedia is supposed to run completely on citations, and blogs and forums aren't really reliable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

2 Graphic novels released today, not one

Over at nbc.com, if you fill out this survey for Nissan or something like that, you get a bonus graphic novel, which is canon. of course, if you fill out the survey, nissan will spam you, but luckily i have the link. just click it. can someone add this link to the graphic novel page. i dont know how. maybe we can make a new category called special editions or somethng. here is the link. http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/roguenovel/pdf/Heroes_Rogue_Novel.pdf --Chrisisinchrist 18:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It would help if it were actually available. That link no longer directs to the comic in question. Give it a bit of time. I know tha tthere are places on thw web that collate and collect tis stuff. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Worked fine for me, try again. ThuranX 02:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it works now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Kristen Bell in the cast section

I though only series regulars were put under that section. She's also in the prose before the list and the infotable. 03:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC) the_no_erz

It was announced that she was joining the cast as a regular cast member during the break between seasons, in press releases, etc. based on citation, she was added before the season started. ThuranX 03:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but we all know what filthy lying monkeys network marketing suits are, so maybe we shouldn't reallymention her until she's actuallyshown up. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Last season, DL was listed in the cast from the start even though he didn't show up until the 5th episode. Moot point in any case. 67.128.224.226 19:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

interesting takezo kensei facts

I just noticed that it godsend episode it is stated that kensei was born in 1584. and since hiro nakamura is in fuedal japn with kensei in 1671 that means kensie in the current timeline of the show in fuedal japan is 87!!! That seems to be an interesting fact. Can someone add that once it has been verified? watch your season one dvd and his birthdate is given in the museum when hiro steals the fact sword. also, yamagato fellowship website, during the sword saint section of the kensie documentary, claimed that linderman aquired the sword in 1977, which is around the time the company was started. this was mentioned in chapter 5 of the kensie documentary on yamagato website. check it out for verification and add that too.--Chrisisinchrist 02:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well given the fact they also thought he was asian and so forth it makes sense that other history info is incorrect...as they didn't exactly mention anything about Kensie born in England. Even though he may be immortal, he was not aware of it until he met Hiro. He would of likely noticed the fact he may have some special power after everyone else started to get old and he didn't. Or maybe not. We would need source that discusses this issue in order for it to be included otherwise it would just be OR. Rekija 02:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea that the legends say Kensei was asian could be attributed to the fact that kensei remember would send people into battles for him. I have not looked yet at the Godsend episode, but the facts that line up see to make it sure its true. Also this may fit with an article i read i believe in EW that kensei has actually been living for quite some time. I suspect we will see that kensei will somehow be alive in the present timeline and thus giving credibility to the immortality status that people have been discussing on here. I think that the facts for kensei works very well together right now with no glaring discrepancies *sp*. Jjkayes 19:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to caution that this section is getting into WP:OR. Wait and see what the story tells, do not speculate here. (ANd we're all curious.) ThuranX 22:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

vandals

someone vandalized the character section of the main page. can one of the editors fix it.--Chrisisinchrist 15:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What vandalism are you refering to?

Someone broke the references list, so the last 40 or so references turned into a stream of gibberish. I fixed it on Friday. If there's other vandalism, I don't see it. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Molly

I think Molly Walker a notable enough character to deserve her own page (in the vein of other secondary characters like Candice, Eden, etc.) is there any reason why a page hasn't been made for her? Mrmoocow 07:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Also West. Mrmoocow 08:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the project is currently reviewing the articles and characters for notability, as relates to real-world content. She hasn't had much yet. She's important in show, but no more so than other powered folks, but hasn't had much actual content written or published about her. ThuranX 13:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Section on the Book Added

I added a mention of the book to the article. Remove or expand if you will. I also realize that, since an image of the book has been added, it may replace the picture of the Helix symbol in this article; the same exact thing is on the book's cover, so why not kill two birds cats with one stone? Any thoughts? --Is this fact...? 12:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Multimedia section

Can we change the DVD release section on the main page to a multimedia section? Heroes is starting to release a lot of material, including the season 1 dvd, the graphic novels in print, a video game, a mobile cell phone game, as well as a book about charlie andrews and hiro nakamura and what they did during the six months hero attempted to save her. this is all important. I would liek to add it, but i want to make sure it is okay before i waste my time. i will be sure to reference everything. --Chrisisinchrist 22:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds more like marketing, or merchandising. ThuranX 23:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - as long as it is done well this could be very nice. It will allow the reader to have information on not just the DVD but all of the items related to the heroes universe. i feel that something like this could be an advantage to the heroes page here. but that is only my view on it. Learys 01:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

also...

what happened to the section on the main page that had information about what channel heroes aired around the world? it also have information about when heroes was going to premiere in various places around the world. why was that section removed? Also, under the ratings section, are we allowed to on maybe a seperate page, put the ratings for each individual episode or is that too much imformation. i know this isnt heroes wiki, so i dont want to just add a bunch of facts if they are not important. i think under the ratings section we should note the ratings for heroes season 2 premiere, since we have the ratings for the season 1 premiere--Chrisisinchrist 23:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who removed it, but it was a good decision. That sort of thing is listcruft, and doesn't belong on the page. Syndication broadcasting chagnes rapidly, and isn't important to the topic. the ssame goes for ratings. Ratings should be about general season reviews and such by notable TV critics, not a jumble of numbers, and season one's should also be removed. ThuranX 23:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

i kinda agree. the ratings section needs major clean up. some of the listings just tell when the show airs, but dont list what the actual ratings are for that particular country. i think it should be removed, since the u.s. ratings are already mentioned in the opening paragraph of the main page. or at least, if we are going to keep it, can someone reorganize it or something. --Chrisisinchrist 03:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

heroes 360 page is still open

now we have a heroes evolution page. but also, if you type heroes 360, the old page still comes up. the page has since been updated to heroes evolution, which is also linked on the main page. i nominated the still exsistant heroes 360 page for deletion. can an editor finish the job, as the page serves no purpose.--Chrisisinchrist 04:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroes_360_experience —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisisinchrist (talk • contribs) 04:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Kirby Plaza

I noticed there was no article about Kirby Plaza, and the Heroes Wiki is very unorganized about its origins. 1. Is it a real place, 2. Was it named for Jack Kirby, 3. If an article is made about it, am I the only one who notices the weird coincidence in the name to a video game? explanation Peter's power is being able to absorb other powers and the video game character Kirby can copy monster's abilities. Ignore that last thing if you would like (you probably would) and just delegate on whether or not a section about Kirby Plaza is a good idea. LinkSlayer64 | SPEAK!, Speak NOW! 23:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's named for Jack, no, it's not real, and no, it's got nothing to do with the video game. THe location has little actual content about it, so there's no need for an article about it. ThuranX 02:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Unorganized? I found all the answers to your questions right in the Trivia section of their article. Hmm. --68.32.149.98 05:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

DVD prices?

