Talk:Heroes (American TV series)

Main Character Chart

What reasoning was given to have the Main Character chart changed? Why was the chart changed and not discussed? What was the reasonings? The chart looks like the chart used on the LOST page and the Lost article is a featured article. What is the reasoning? And why was it not discussed?--76.168.220.243 (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction: The chart resembles that of the Lost characters page, which is not featured, A or good class. Link to disputed changes. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot summaries

I think the plot summary section is too long for each season. I know I should not compare this article to the LOST article, but they seem to be able to sum up an entire 23 ep season in a few sentences, whereas, we here seem to do it in several paragraphs. Can it be summed down to give the two or three basic plot points, without giving detail to the characters story and development, which can be read on a character page or episode synopsis?--76.168.220.243 (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot summaries on main TV articles do not need to be short. Those at featured articles The Wire and The Office are quite long (in fact, they should be cut down). On another note, many users here like to compare this article to that of Lost. While the main Heroes article should strive to become like the main Lost article, keep in mind that the Lost article is not perfect and is in need of a featured article review. Also, please read iTocapa's essay on the state of this WikiProject and comment on it. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Episode 14 - Star Trek reference in car plate

Did anyone notice the reference to the NCC 1701 (the first Enterprise vessel from Star Trek). George Takey, as Hiro's father, has a car with this license plate. You can see it when he leaves, near the end of the episode. Where can we put this kind of information? Mahaus (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's already at Distractions (Heroes). –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Volume 3

Volume 3 is going to be the start of season 3. So why is it that it is still listed as part of season 2. The writers and Tim Kring reworked Powerless to be the season finale of season 2 because of the strike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.237 (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

They rewrote "Powerless" to serve as a potential season finale. If the strike ends soon, volume 3 will still be part of season 2. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Planned or spontaneous?

Is the main plot planned from beginning to end (like "Lost" claims to be) or do they make up the plot on the go? 88.68.205.32 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

They claim to have the general idea of five seasons planned.[1] –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

??? How can this be happening ???

Please check these two pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroes_%28TV_series%29: [[2]]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroes_(TV_series): [[3]]

They seem to be the same but the part about the third volume (Volume three: "Villains") is different in each page. The latter seems to have more information than the former. Is it only in my computer or does this happen to others as well? How can this be happening?

They seem the same to me. Maybe you had a cache issue (or maybe i'm not paying enough attention!)Ged UK (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Mine too are the same. Щіκі RoςкЗ^(talκ) 14:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just hit refresh (but I doubt that you still have the problem). –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? Because I didn't have the problem. I was just saying that the pages are the same on my comp. lol. Щіκі RoςкЗ^(talκ) 16:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I was replying to the original poster. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [4]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. What does all this mean?--75.28.139.135 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Improvements and Changes to main page

I made some changes to the main page. I hope everyone likes them. Please make sure to take some time to read the changes and make any corrections and improvements. I modeled some of the changes after the Lost page since it is a featured article. I think this article can become a featured article we just need to continue to improve and expand the stub and weak sections. I made sure that everything I added was well sourced. if you have additional sources, please add them, but be assured that i added no original research. Also, in the cast and character section i added some info about supporting characters. i know there has been an issue in the past with contributors stating actors as main and recurring. please keep in mind that characters are billed. they are billed as main, recurring or guest. i place supporting because supporing is not a cast billing necessarily. supporting also means that the cast member is not apart of the main cast, but supports those characters and the storylines. i hope i stated that clearly as to not create confusion. thanks. please feel free to make any changes and post all your oppositions for discussion. i hope i made good qaulity changes. the expansion to the production section was done based on the request made on the project page. basically, i tried to complete some projects from the project page.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as the paragraph on supporting cast...i modeled it after the paragraph on the Lost page, which is a featured article and will be the featured article on January 31st.

Numerous supporting characters have been given expansive and recurring appearances in the progressive storyline. In the second season, Rose Henderson played by L. Scott Caldwell and tail section survivor Bernard Nadler played by Sam Anderson were featured in a flashback episode after being reunited. Mira Furlan as Danielle Rousseau, the shipwrecked Frenchwoman, appears throughout the series. Some of the "Others," including M. C. Gainey as Tom, William Mapother as Ethan Rom, Tania Raymonde as Alex Rousseau and Nestor Carbonell as Richard Alpert have been shown in both flashbacks and the ongoing story. Similarly, Jack's father Christian Shephard (John Terry) has appeared in multiple flashbacks of various characters.

The paragraph I wrote is exactly the same, i just changed the names and character names. Is this OR? It has no source...yet it is still fact because these are supporting characters...thoughts???--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Agreed. What Lost has is an example of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, an invalid argument for inclusion. As such I have also removed the paragraph. ThuranX (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me...no big deal--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to rewrite the section in accordance with wikipedia policy. re read the section and let me know if this has no OR and POV.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that all the changes you made are great and the article is on its way to WP:GAN and eventually WP:FAC. Nice work and keep going, –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Once again, I state that it's all OR. Just because you moved it to another section doesn't hide that fact. You made some interesting additions about the casting process, though I question the notability of the process, as it's not too distinct from numerous other shows. Please do not revert it further, as there's no consensus to include it. ThuranX (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I made no additions to the casting section, seeing how the main page did not have a casting section before today. Casting is very important for a television show and it is real world out of universe information. As far as the information that is being disputed, i would like to urge users to look at a comparison...one from the lost main page which is a featured wikipia article and the second is what was attempted to be added to the heroes main page which wants to be a featured article. i like users to address the pros and cons of the two exerts and give thoughts to it.

first is from Lost a featured article:
Numerous supporting characters have been given expansive and recurring appearances in the progressive storyline. In the second season, Rose Henderson played by L. Scott Caldwell and tail section survivor Bernard Nadler played by Sam Anderson were featured in a flashback episode after being reunited. Mira Furlan as Danielle Rousseau, the shipwrecked Frenchwoman, appears throughout the series. Some of the "Others," including M. C. Gainey as Tom, William Mapother as Ethan Rom, Tania Raymonde as Alex Rousseau and Nestor Carbonell as Richard Alpert have been shown in both flashbacks and the ongoing story. Similarly, Jack's father Christian Shephard (John Terry) has appeared in multiple flashbacks of various characters.

second is text i attempted to add to the heroes article:
Numerous supporting characters have been given expansive and recurring appearances in the progressive storyline. Angela Petrelli, portrayed by Christine Rose along with season one antagonist Mr. Linderman, portrayed by Malcolm McDowell have appeared throughout the series. Claude the invisible man, played by Christopher Eccleston and The Haitian, portrayed by Jimmy Jean-Louis both worked for The Company and Noah Bennet within the series. Other supporting characters that were introduced included Molly Walker portrayed by Adair Tishler, who was first introduced towards the beginning of the season and reappared towards the end. She played an even bigger role in season two. Bob Bishop was also introduced in the season season as the head of The Company. He is portrayed by Stephen Tobolowsky. Hana Gitelman, played by Stana Katic is the guide for Heroes Evolutions; she has only appeared in two episodes, but has appeared in fifteen graphic novels.
Thoughts? I am not giving OR or POV. I am just stating the characters that we here at wikipedia have determined as notable because they have their own pages. Similar to the rationale done on the Lost page. Secondly, I dont think that an encyclopedic section shouldnt be added becuase we dont want to invite fan cruft or give people the idea to add OR. We just revert like we always do and add hidden text...that will help lessen the problem. --Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