Since when are current DVD prices encyclopedic? Unless someone can point me to some relevant guidelines, they should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.191.212 (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Prices should only be included when they are notable. If the DVDs we're $1 or $1000 then they could warrent inclusion but as it stands it's unencyclopedic. Rekija 08:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And also, they are subject to change. — *Hippi ippi 09:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Online episodes

How long does it take for the episodes to get on NBC.com after they air? --Naruto Tron 05:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It aired online at 2am (California time) for me.--Is this fact...? 16:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sylar's bio

Shouldn't it be stated that Sylar lost his powers between the first and second seasons? --Naruto Tron 05:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Molly's Dream

The latest 'Graphic Novel' has a bunch of Helixes (sp?) and cockroaches (Sylar even turns into a plague of them). This should be noted on the "Recurring Elements" part of the page. --Is this fact...? 07:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Recurring elements

This is beginning to get out of hand. It should be reduced to a paragraph noting them some of the recurring elements/themes with no examples. Right now it's quickly becoming a huge mound of fancruft that adds little to the article. Aexia 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some changes but I have a question: is the eclipse really of any significance? Has it been alluded to meaning anything other than being a recurring element? At least one of the writers said we'd find out about the cockroaches this seasons, has anyone said the eclipse means something? I think the list of occurrences can go. Noting it as a recurring element is enough unless the recurrance can be shown to be significant. Padillah 20:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing with Aexia that we should be describing the recuiring elements without examples, it stop a lot of the edits going on. As for the eclipse, from memory its been mentioned in interviews with Tim during season 1, and given it is the logo of the show it should still be significant...however its important to have some sources to back it up. Rekija 05:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

An article has been created, List of elements in Heroes. I just came upon it doing new page patrol. I'm not absolutely sure that the article is going to avoid charges of original research, but I thought I'd run it by the folks here rather than just sending it to AfD, and see what your consensus was. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

someone cleaned up the recurring elements section and I just link it to a main article for those who still want to have the elements listed. this way, it wont take up run on the main page, and those who still want to see the plot significant occurances can follow the link to a different page. i also linked the page on the heroes template. i think this is a much more functional wayu of doing it, without having a bunch of stuff on the main page, but still keeping it encyclopedic. i hope no one opposes. if so, please discuss here before you delete. thanks guys--Chrisisinchrist 15:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nikki has the Shanti Virus

Greg Beeman, the executive producer and show director confirmed over at nbc.com that nikki has the shanti virus. You can take a listen to him confirm it in the episode commentary for Fight or Flight. This fact can now be added to the main page. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.220.243 (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's not confirm that until we actually see it on the show, I have a feeling from the preview that she does not have it right now, but rather that she will contract it. watch the preview carefully and see what you think. but as for including it in the main article i feel like we shouldn't because although we can assume how it is contracted i don't think we can say without a shadow of a doubt how it indeed will be contracted.Jjkayes 19:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

season 2 number of episodes

the first couple of paragraphs on the main page say that season 2 will have 28 episodes, then it has a reference that is number 4. when u click the link to the reference it takes you to a source. the source says that only 24 episodes will run for season 2, yet the main page says 28. that is wierd to me. where was it verified that the new season would have 28 episodes. sources that i have read say that thier will be a total of 30 episodes, 24 from season 2 and 6 episodes of origins. i changed it on the main page and someone changed it back. can someone site a better refernece if we are going to keep 28 on the main page as the number of episodes, because the source doesnt site it.--76.168.220.243 04:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks correct right now - 24 for Season 2, and 6 for Origins. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In the main article's header paragraph, it says 24 regular season episodes + 6 Origins episodes (=30, right?), though in the infobox it says 28. Change the infobox? Magkaz 04:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The infobox states how many episodes are aired to date, which is 28. — Edokter • Talk • 11:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for the clarification all around. Magkaz 17:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Main page too cluttered

Searching through the main page to find list of episodes is confusing, and the contents is too cluttered. I think that many topics can be branched out into separate pages, eg. seperate pages for Series 1 and Series 2, and the Helix has it's own page, so 7 lines about it on this page are enough. 86.152.168.22 23:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

X-Men Comparison

I didn't feel like looking through the entire archive so I decided to just post this.

Why is there no comparison of this show to X-Men? The whole series is basically X-Men before the institute was built. People just finding out powers, running into each other, forming groups to survive and there are those out to kill them. WTF?

If that ain't X-Men, then what is? AD Double J 23:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a section on the main Heroes page called "Comparisons to other works" and it has a link and quote from one of the creators of the show regarding the X-Men similarities. Magkaz 23:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Heroes: Origins has been cancelled.

hey, tv guide and nbc announced that origins has been cancelled. i made the changes on the main page. and i sited the reference. if anyone wants to add anything go ahead...also, the changes need to be updated on the origins page. i dont have time to do that today...--Chrisisinchrist 03:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-News-Blog/Tv-Guide-News/Heroes-Spinoff-Cancelled/800026196

I'm not able to view this due to limited next access. However the fact that this address says both community and blogs makes me question this as being a reliable source. Rekija 05:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are NEVER reliable sources of information. Judging from the stupid title of the section that i had to change, it's fancruft exaggeration. When we see a citation from NBC or another news outlet, we cannot cite it.

I took a look around a computer with net access and found it was on variety.com. But it described the series being on hold, likely to the possible strikes. Rekija 06:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

'possible strikes'. This petite rant is not directed towards you, Rekija or Chris. I am just rather annoyed that people think that we are in the business of providing cutting news to our readers. We. Are. Not. I repeat - not - trying to scoop anyone else, or any website. It doesn't matter whether our information is 10 minutes old or 1000 years old. Speed is NOT of the essence here. Take your friggin' time, because if the citations are wrong - as they were wrong here (sorry, Chris, I guess you are going to get just a little bit of it) - then it makes us look like ass clowns. Solid citations are the only thing we need to hold up as our Holy grail. Period. Finito. End of story.

Blogs are not reliable.

They never are. If Wikipedia policy is smart, they never will be. There is a reason why newspapers require two to three confirmational sources on any suspect part of an article they write. When they are wrong, they look like idiots. Fortunately, this isn't a fatal mistake.

Please folk, don't use crap sources here and don't drop in your 'reasoned' opinions, coz I really don't want to revert you and make you feel like you wasted all your time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't go too far Arcayne (not that the rant isn't well deserved, just doesn't look to be this time). I looked it up and it looks legit-ish. It's not a blog page in as much as it's attributed to "TV Guide Staff" and ends in "Reporting by Stephen Battaglio". It does attribute the situation to the possibility of strikes making the network uncomfortable. It's a news blog for the name only. In-as-much as I feel like giving in to TV Guide citations this looks as legit as it gets. I'd like something on NBC.com but I'll take what I can get. Padillah 12:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

we have 2 creditable sourses talking about this (tv guide and variety) i think that's credible enough to include in the talk about the show. If it ends up to not be true we'll mention it but right now the news meets the verifiability requirements harlock_jds 13:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Three credible sources - The Hollywood Reporter is an industry magazine, more in line with Variety than TV Guide. --Ckatz^chat_spy 15:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, then the TV Guide source needs to be removed, as it is the weakest of the two, and is little more that staff speculation. We don't have to be the first with the data. We never do. We simply have to be have the most reliable info. While maybe I did go too far in my rant, though. I am just annoyed that people here seem to be so keen on adding sources as if the world were ending tomorrow, or if there was a prize for getting it first. I just want to make sure that we have solid stuff so we don't have to keep updating ourt links.