One thought: Plagiarism. classy. A second thought. It's still an 'Other Crap exists' rationale. That's not enough, and not all the characters do, or should, have their own pages. We had a list of characters page that met the needs for those characters. That someone else passed Lost as an FA with that says something about the reviewer. It's a fluff 'graf. I reverted it. leave it out. ThuranX (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The opening statement is lifted directly. ThuranX (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problemsMaybe you should review this policy to learn more about Plagiarism because you may not be fully aware of the policy. The casting section is well sourced and nothing that is listed in the casting section is posted without a source. some of the sections have two or three sources...all to accredited newspapers and entertainment websites...--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Chrisisinchrist: I am just stating the characters that we here at wikipedia have determined as notable because they have their own pages… I am not billing them as a recurring character, like sylar was or ando...i am simply acknowledging that they have a pressence on the show and have had several more appearances than Lynette the waitress or charlie andrews for example. Agree. ThuranX: Other Crap exists… That someone else passed Lost as an FA with that says something about the reviewer. The Lost article was promoted to featured article status in September 2006. Standards for featured content have changed since then. The references are not well formatted and I would support demotion, however the Lost article does have great information. Raul654 passed Lost as an FA; he passes everything because he is the featured article director and decides when there is consensus. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't really been following this discussion, but I do agree with Chrisisinchrist. He is a good editor and I believe he knows what he is doing. Щіκі RoςкЗ^(talκ) 05:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User thedemonhog. thanks for responding...i still think lost is a great article...i never contrib to the lost page, because i think it is great...but thats your opinion...lol...What is your opinion on the inclusion of the information that was taken out of the article? do you agree that it should be remain removed or do you agree that it should be included or are you on the fence about it? please post your thoughts on that...thanks...to the other user who posted right before me; user:wikirocks, thanks for the support. please review the discussion so you can give an opinion about the supporting character section i wanted to add...and once again thanks for the support...--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I wrote "agree" after quoting you in my most recent post (I think that it should be included). –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Lots of activity over the last couple of days! Wow! Well, I agree with Chris. I don't see a problem with the paragraph. If dumbo users want to vandalize the section, then it can easily be reverted. I support adding the paragraph because it highlights the most notable characters in the series. I think the changes to the mainpage are very good. The "conception" and "casting" sections are good.76.168.220.243 (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

...--75.28.139.135 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry about that. I'm kind-of new to wikipedia.org. I really only come to the Heroes page and I don't usually come here to the talk page. On the contrary, I wanted to say that I support the inclusion of the paragraph about "supporting characters." I think it is a good solid paragraph. I also think the Heroes page looks much better than it did the last time I saw the page. I do not use wikipedia frequently, but I do love the Heroes television series and enjoy reading this page.--75.28.139.135 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

out of universe information

Does anyone know where I can find some out of universe information on the mythology of Heroes? Like interviews, press releases etc. Not about the recurring elements, but the mythology of the Heroes world and the mythological elements. Also, I need some out of universe information on The Company. It has been tagged for so long, and I have had a difficult time finding third party information from newspapers, mags, interviews and press releases. I will also be posting this topic on the project page.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

try entertainment magazines at the library, esp. Empire, which has featured the show's cast a couple times. ThuranX (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Mythology

Hey, I found some interesting interviews with Writers Joe Pokaski and Aron Coleite. They commented in a series of interviews titled Behind the Eclipse that fans of the series Heroes should be watching for the number nine (9) to have a significance in the show. (I qouted this from heroeswiki). Take a look at the link I posted to heroeswiki and of course the links to the interviews with Coleite and Pakaski. I was wondering if, based on those interviews, if the number nine should be added to a mythology section in the article...links below--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
http://heroeswiki.com/Theory:9
http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=9000
http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=8817

Thoughts? Has anyone else read this info before?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We need to be careful about sections like this, as the Helix section almost ran away with itself. It should be limited occurrences that are sourced if any are listed at all. I looked at the HeroesWiki page and had a flash from the movie The Number 23. If you look for the number, you'll find the number. We don't want it to go to far. "Well, see that dog? If you add the number of legs a dog has to my brother's roommate's age, you get 33. If you multiply 3 and 3, you get nine! It MUST be added intentionally by the writers. Wikipedia, here I come!" Maybe too lengthy of an example, but you know someone will try it." QuasiAbstract (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I just thought it should get a mention as a part of the overall mythology of the series and maybe thats it. if you read the interview with coleite and pokaski, they give some interesting stuff...thats all that should be added...that out of universe stuff. the occurances should be well well well sourced if they are going to be added, not just random occurances like on heroeswiki. i only linked heroeswiki so that i could credit them for the research...but we can probably do a credible write up about the mythology of number 9 in the series in like 2 or 3 sentences--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts on adding a mythology section to this page about the elements of the show that make up the overall mythology of the show? I was thinking of some of the in-universe mythological elements of the show, and here is what i came up with...