In the best of worlds, we wouldn't add squat about the show being on hold until we heard official confirmation. This is the way it is Supposed To Work. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not cancelled yet. The Writers Guild strike is affecting every tv show in production right now. Shows like Comedy Central's The Daily Show is going to be hit first by the strike. [1]Heroes: Origins is just put on hold until the strike situation is settled. Until we can comfirmation from Tim Kring or Kevin Smith, i think we should leave this as "put on hold, perhaps due to the possibility of a strike by the Writers Guild of America.". dposse 16:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there you have it. Anyone who just saw Tim Kring on G4tv's "Heroes Postshow" saw the he stated quite clearly that Heroes: Origins is postponed and not canceled. Hopefully, someone here can get a transcript or get the video so we can add it as a reference. dposse 03:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I also saw that but like you said we need a transcript or something until then we I think we need to say put on hold, perhaps due to the possibility of a strike by the Writers Guild of America like dposse suggested. Here's the link the site where I saw it on and the quote (this was posted Nov 2 so it is recent) http://www.variety.com/VR1117975267.html Net has already pulled the plug on "Heroes: Origins," citing the uncertain future of the WGA talks as a reason.Rosario lopez 01:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ratings cruft

Am I the only one who sees the rating section as a landing pad for cruft and non-notable stuff? Seriously - I think the info for every non-English-speaking country from Chile to Zimbabwe is pointless. thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, we had a chart of overseas broadcasters at one point, which included ratings information and nice, pretty little flag icons. I don't remember the rationale for removing it, but it was much cleaner than the current state of that section. I agree, I'm not sure we need it at all, though noting where the show is broadcast overseas does go a long way to firming up the notability of the series. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the indiscriminate listing of ratings does not add to the encyclopedic nature of this topic. If it were possible, sourced explanations of the ratings could be provided -- not in the sense of "Some violence", but specifically why a particular country chose a rating. For example, cultural values may cause a country to mark shows with more severe ratings, depending on the context (religion, violence, etc). Otherwise, though, a listing does not provide any insight into the nature of Heroes or any other show. This matter goes for films as well. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean, prosify it, right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

First off, we need to establish, does the section reflect viewer warning content ratings, or does it reflectratings by market share, and thu, popularity and performance. The former to me is trivial, as it's based on various social mores, which change by culture, and irrelevant overall. If the latter, it needs substantiation. The US lsiting has cited market share ratings, for example. I don't think we need anything in that list that doesn't actually reflect actual season performance ratings, or awards based thereon. I'm going to go through and remove some of the most egregious examples, like Zimbabwe, which is an OR statement anyways. ThuranX 17:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, and here's the diff. I didn't pull out anything that seemed to have real substance on the recption and ratings, like 'so popular that the broadcasterr changed their tactics'. Those still need sourcing, but those seen substantial. that it's aired at all doesnt' reflect actual reception. ThuranX 17:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Molly Walker discussion

Hello. I was wonder if Molly Walkers name can be added to the Other Characters section of the Heroes Main template?? I am only asking because she seems to be a vital character and she has appeared in more episodes than Hana, Eden McCain, Candice Wilmer, Calude, Ted Sprague and Linderman, and they are all in the other characters section. I dont beleive that NBC has ever released a statement about who are the recurring and supporting characters on heroes. I beleive that we here at Wikipedia have decided which characters are notable enough to be included in the other characters section. I feel like Molly should be added as she has become a notable character in the show and has appeared in more episodes than most of the characters that we have listed in that section on the heroes main template.
Secondly, in order for this wikipedia page to become encyclopedic, I also feel that the character of Zach should be added to the template. There was discussion to do so about 6 months ago and I remember everyone agreed to do it, but no one made the change. I understand he is not on the current cast, but this is not a page just for what is happening now, but a encyclopedic reference to the show. The character of Zach appeared in several episodes and he was notable enough to be added to the other characters section. How does everyone feel about these two changes?--Chrisisinchrist 17:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think they are both capital ideas, Chris. Molly has more dialogue than the Haitian (but then, there are dead folk in the series with more lines), and is an intrinsic part of the second season. I think that Zach belongs in the recurrent cast from first season, but as he has been since left behind with Claire's old life, it may be a harder fight to prove how noteworthy he still is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that we've been through this before. The reason that a character may not be considered to be a "main character" is because of what the show and it's creators put that character as. For example, throughout the first season, Sylar, Ando, Hana, ect are considered to be "recurring characters" due to their status on the show itself even though they were highly important to the plot. If Molly is considered to be part of the "main cast" as per the show itself, then she is free to be part of the cast of "main characters". I'm sorry if i went on a bit of a tirade with this post, i just wanted to make this point clear. dposse 21:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am unclear as to what precisely constitutes 'having status'. I am not understanding how this is determined. I certainly apprecaite your patience in posting, and hope you can explain further. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe user dposse misunderstood what I was asking. It is important to read the post before you respond. I am not asking for Molly to be added to the main character section. I am asking for to be added to the template under other characters. It appears the other characters section is for notable characters on the show that are not apart of the ensemble cast. NBC has not released an official statement of who are the supporting and recurring characters on the show, so we here at wikipedia have decided on our own concensus that those characters listed in the template under other characters are notable enough for seperate pages and natability. I am simply asking if we can grat that same notability to Molly Walker and Zach, as they have been important characters in the story. I am not argueing who is recurring or not, because we do not know. there has been no statement from anyone stating who is recurring and who is not. I am asking if we here at wikipedia can recognize those two characters as notable characters for the template. I know Linderman and Hana and Ted Sprague were important characters in season one. we dont know if they were recurring or not, but we do know that they are notable. I am not asking for those characters to be removed. I am asking that we add to that list with Molly Walker and Zach and in the future we may want to add some other season 2 characters who are becoming notable like Bob. But, I am not fighting for Bob today..lol.. I am just saying Molly and Zach have been in 2 times more episodes than Linderman, Hana (she was in like one episode and a ton of graphic novels and heroes 360, which makes her notable) and Ted. I am not saying remove Linderman, Hana and Ted, I am saying lets add to the list with Molly, Zach and possible Bob in the future. --Chrisisinchrist 02:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I read your post. This is a gray area where we must look towards the show itself for confirmation. We need to be careful here because doing stuff like what you are suggesting leads to a hell of alot of POV, speculation, OR, ect. Everyone has a theory or a point of view as to who is important or not important, you know? Molly Walker is a possibility, perhaps, but i would have to disagree with you about Zach. Molly Walker has certainly been a major part of the Nathan/Parkman story, but Zach hasn't made that much of an impact yet. I think the point i was making before is that if the show itself has the Actors in the "main cast", then it's notable for us to place them in the "main characters" section or in a template linking to the article. Do you understand that? Heroes goes through alot of Guest Actors and one-time characters. For example, that girl who was looking for Peter and who has the power of Electricity....she's not a main character, yet, and wouldn't be a candidate for us as Wikipedians to add her on here as such. dposse 18:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing me. Like I said before, the section in the template on "Other Characters" is completely speculative. NBC, Heroes and Tim Kring have never ever released a statement about who the recurring and supportive characters of the show are. We base that list of the characters we feel are notable to the story. Linderman for example, only appeared in three episodes, but he is very very notable. So, we here at Wikipedia have granted him notability based on the verifiability of the story. I am asking for that to be granted to Molly Walker and some other season 2 characters that may be notable but who are not apart of the main cast. As far as the character with the electricity that was only in one episode, her name is Elle and that character is played by Kristen Bell. NBC , Heroes and the heroes opening credits have already confirmed her as a main characters and she has been added here at wikipedia. that change was made weeks ago. we at wikipedia didnt grant her main character status...nbc did. i am saying, as far as the recurring, supporting character section, we make those judgements based on concensus of notability from the point of view of the story, and it is therefore verified by the reference of the individual episodes. i am asking how people feel about Molly, Zach and/or Bob being added to the "other characters section" because they are notable on the show and represent the new characters of notability in the second season. --Chrisisinchrist 19:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Zach, Molly and even Bob are notable recurring characters who should be listed alongside the rest of the recurring characters. The problem is sourcing it, the entire list is OR but if we are agreeing to keep the list I can't see why we wouldn't include these characters. Rekija 21:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Heroes ending speculation

"The second season of Heroes could air its season finale on December 3, 2007 due to the WGA Writer's Strike, which is making it impossible for scripts to be written for further episodes.[7]"

Does anyone think that that speculation shouldn't be on this article? I mean, it's quite obvious that the Writers Strike is affecting alot of shows, but even BuddyTv is speculating when they give December as an end date. dposse 03:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

IF we mention it, here's how I would do it. "Season Two was originally scheduled for a full 24 episodes (source), but was cut down to 11 episodes on DATE. The reason cited was the ongoing WGA Writers Strike (source), which precluded the creation of scripts for the remaining episodes of the season. " Then we have a source for the 24 episodes - probably one of the "Heroes is renewed" sources from May. The second source is whatever official announcement they make - and I am sure that Beeman will remark on the situation on his blog, so - since he's a producer of the show - we'd have official word and can run with it. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i pulled the statement about the shortened season. the only reference there leads to a blog. We don't cite blogs. We just don't. I am not sure why everyone is so all fired up to be first with this. IT IS NOT OUR JOB TO BE FIRST. I don't know why I have to keep saying that, but its no less true. We only have to be correct (though not for the obvious reason; it's less likely to have to be changed if it happens to be accurate) and solid in what we say. Let's wait until NBC out and out says what's what. Let's wait until the strike happens. Let's just wait. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Arcayne. Everyone seems to be jumping to try to get the news on here as quickly as possible with no reguard on the reliability of the sources. Waiting for a more official comfirmation rather then using a blog seems like a much more logical thing. dposse 14:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Heres a link in case you guys want to include something about the strike. http://www6.comcast.net/entertainment/articles/2007/10/29/Hollywood.Labor/ Rosario lopez 16:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Claire in picture 8 of 8

Hello everyone. Just wanted to say I created a page for the new heroes post show on g4. It is similar to Heroes Unmasked, but more interactive than a behind the scenes type of thing. Please feel free to improve the page. I felt since we made a bag for the UK heroes unmasked that runs for 10 minutes an episode, it would be okay to make a page for the post show, which airs 30 mins an episodes. are thier any objections?

Secondly, on the post show on g4, jack coleman stated that bennets character is afraid of claire having a boyfriend because claire is "obviously with a boy in the picture." i dont know if anyone else watched it and can confirm, but he did specifically say that claire was in the puicture. did anyone else see it for verifiability or am i totally off on what i heard? let me know...i am just asking, not assuming...thanks--Chrisisinchrist 07:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we can read into his statement any further than "Noah believes that his daughter was kissing a boy in the picture." I don't remember exactly what he said, but if I recall he was talking about his character's motivation which may differ from reality. That's just my take on it, though. By the way, nice work on the post show page! --68.32.149.98 07:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree that the page is nice. I see your dilemma - we all know that Noah is aware that time can be altered (he was there whenthe city didn';t blow up), and that until Claire is with a boy, he doesn't have to fear getting a bullet in the eye - but (and this is important), we don't get to make the same intuitive leap that bloggers, fan forums and sites like Ain't It Cool News and say that. Encyclopedias don't do that. they are referecnes because they have the most reliable information. We are not in a hurry. We don't need to be first. Wait until we actually hear the character say the words or a producer say the words, etc. Then we can say that. Not before. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Heroes:Origins

Greetings! We need to decide what section that Heroes: Origins information is going to go in. Will it go under the Plot Summary section?? Or will it go under the "Other media/Television section"? We need to come to some sort of concensus on this, so the information wont appear on the page more than once. Currently, it is in both sections.--Chrisisinchrist 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

First, I'll apologize to CC for the accusations of blanking. You're right, it appears twice. That said, EDIT SUMMARIES HELP!. You need to start using them, pronto. Had you blanked and said 'already in television section' no one would've argued at all. You don't usethem, you get trouble. I already had your 3rr written up and was waiting for you to break it. As for solutions, let's put it in production. As the series didn't actually occur, there's no plot to report. It's not a television 'response' to the series, it's a part of it. A partially produced, unaired spinoff makes the most sense in the Production section, as that refers to the actual tellign of the larger tale, but there's not enough for its own article. ThuranX 17:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah ThuranX, that was my fault. I should have made mention in the edit summary. I will do better at doing that in the future. I think Production is a good idea too. I mean, it is not on television and it hasnt been introduced to the main plot. really, the show is kinda in pre-production (depending upon when the strike ends.) so, Production seems like a good idea. i will let you make the changes or we can just wait to hear what everyone else has to say. i know user:dposse really wants it in the plot, so maybe he should argue his side before any changes are made. --Chrisisinchrist 17:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with putting it in the television or the production sections. This new television show is part of the Heroes overall plot and unless something goes really screwy with the Writers Guild, it will air in early 2008. Chrisisinchrist, you're right that Heroes: Origins shouldn't be in two places on the same page, and we're all fools for not seeing that and correcting it a long time ago. How do you like the edit i just made where i removed the second mention of Heroes: Origins and just made "Unmasked" and "The Post Show" into subsections? I think that makes things alot more organized and it looks nicer.