• The Company and its founders
• Number 9
• Character connections and cross overs
• The mythology of Takezo Kensei
• Super powers
• Family Connections
• Time travel
• Prophetic paintings
• Uluru not sure if this will qaulify as a mythological element since it has been discredited by tim kring

Users have suggested

• The virus
• Activating evolution

I was kind of modeling this after the LOST mythology page. these are kind of the elements that make up the shows overall mythology. if you agree that this section should be added, please add other mythological elements that you think should be added. Please do not add recurring elements, as that is a totally different thing. if you disagree with adding this section, please discuss it. thanks...thoughts?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey all. =) I think this is a lot like like The Helix situation we saw a while back as QuasiAbstract points out. My suggestion would be to deal with it in the same way. I know at some point the list of helix appearances was spun off into a separate page, but I don't know if that page survived or not. Another point to consider is that listing all occurrences of the number 9 and attributing them to an intentional act on the part of the writers could arguably be OR except for the instances where the writers confirm that a particular example was intentional. I wouldn't be surprised if some examples of the number 9 slip by unintentionally and then would it be appropriate to claim that it's a significant instance of it? Just some food for thought! (edit: Reading the discussion again it looks like this is exactly what's already being proposed already, so count this as support for the idea. =) --Centish (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Yeah, the real topic is not the number 9, because we have already established that any info on the number nine will be from a well sourced third party source and absolutely will not be a list full of random occurances and fan cruft. what really needs to be discussed is a mythology section similar to that of the LOST page, with various mythological elements from the show (listed above) and discredited theories. Any thoughts on that?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of a Mythology section. It kind of reminds me of the Mythology page on the Lost article (since everyone seems to be comparing Lost and Heroes nowadays!). Yeah, I support it. I like the ideas too. I think Activating Evolution should be included as a part of the Mythology too, and not the Elements section. If Mythology relates to the fictional elements of the series, then the list if good. I think the scar, the eclipse, the cockroach and the symbol should be in the elements and symbols section and Activating Evolution should be included within the shows Mythology. Oh yeah, the Virus too. That is a huge part of the shows Mythology. Okay, I am rambling. Gotta Go!!!--76.168.220.243 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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

I am not really sure what you mean by "mythology of Heroes," but I do support its inclusion because I love reading Heroes content and some of the ideas listed above I do not have a fair amount of knowledge on.

Book

I saw a book at Barnes and Noble. I think it was called "Save the World a Heroes Guide." Can that be included somewhere in the article? I do really know how to include the information in the article. I think the book may have been written by someone involved with Heroes or maybe a fan. I don't remember the arthors name. I think it was something like Lynette Potter.--75.28.139.135 (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked out this book's page on amazon.com (Saving the World: A Guide to Heroes), and, from the looks of it, it falls more along the lines of "unofficial guide" type books. If this is indeed the case, then it probably doesn't really fit in the article. I'm sure we'll see a lot of media coming out that tries to capitalize on the success of Heroes, but isn't really a part of the Heroes universe. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, how much stock can we put in such things as sources? I'll try to review this one and see what it actually offers. ThuranX (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

i remeber reading that books when i was at the book store. i glanced through it. lots of fan speculation. i remember reading a section in the back about the characters abilities and it said something about mohinder suresh possibly having a dream type power, similar to one sanjog used to show him his fathers murder. that has been discredited of course by everyone from heroes production. but, it may have some good stuff on the conception of heroes and all that. i am going to take a look at it tomorrow and see if i can find any useful verifiable info. maybe for now the book can be listed under fandom.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Heroes Mythology

This weekend I will be starting some work on "The Mythology of Heroes." I have been working all week to find verifiable third party sources to support the things that will be included. If you have any opposition, please state so. I will be tagging that section so that their wont be any edit conflicts until it is complete. After it is complete, anyone who needs to go through and improve the section should feel more than free to do so. I will be semi-modeling the section after Mythology of Lost article. Please check this article out so that you can have an idea of what I want to do. I will only be including themes and elements in the mythology section that have been confirmed and verified by someone on the production team at heroes (kring, beeman, loeb, etc.). If you have any thoughts, please include them here. I would hate for the mythology section to be full of cruft. thoughts?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 18:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a question not regarding this. Why has QuasiAbstract just signed his/her name? I don't understand. ЩіκіRocкs^(talκ) 04:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Check the edit summary for QuasiAbstract and thedemonhog's messages and the joke should make more sense. =) --Centish (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

OK...lol. Now I got it. I previously only saw QuasiAbstract's edit summary, and I thought he was being a ****head, but now that I saw thedemonhogs's summary, I see he was trying to be funny. And it was...in a way. ЩіκіRocкs^(talκ) 06:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the talk page disruption. I was suffering from a lack of sleep at the time. Moral of the story: "You shouldn't edit Wikipedia while sleep deprived." ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 09:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Mythology section Complete