And yeah, ThuranX is right when he said that you need to start using Edit Summaries. Seriously, you look like a vandal if you don't use them effectively. Also, coming to a consensus is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. Being bull headed and not taking the time to just talk things out before making potentially controversial changes will probably get you banned from here in the future. Also, "coming to a consensus" means that you stop the edits that are being disagreed with for the time being until the majority agrees with you or until a compromise can be reached. dposse 18:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

How about we put it into production for now? Once it starts broadcasting, it will get its' own page, and we can put the references to it in the plot section? (and I think dogpiling CC for the edit summaries is about over.)ThuranX 18:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

To user:dposse. Where do you get your facts? There are so many times on this talk page you talk about stuff that you dont fully understand. one example would be the time a couple of days ago you said the electric girls was not apart of the main cast, when kristen bell had already been established as a main cast member. you did it again when you just said that heroes origins will air in early 2008 when it will really air in may after season two has finished airing. you seem to get your facts from blogs and fan pages rather than official releases from verified sources. with that said, the edit summary issue has already been discussed, so i dont need you to continue to correct me. i dont mean to sound harsh, but you continue to police users contributions, but you dont even have all of your facts straight. second of all, if you ever read an interview with tim kring or jeph loeb, they have both already established that origins will be stand-alone story telling and that the series with introduce brand characters, and show you when they discovered their ability and then, what happens to them in the end (meaning, will they become good or evil). this is new story tellings with new characters, not the current characters. i will link those interviews to you if you need them. once again, origins is stand-alone stories and are not directly tied to the plot of the series. it has nothing to do with the overal plot of the series and should go under production. we can make a section under production entitled future projects to let people know that origins is in production, but has been postponed until the end of the strike. after the strike, tim kring has confirmed (on an interview on g4's the post show) that the show may be brought back to the table. origins is not connected to the overall plot of the series...it should go under production. tim kring has already confirmed that we may see characters from the main series, but only as cameos. do you need refernces and links to verify this? most of this is already in the origins article on the origins page. I am sorry that i sound so rude, but you frustrate me, because you seem to be making origins what you want it to be rather than just accepting what origins really is, as stated by tim kring and the producers.--Chrisisinchrist 19:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

also user:dposse, not to seem like mad man who keeps ranting, but i need to clear something else up to you. i didnt delete the origins section on purpose. you seem to think that i made the changes without discussing it. the truth is, just so you know, when i woke up this morning, origins was under "other media/television" section of the article and then you moved it back under plot summary. just so you fully understand, i continued to erase that change because it was on the page twice. Myself and user:tharanx have already made that clear and i already said that it was my mistake. I understand you telling me to use edit summaries, but i dont need a lecture on how to discuss issues and come to a concensus, because, if you read the talk page, you will notice that i discuss many things about this page before i make changes. please stop policing all the user contributions without getting facts --Chrisisinchrist 19:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Chrisisinchrist, I'm not going to answer your comments because i really do not want to argue with you. ThuranX - That seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Can we agree on this solution for now? dposse 20:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Recurring elements merge

I suggest that List of elements in Heroes be merged into this page, similar to Lost (TV series)#Recurring elements. The descriptions at the elements page without the examples should be merged into a single section with no sub-sections in this article. The section in this article would be called "recurring elements" and thus, the numerous examples would be unnecessary. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually think that what is in that article is more equivalent to Mythology (ala Mythology of Lost). I was going to suggest changing it to mythology a while ago but figured I would get shot down. --iTocapa ^t 06:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll support a change from "recurring elements" to "mythology." As for the merger, the Lost mythology article has more detail and enough content to merit an article of it own. The Heroes mythology section could be cut down to this. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

One thing I would do is merge the Helix article in, as I don't think it's significant enough to merit its own article. (Think about how the numbers in Lost don't get their own article, despite being more notable within the series). Although, this is more of an issue for those articles in particular. --iTocapa ^t 06:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If we could keep people from listing every occurrence of a squiggly line it might be feasible. As it stands this was the best we could do to keep people from inundating this article with every appearance of something that looked like the symbol. If you've got a way to keep fancruft away give it a try, but be forewarned. Padillah 13:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have merged it. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And I redirected Helix symbol (Heroes). –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The page looks really good. Good job! :) (Wikirocks2 01:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

D.L. Hawkins in the second season?

Tonight's (11/5/07) episode of Heroes had scenes with DL Hawkins in it. Does anyone know if the actor who plays DL is back for season two or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.96.151 (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Go consult a fan forum. We aren't in the future of the series. We deal with what can be cited. the rest is noise. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That was a valid question for the article. The actor is no longer a regular, I believe he was given a guest star credit. So don't expect much of him. Rekija 21:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Takezo Kensei spoiler?

Is it really necessary to include the detail (read: spoiler) about Kensei in the Main Characters list? Spiffyxd 06:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Wikpedia isn't censored,and we don't use Spoilers. Were this a released film or a book, the argument could be made that the revenues could be damaged by the release of plot information. the same cannot be said for television broadcasts, which are available to anyone with internet access - since the episode is free to watch on NBCs's wn website. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree wiki isn't censored. But FYI if your not in the USA you can't watch on NBC's website. It's available for people on the net who fake their IP address....or download elsewhere..but yeah not quite as easy as just going to the NBC site. Although I'm not entirely comfortable calling him Adam yet...not everyone is who they claim to be. But if we got sources we got sources. Rekija 21:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image cited for deletion

Apparently, Image:Activating Evolution.jpg is being cited for deletion. It seems as if some bot thought that the rational wasn't good enough. Should this be debated, should the rational be expanded, or should we just leave it as is and let it be eliminated? --Is this fact...? 08:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done. I revised the rationale slightly, adding a note that the image illustrates the concept in a manner for which text was insuffucient. I also added the notation that the image was used in This article alone, and that the rationale applies only to this article, per WP:NFCC#10c, which was the cited reason for deleting the image. If we don't need it, then I'd say let it be deleted - but that's our call, I would think, not a bot's. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Season 2 inter-title

has anyone noticed that at the inter-title is now green instead of orange, anyone know why and i dont know if its for all of season two i just noticed it in episode 7.Andrew22k 16:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That's because of the special Global Warming promotion that NBC is doing. It has nothing to do with the show. dposse 17:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe thats notable. I was wondering what was up with that myself. Rekija 21:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be more notable on the NBC page, not the heroes page. it has nothing to do with Heroes. it was just NBC promoting green week and using their top show, which is heroes to heavily promote it. not notable to the story. that what i think...,what do u think?--Chrisisinchrist 03:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC) maybe we can add it to a trivia section on the episode page on "out of time".--Chrisisinchrist 03:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah more notable in the ep page (although can hopefully be better placed then a triva section). I wasn't aware it was only for the 1 ep. That'll do. Rekija 03:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Heroes logo.png