I have finished the Mythology section. I sourced everything and I hope everyone enjoys it. Please, Please, Please take some time to go over to the page and shred through it. It needs some work, but I think I laid a good foundation. It will need to be checked for verifiability, OR, POV, spelling/grammar and all that good stuff. Some sections may not have enough wieght or too much wieght. please help improve that too. Please take some time to help improve the article and place any tags that need to be placed. Dont just go and start deleting some stuff, like some users do. Rather, go over to the page and improve it!! Lets all work together. Also, I dont know how to cite ref correctly, so if anyone wants to fix all the lazy refs I did, that needs work as well. I hope it is a qaulity article. I tried not to put any OR or POV in it, but it happens. Its all in good faith of course. Enjoy the page and please take some time to help make improvements! Mythology of Heroes--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean the mythology article. Glancing over it, it appears to be quite comprehensive and has many sources. A note for future edits: names of television shows should be in italics, e.g. Crossing Jordan not Crossing Jordan. You may find citation templates (specifically, {{cite web}}) useful. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn thedemonhog. I had just finished writing my post, when it said that it was an edit conflict! Anyways I was going to say that we should make a new subheading for Mythology for this page, and include a few of the points on that page. Then we could have a link to the main page of mythology by saying: see main article: Heroes Mythology or something like that. ЩіκіRocкs^(talκ) 04:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK...I never saw that section. I guess it's already been done. ЩіκіRocкs^(talκ) 04:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The section was made while you were typing (and retyping—sorry). Editors may be able to use good article on the mythology of Carnivàle as inspiration for the Heroes mythology article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

I think it is time for a peer review. It would be nice to get some outside views on the page from other editors and admins. I am going to nominate this page today. The page has changed so much since the last review. It would be good for everyone to give their direct opinion on the page in a set forum. I hope their are no oppositions to this.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have transcluded the peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite to PR. I'll start on it later today. It'll be my first official wikipedia one, so i'll probably be a bit slower than some others! Ged UK (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A start... the automated peer review script says:

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

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• The script has spotted the following contractions: aren't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've let the script clean up a number of technical issues... for some reason, it has altered the Hollywood Reporter URLs, so I'll fix that next. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It also changed a couple of single brackets inside quotations into double brackets, resulting in erroneous article links. I think I fixed all of those but it's hard to be sure, since there were so many changes in that one edit. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 12:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to move this infomation to the peer review page.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My view on it

Overall, its made some pretty great strides (thank jeebus for the writer's strike, which allowed for a breather!).

Lead

• The use of italics in the lead (" thought they were like everyone else... until they realized they have incredible abilities"), presumably to address a direct quote from the series, simply doesn't belong. It's in-universe, it isn't marked with quotation marks, it isn't cited - the list goes on, but the main thrust is that it does not flow with the lead. it needs to be removed, to my reckoning.
• the sentence right after that ("These people soon realize they have a role in preventing catastrophe and saving humanity") is also in-universe and inaccurate. Some heroes end up as fueling sites for Sylar before any role is realized, and Sylar is certainly not into preventing catastrophe or saving humanity. A better way to phrase this sentence is to address the main thrust is how these people deal withthese new abilities and how they act upon them.

Main characters and Cast

• I am going to renew the objection to the connecting ofthe characters' abilities with the list of superpowers from Wikipedia. It is, be any definition of the word, synthesis. If it has not been defined via cited reference, we should not be able to use our judgment to assign the ability ourselves. This is something that will come back to bite Wikipedia on the ass, as some wiki-lawyering dope is going to insist that this sets a precedent for synthesis. When i first brought the matter up somewhat privately with another, more senior editor, he pooh-poohed it as not all that important, but at this point, i am not so sure.

Mythology

• "Kring has used volumes to wrap-up ongoing plot lines, rather than carrying storylines over long periods of time, as in Lost" Why does this require no less than six citations? Is this statement really so controversial that we cannot pick the most durable and illuminating of the citations and use that one all by its lonesome?

Legal and copyright issues

• I think the Emerson lawsuit could be merged into a single paragraph and trimmed down drastically. I mean, if some moron sticks their hand down a garbage disposal, it isn't a tv show's fault - the dolt is just on the short list for a Darwin Award. The paragraph about the infringement with Crossing Jordan is fine the way it is, though.

That's my input. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Respond to the above post at Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)#My view on it. Can we stop with the duplicate posts and just have links instead, please? –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks user:arcayne for your comments. they were fantastic and have been moved to the peer review page. if any other heroes contributors want to add comments to the heroes peer review, please do it at this Link and not on this page. This will help us avoid confusion about the topics being discussed.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The cast image

Not really thrilled with it. I know we don't have an alternate picture, but the folk are so small in it that its essentially the eclipse image that is predominatant, and that's unsat. Can we try to find a better image of the cast where we can, y'know, see their faces and all? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If anyone finds one that is clearer, go ahead and upload it overtop of Image:Heroes.png. The problem with Heroes pictures is that the cast is so large. Which one of the following is best? [5][6][7][8][9][10] –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

are any of those images free images? i like them all...i think the page could honestly use a couple of them...i know if we ever try to go for feature article status, someone is going to bring up the fact that the page doesnt have many photos. i say upload a couple and place them on the page in sections were they are revelant to the information.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

None are free. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they are all suitable. but uploading pics aint my thing. i dont really know how to do that...but since you do, it would be cool to add one or two...this page needs something.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see it okay, but that might be because I'm using a widescreen laptop, so I have my prefs set to show images at highest possible size. That said, perhaps a higher resolution version of the same image, but with the eclipse cropped out, to either full body or possibly just upper body of the cast. As far as the other images linked above, number 3 would probably look best at low resolution, since the characters are arranged close together in a more square arrangement, only problem is no Sylar. I'm going to crop a high-res version of the one that's there now and upload it, and see how it looks in the article. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 11:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it turns out I'm having trouble with my photo software, so I can't crop it. The high-res version of the existing photo is here, though, so if anyone else has working software, they can try it. Based on looking at it, I'm reasonably confident that it would be possible to crop the image to include everyone head to toe and get none of the eclipse in the image. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 11:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Give me a minute, I'll upload it and replace the current image in the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, i think I might have cocked it up a bit. Could someone take a gander and retrofit? Sudden doings at work are impinging on my wiki time, the bastards. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

DVD released table (revisited)

I have been ignored in the previous post, so I decided to write again to gain attention. I don't know if you noticed, but I removed a bit of the table and changed it to prose. Do you like it? I'm thinking that we should take the dates of the complete season released, include in the block of text, and change the DVD table to the one like in LOST....see link in above post...not above post....above above post. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 14:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a good idea on improving the dvd sect, go ahead and do it. as long as the information is all there and encyclopedic, i dont think it really matters how you present it (prose or chart). alot of this page has been modeled after the lost page because the lost page is a featured article and similar in presentation to heroes. so, if you want to do something similar to what the lost page has done, then yes, i say do it and improve the section. i am sure if the other project members dont like, they will let you know how to improve it when you are done.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There. I think it looks much better. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

my mini-review

• Why is the infobox yellow? Wasn't it purple a few months ago?
• Why is the article all jumbled? Why did someone decide to put production at the top when it was originally closer to the bottom? Now you have DVD releases and Heroes: Origins infomation BEFORE infomation about the plot for the first two seasons, and the characters. Seems kinda backwards, huh? I find this much harder to read and understand then what it was a month or so ago.
• Mythology of Heroes seems like an article that would be great on the heroeswiki, but is a completely unwikipedian page. We should delete it and condense the relevant infomation into the main article. dposse (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: the order - I agree. We need to know what the show is about before we learn how it is made. While I think the entire structure could probably be tweaked, I've just moved "Plot" and "Characters" up to #1 and #2 for now. This way, we learn a) what the show is about; b) who the main players are; and then c) how and why it is that way. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually for once I agree with you Ckatz. I never did like the order, I just never brought it up because....well I don't know why. But I don't agree that Mythology of Heroes is unwikipedian. Why delete it when so much work has been put into it. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 02:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ckatz too. Looks good. Ckatz, your arguement makes sense and I support you on this one. I also agree with wikirocks. I think we should keep mythology, but not because a lot of work went into it, but because it is well source and isnt a bunch of OR and POV. It is factual fictional elements of the series and it is well, well well sourced.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Before we all jump on the wagon, let's take a look at the format for some GA and FA articles about other shows, and note how they are structured, and follow that template. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