Image:Heroes logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done. Yukichigai has already posted a revised rationale, which seems to address the requirements for keeping the image. He also removed the nonfree tag, referenced above. Thanks, Yukichigai! ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Tim Kring (criticism of show)

I know we dont post news and stuff here at wikipedia. So,I just wanted to ask if the following statement is notable enough for inclusion on the page, or if it has nothing to do with the encyclopedic content of wikipedia. anyway, over on the entertainment weekly main page, there is an article from tim kring. it is basically an interview where tim kring apologizes for season 2, saying tons of mistakes were made and that basically, he introduced to many random new characters and that he should not have waited until episode seven to reveal the big plot of the volume. anyway, i dont know if this is encyclopedic. should we add it to the into paragraph on the main page or the production section??? i mean, this is a little iconic, seeing how many show runners dont admit to mistake while the season is still running. but, i am just asking because i dont know if this is too news like or gossip like for inclusion. what does everyone think? entertainment weekly is a viable source.--Chrisisinchrist 18:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think tis very notable. There has been a lot of fan backlash this season so him openingly addressing that midseason is pretty important. It's nice to know he's been listening to the fans and will take the into consideration. Rekija 21:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rekija, Chris. I think that being reverted you shook your confidence a little bit, but clearly, you have some good instincts for what is notable. Posting in discussion to get the input from others is a really good idea too, and I am really glad to see you do so. Where were you thinking of adding the comments? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

it certainly needs putting in - here is a link http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20158840,00.html --Fredrick day 23:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Arcayne. I am not sure where to put it...but i am not that good at wording it, so i think one of you should add it. it may be notable in the production notes section or the section with the season 2 synopsis. i am not sure, but glad to here this is notable because it shocked the hell out of me when i saw it. not many showrunners will admit to the mistake they have made on thier series. i say production notes...maybe a section on season 2 production notes?? any thoughts?--Chrisisinchrist 05:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a section on the entertainment weekly article under reception. so now, we have critical acclaim and some negative acclaim too, in retrospect. it may need to be summed up better and shortened, so please feel free to edit and change. it might be just a little too long.--Chrisisinchrist 19:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The Company needs some discussion.

I think the company page needs some reorganization. it doesnt really say much adout the history of the company. I know we are still getting information, but with the info we have, i think it needs to be presented more clearly, especially with the many revelations from Bob in this past episode.

Secondly, someone keeps saying that Victoria Pratt is deceased. I remember them mentioning Pratt as one of the 12, but I dont remember them saying that she had died. Does anyone have a reference from the episode that says she died or was killed by adam monroe, because someone keeps adding that to the page. so, i wanted to discuss that before it was reverted. Lastly, from what I have viewed, Adam monroe is NOT in the photo of the original 12. none of the people look remotely like him. However, some believe that the man in the bottom right hand corner is monroe. can we come to a concensus on whether or not monroe is in the photo. heroes wiki has a close up of the photo if anyone needs to review it. i think monroe should be out of the original 12 list until it is verified that he is in the picture. the producers said in a Q and A at comicbookresources.com that they intentionally hid the face of the 12th member. they may have done this to photoshop anders in later, or maybe it is another member. we need to wait for this to be verified before we say that monroe is in the photo. thoughts?--Chrisisinchrist 05:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ratings

Hello....I just wanted to say that I think a ratings table (just like the one in LOST) should be added to the ratings section. It is very clear and I think it would be good for the section. (Wikirocks2 05:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

Ratings information would be good; a table would not. Keep in mind there are only two seasons, one of which isn't complete. The information can be conveyed much more effectively as prose. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Um...well sure. Whatever is best. (Wikirocks2 08:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

Are you nuts? In what universe does prose convey statistical information more effectively than a table? 216.117.2.1 19:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, watch the tone; treat folk as you would like to be treated. Secondly, the table was a magnet for cruft. As the powers are themselves the stories and substance of plots, its better to avoid redundancy and keep them within the text. We don;'t chew the food for the reader. We give them the meal and let them work through it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, Arcayne... I think you are talking about a different table than 216.117.2.1. He's talking about a table for presenting the series ratings, not powers. Padillah 20:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Lol. too many irons in the fire - my apologies. My comment about the tone stands, though. CKatz is correct that a table for the rating would be premature at this point, as the series hasn't even completed its second season (or series for you English-types). After the second season completes, though, I think it would be a Good Thing to do, as Lost is an FA and a pretty darn good template to use for this series. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

molly walker needs a redirect

Can someone redirect Molly Walker's link so that when you click on an active link of her name it will take you to her new page, and not the character page? the new page is called Molly Walker (Heroes). We need to have all the Molly links go to this page and not the minor character page. I know their is a quick way to do this, but i am not 100 percent on how and i dont want to mess anything up. thanks.--Chrisisinchrist 19:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Molly Walker (Heroes) is simply a redirect to Molly Walker. I changed the wikilinks to go directly to Molly Walker instead the list of characters' page. Garavello 20:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

new bob page

can someone who knows how change the link so that when you click on bob is goes straight to the bob page and not the list of minor characters with abilities page. someone just did it above with the new molly walker change. i was wondering if someone could do the same for bob. thanks.--Chrisisinchrist 05:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Heroes Season 5 Characters

I have a question. When are we ever going to change the cast listing from Main Cast to starring cast? Doesnt it need to be seperated and have the characters that are no longer on the show removed to a former cast section? I know a lot of people have already said they dont want to do this, but what will happen in season 5 or 6 when we have over 30 actor and actresses come through the main cast roster. I guess my question is, will we list them all? We know the theme of heroes is that the cast is ever-shifting and that ordinary people will discover extrordinary powers. So, by Season 5 or 6, we could have had tons of actors on the main cast? Will we list them all, or will we seperate it by Season? or will we seperate it by current and former? thanks.--Chrisisinchrist 19:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death, and there is no valid reason to make such a change. If the size of the section ever becomes unmanageable, it can easily be trimmed and the details spun off to the "characters" articles. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Heroes: Volume three

http://www.comicsonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=474

james kyson lee, who plays ando recently gave up info on volume three in an interview. dont know if this is verifiable or reliable, but everyone check out the link and then we can decide what to do from there. at the end of the interview he talks about volume three.--Chrisisinchrist 19:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Intriguing... I'd love to hear more about it, but I don't think we can include anything about it just yet. In theory, Volume three would have begun in early January, but now? Who knows? In the absence of anything confirmed, I'd wait. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Artwork