funny you should say that user:arcayne, because that is just what i was doing. i just looked at all the featured articles under the television wikiproject and they all vary. some have cast first, some have production first, some have characters first and some have plot synopses first...it all varies, but their is no majority or standard that all the pages follow. if we want to follow the Lost module, we can revert it back, however, if you check all all the featured article, all of them are different and are organized differently. some are like the lost model, a lot are not. like i said, some start with cast, some start with characters, some start with plot, some start with production. you can review the list yourself of featured television articles if you need to ref for yourself. Click Here to review other FA television articles--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, i had already reviewed them, Chris. I just wanted someone else to do so as well. Why we chose a particular arrangement is going to come up in FA roundtable (and we should be aiming for FA; otherwise, we are simply wasting our time), so we should know why we are choosing one format over another. I think that the plot, then cast, then production seems to make the most sense. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, great!! I am glad a lot of users are on the same page about FA status. Yeah, about the same time you posted that message I was reviewing other FA articles under the Television wikiproject. So, yeah, you and ckatz make great sense about why the ordering is important, especially for a mainstream show like heroes, where a lot of new viewers are constantly being reintroduced. okay, yeah, i agree. cant wait until this article gets a FA star. we got lots of work to do to get there, but we all seem committed to the project and can do it.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I am moving this article to the peer review section. Please take all your talk to THIS PAGE--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Saving the World: A Guide to Heroes Book

Just wondering if this book is notable enough for inclusion in the article...maybe under promotions, fandom and pop culture. I have the book and read it. I do not like the book, as it is full of speculation and unsourced statements. And, none of the production crew or cast participated in the book. Most of the quotes are taken from other sources, newspapers, periodicals and television interviews. However, it still is the only book, unofficial or not, about Heroes and the series. So, I am not sure if it is notable enough for inclusion under the fandom section or if it should not be added at all. I dont think it should go under books and publications because it is not an official heroes release. Any thoughts?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For the reasons you just cited, I'd also oppose the use of that as per WP:RS. It's not endorsed nor participated in by anyone 'in the loop', and probably resembles what this page would become if there weren't so many of us fighting the crufties, but with better Graphic design and more pictures. I'd wager half of the citations it would have to show would go back to 9th wonder and other fan boards, and probably the history of this very article, LOL. For the same reasons, I agree with NOT including it on the page. That would be like remarking on every fan-calendar, fan forum, and fan-book for Star Wars, Star Trek, Quantum Leap, or any other such 'guide to' book. ThuranX (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Character Information on the Main Page Only: Should it be a List, Chart or Prose?

Greetings wikipedians!! There isnt a wikipedia policy or standard for listing characterr/cast information on a television article. I reviewed all the featured articles for a television series, and noticed that all the articles present the character/cast section differently. Some have displayed it as a list, some as a chart and some as prose. We need to come to concensus, since their is no exact wikipolicy on how the information should be presented. Please list your thoughts and ideas on how the character/cast info should be presented. Currently, it is a chart. If you want feel it should be changed to a list, prose or remain as a chart, please explain your side so that the information can be presented. If you already discussed the issue in the heroes peer review, please restate your opinion here so that we can come to a concensus. Thanks! Also, we are discussing the character chart on the main page, not the character chart on the List of Heroes characters article--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the list is clunky. We should write it into prose, per WP:PROSE. However, we need to keep things brief and to the point. This article should act as a main portal of sorts with basic infomation only. Having long paragraphs will not make this into a good article. That's what their character articles are for. dposse (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I also support prose, or at least a list. –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You just contradicted yourself. If it's prose, it cannot be a list since it is already a list. dposse (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that prose is my first choice and a list is my second choice. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WOW! The new version is just....wow. I love it! ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 08:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Arrgh... didn't see your post here. Anyway, I've reverted the change, not out of a desire to retain the old chart, but because I really don't think the table (which seems to have come from List of Heroes cast members is appropriate for the main page. It offers no information whatsoever about the characters, other than how many episodes they have been in. There needs to be something that helps the reader to understand the series. (Yes, there are links, but it doesn't work if you have to click through multiple links and read 18 different articles when you just want an overview. Certainly, lets discuss the idea, and if there's consensus, make the change. Given the fact that it is such a radical change, however, I really feel we should discuss it first. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

DVD cover

Could we get a copy of the DVD cover for the DVD section? ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 07:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, because they are almost always excluded under FU as decorative. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)