For the article about Isaac's art I wrote a comment but had no responses. Here it is: Now that Isaac is dead, and all his work has been revealed, the article is for lack of a better word, dead. But both Peter and Sylar still have this ability, although Sylar can't use it yet. Also, for all we know there could be another character like this. What I'm saying is maybe we should change the article to "Artwork in Heroes". This way we can add all artwork done on the show, including Peter's little stick-man sketch and Sylar's paintings. Then we can add an artist part to the table so people know who drew what. Sound good? BioYu-Gi! 21:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

isaacs paintings seem to a lot more plot significant than peter and sylars. so i dont know if it is important. i mean, when u go to the artwork page, there is tons and tons of art done by isaac. maybe we should put individual art sections in the character bios but not on the isaac artwork page. thoughts? or may at the bottom of the isaac art, we can do a section on additional art by additional artist. by the fact that isaac is painting them and it is his artwork seems really plot significant. and, who said we were done with isaac? the guy is dead, yet the series of 8 shows up. i wish i could find this interview i read where tim kring said that more isaac artwork may show up in future volumes. --Chrisisinchrist 22:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against an Artwork In Heroes page, however I don't think there is anything wrong with an article that no longer requires to be edited...it's not dead...simply finished. Wouldn't it be OR to decide who's paintings are more plot significant then others? Rekija 00:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the idea to put the art Peter and Sylar have done in their character articles. Unfortunately, I only remember the recent one of Montral Peter drew, but I know Sylar did some. If anyone has the first season DVD they could help out. BioYu-Gi! 18:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Elle's father

Hey people! I know we arent supposed to add fancruf and rumors here, but i think NBC made a mistake because they posted a preview on their website stating that bob is elles father. i dont know if this is notable of can be verified, but click the link below and then click on powerless for reference. if you guys think this is notable, it can be added, unless you want to wait for it to be revealed on the show.... http://nbcumv.com/entertainment/storylines.nbc/heroes.html --Chrisisinchrist 03:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Then it'll likely be shown next week. There's no rush, it's only a couple of days. Rekija 00:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it can be said now that Bob is in fact the father of Elle since it was said in episode 9 s2 Evileendje (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

But is Bob Elle's father in the same way that Mr. Bennett is Clair's father? — Val42 (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. It seems more like "Bob is Elle's father the same way Nathan is Claire's", meaning biological.--Dil (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

But was this stated in the episode? Did they just say that he was Elle's father? I don't remember any clarification in the episode. — Val42 (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It was stated that Bob's is Elle's father. Whether that means foster father or biological father is immaterial at this point. He has been called her father, so that's what we say. We don't clarify biological or foster until we have citable information that allows us to cite it one way or the other. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds acceptable. — Val42 (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Haitian Pills/Power Suppression Pills

Should this be added to the mythology section?---- Chrisisinchrist (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not so far. It was mentioned once, in passing. It takes more than a mention to imbed yourself in the mythology. -- Padillah (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Cast

Could we put the cast members into two sections? One being "original cast" and the second being "additional cast"? This would be clearer than what we have now. (Wikirocks2 (talk) 06:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

With all due respect, that wouldn't serve any purpose other than to muddy things up. The present version is fine, and is the result of much discussion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OK...it was just a suggestion. (Wikirocks2 (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

There's certainly nothing wrong with asking... this comes up every so often in various articles about television series. (Most recently at Smallville, as a matter of fact.) However, what we need to keep in mind is that we have to reflect an overall perspective on the subject, avoiding what has been dubbed as "recentism". Hope this helps. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it bears a rehearing of that discussion. While the show is an ensemble piece, I've had to remove at least one cast member that didn't make the transition between seasons one and two. I think that it wouldn't hurt us to either trim down the list, or evaluate who the primary players are and prosify the remainder. Consensus isn't a static thing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That has been reverted - keep in mind that we have to avoid "recentism", and it certainly is *not* our place to "evaluate who the primary players are". Only the network/production company can make that call. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary: Season 1 vs. Genesis and Season 2 vs. Generations and Exodus

would it be inappropriate to change the titles of the seasonal summaries to the titles of the different volumes, or would that violate the whole WP:WAF part about writing "in-universe?" For that matter, would it violate anything? I ask because the second season is supposed to be clearly divided between the archs of the different volumes, and to more effectively communicate that idea, we could possibly re-name the the headings. The no erz (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As you've indicated, the proper approach is in avoiding the "in-universe" perspective you mentioned. While there's certainly no issue with acknowledging the creator's "Volume" structure, we need to use standard industry terms to describe a series. (Otherwise, we'd have some articles using "season", some using "volume", some using chapter" or "fit"...) --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

However, it wouldn't be out of line to include in the actual text that each season is designed as a book (or volume), with each episode a chapter of that.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons to Heroes.

I added a little bit under the comparison to Xmen section... mainly to point readers to similarities between Heres and Xmen that the show's producers seem to either be unaware of or purposefully ignoring. The similarities are great. The quote from the show's creators refuting the similarities shouldn't be there without some sort of a thing to rebuff his quote that that indicates that Heroes and Xmen are nothing alike. Maybe the entire Section about comparisons to other works should be completely deleted?

Do you have a reliable source stating that, despite what the producers say, the series is intended to echo X-Men? Without a reliable source, it's just original research. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur (much as I did with Fisher on your User Talk page). Unless you have a reliable (meaning no blogs or fan forum cruft) citation connecting X-Men and Heroes, it is a connection you are making, and primary sources like that are not used by Wikipedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Simone and Bob

I reverted the revert of the exclusion of Simone Devereaux and inclusion of Bob Bishop. Simone has not made an appearance in season two; she was killed off in season one. Main cast members should be those folk who are a continued presence in the whole series, not just a season-specific occurrence. As well, I re-added Bob Bishop, as his character has had significant screen time in the episodes of eason two - moreso than say, Micah Sanders or even his daughter, Elle. I think that perhaps we are giving preferential treatment to the supers and less to the mundanes. If we need to discuss this, I would be open to that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This might necessitate revisiting the discussion on screen time versus crediting. Again, I am open to discussing this, as consensus is not a static quality. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a surprising discussion coming from you Arcayne. I reverted your edit. It should be discussed here before it is added. You of all people should know that we can not just give a character credit for being a main character because we feel they have had a lot of screen time. I dont agree that Bob should be added. Thier are characters who has appeared in more episodes than him, who are not credited. You know better. We can not credit main characters. Only the production of the show can do that. It is not our job. We need to maintain the encyclopedic integrity of this page, by not supporting our own points of view, but simply recording the facts. If Bob is upgraded, then we can add him later, but to add him based on how we feel is not okay. Simone may not be in season 2, but she was a main cast member and I am sure since she was a main cast member, she got paid more than james kyson lee who was in almost twice as many eps as her. we cant be the judge. go to heroes wiki for that. --Chrisisinchrist (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right. After being reverted, i should have taken to the Discussion page. I tender my apology. Can you or someone else specify the criteria we are utilizing for inclusion? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize... it was just a bit surprising to hear this position from you! Anyway, the basic criteria for inclusion is the actor's status as defined by the production company and the network. That isn't unique to Heroes - it is common to all of the television series articles. Hope this helps. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I know! Anyone can have an off-day. Blame it on the most excellent office party sugar high. Carrot cake is eevil. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been contacted by arcayne for an opinion. I won't Cn'P it here, my long version's on his talk page, but basically, the credits, as given by produers of the show give a bright line test which makes determining things easy and straightforward, avoiding fan based shifting consensus lines. ThuranX (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I contacted him because he knows about twice as much about how Wikpedia policy works than any two people I know (which can make him kinda crabby sometimes - lol), but he gave the straight skinny on the subject. It makes sense to have a guideline, even if I don't feel its working perfectly here. Again, my apologies for acting icky. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Company Founders deserve their own article

Should the founders have their own article with a description of them?--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 13:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we know enough about them, or their mission, or the history of the Company, or the direction the Company is taking, or activities the Company has taken part in, or... Basically, no. We don't know anything about the Company other than it exists, twelve people started it (even "twelve with abilities" is somewhat conjecture), and it finds others with abilities (to what end we still don't know). Padillah (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it can be done. How, I am not sure--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 16:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure you could do it. You could create an article about socks if you felt so inclined. It's not a question of ability, it's a question of content. But, if you feel so inclined... Go here for an article on how to start your first article. Good luck! Padillah (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is simply not enough information yet. The nature of the company, it's relation to the 'original twelve', and so on, are all mysteries yet to be revealed. To write an article now would have to speculate on the interrlation of the Linderman Group and 'The Company', on Bob's ascendancy, on which of the twevle helped found it, if Kaito left before or after, if the company was founded BY Adam or as a response to him, and so on. Otherwise, you'd have a tiny stub. I seriously recommend that instead, you make a user page sandbox, and start an article there. When you really think you've got a good one, bring a link here, and let us know, so we can support you and give you some review. Or you can ignore all this, be bold, and see what comes of it. ThuranX (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary

The second season's plot summary needs to be condensed to the size of the first season; I wasn't sure how exactly to go about this. Additionally, I am wondering about how spoilers are going to be handled in the plot summary, as I noticed that the first season does not seem to mention the eventual stopping of the explosion (though truth be told, I only skimmed it). I know that the spoiler policy has become "We have spoilers, deal with it", and in accordance with this, I would suggest changing the plot summary to reflect this. --iTocapa ^t 00:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. Spoiler policy is "If you look for information on a TV show, don't be surprised to find information on that TV show!" Also, the classification of what is a spoiler and what's not has caused more than a few edit wars. You mention "stopping the explosion" as a spoiler, to me I know the good guys are going to win so it didn't come as that much of a surprise. Those are the main "spoilers aren't mentioned" arguments. There's also a little "other encyclopedias don't have spoiler warnings so we don't either" and a smidge of "spoilers are for fan-sites, not Wiki". but each editor will take up their own personal torch. Padillah (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing in favor of no spoilers, if that's what my comment implied; I was arguing the opposite. As for, "I know the good guys are going to win", yes you know it, and truth be told we all know it, but it doesn't mean we can exume plot details simply because they're givens. Additionally, the good guys don't always win, as evidenced by films such as Invasion of the Body Snatchers. If we're going to do a summary and not a review we need to include the resolution. --iTocapa ^t 17:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing. I was just expounding on the WP:SPOILER guideline. It is not "deal with it", it is more genial than that and has a logical basis in argument. If you want to change the article, go ahead. Padillah (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Season 2 is ending on Monday. After it airs, it would be easier to condense the plot summaries because most of the plot points will be resolved. Maybe we should wait until the season finale on monday and then condense the plot since all the plot holes will be filled and answered by then. Doesnt that make more sense than to edit it now? Lets just wait 6 days--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that. In that case, it probably would be better to wait it out. --iTocapa ^t 20:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this but it's Tuesday afternoon here. Where are you guys? (I'd summarize but I suck at original composition). Padillah (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

They mean next Monday (December 3).Kriscott (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish there were an icon for "sheepish grin". Thanks. Padillah (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks a bit like this :-/ - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone might want to put in a word about the Channel 7 Australia cutting short season 2 and labeling Season 2 Epsiod 9 (cautionary tales) as the season final, then putting Bones on instead of Heroes. 59.101.179.12 (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That appears to be uncited, and someone else purged it as such. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we keep a picture in these articles?

Is there an overriding reason we can't seem to keep a picture of anyone for more than a month? What needs to be done? Do we send an official request to NBC requesting a publicity package? What? Padillah 14:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You might want to watchlist Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content, paying particular attention to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Character_images_and_lists. Replacing all the images is indeed a pain after some - and I will be tender here and say 'free-thinker' instead of what I would rather call them - removes them without warning. As well, watchlist the images themselves, so if a fair-use concern or an IFD (image for deletion) notice gets posted, you can act quickly and appropriately to protect it or get a heads-up on how to fix it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Alejandro Herrera

Why was Alejandro removed from the Heroes template and his page redirected? We cant just redirect his page because he died. I thought things in wikipedia werent done with the attitude of what is recent, but rather with the idea that you are getting a full scope of the series. Just because Alejandro has been murdered, does not mean we have seen the last of him...it also doesnt mean his character isnt notable. This needs more discussion, because no one is questioning ted sprague or claudes notability and they were in less episodes. --Chrisisinchrist 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Alejandro was redirected, I'm assuming, because his plot is Maya's plot, sans death. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The redirect was removed because the issue of merging is still being discussed. Please go to that page to include your opinion on the discussion if you haven't already.--76.168.220.243 00:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

DVD releases table

Can something be done about this table? It is too large and looks really out of place. The characters table is fine, but this one is wierd. Please edit it to make it smaller or at least fit in better. Щіκі RoςкЗ^(talκ) 09:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no one has replied. I notice that this page is being remodeled after the LOST page. The DVD release subheading on that page has writing, not one huge table citing the dates that the DVD has been released in different countries. This really needs to be fixed. And I would do it myself, but I think someone else would do a better job. ЩіκіRocкs^(talκ) 04:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Just go a head and do it. We are all a big community of editors and contributors. we know whatever change you make will be in good faith. anyway, if you think you wont do a good job, still do it, and then the other users and editors can help you improve the section. I dont really know how to do a dvd section without a chart. --Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

i was thinking too, lost has already released 3 seasons on dvd and heroes has only released one. lost also has a lot of out of universe information on its dvd, especially since lost has topped the charts on weekly dvd sales. i dont think heroes ever topped the charts. by the way, fyi, target had season one dvd of heroes on sale for 19 buck during its day after christmas sale. did anyone else catch that? anyway, back on subject...if you have some out of universe info on the dvd, then it might be useful to remove the chart. i hate the chart too. it seems so big and odd...--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Here's what I'm thinking. Remove the table, and changing it into a table like these ones: With 'set details' and 'special features'. This way we can also include release dates of a few countries. The rest can be written as prose. ЩіκіRocкs^(talκ) 06:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I converted some of the DVD released to prose, but left the full DVD release alone. I think that now we need to convert the date to prose maybe for the full dvd releases, or if not, just delete the whole thing. I really think we need to make a DVD table like the one I mentioned above. I really don't know how to do it, so someone needs to be found. ЩіκіRocкs^(talκ) 09:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)