Talk:Heroes (American TV series)/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Heroes (American TV series). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

formerly from archive 15

Philippines/Asia

Why isn't The Philippines under the Asia category in the stations broadcast section? Please correct this I am a Filipino and it is quite an ignorant mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.49.164.78 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 29 May 2007.

First, start a new topic at the bottom of the page. Secondly, sign with your name. Thirdly, it's organised by the channel broadcasting Heroes. The countries in "Asia" are all broadcast on the same network, this is a different network to the one Heroes is shown on in the Philippines. Jacobshaven3 14:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Bennet's Real Name

WAUGH PUT IT UNDER A SPOILER WANING PLEASE D: - Yours annoyedly, an angry Autralian user with no account

Bennet revealed his real name as being 'Noah' to Peter in 'How To Stop An Exploding Man'. Is this enough confirmation to add to the character summary page?

Episode Count

I noticed that the episode count is set to 22 - shouldn't it be 23? There are 23 known episodes.

Coolspot 06:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Handgun not notable?

Oh, come on. If it's not, then neither are the symbol, the two marks, or the eclipse. If it weren't notable, they wouldn't make a special effort to make sure the viewer is able to recognize that specific gun every time it appears on the screen, complete with long closeups that no other gun in the show ever gets (and there have certainly been plenty of opportunities). Anything that has been specifically shown that many times definitely has more significance than something that hasn't. --Robotech_Master 02:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with you, though perhaps not to the same degree. The gun has been re-used in several places throughout the series, is distinctive in appearance, and has repeatedly received comments during the commentary episodes available at NBC. If only as a bit of trivia, the gun _is_ notable and should have some mention. I don't think that it is _as_ notable as the symbol/eclipse/marks, but it definitely deserves some mention.Valaqil 14:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Valaqil, The gun is notable, but only for the current storyline. This page is meant to general and board topics revolving around the whole show. The gun is not connected to every character. The symbol, the mark, and the eclipse all connect to the characters. (Mrja84 18:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC))

For what it's worth, according to the folks over on alt.rec.guns, the weapon is "a double stack M1911 Colt pistol with the slide drilled and an extended compensator." Whenever someone gets around to writing an entry that adds it back in. --Robotech_Master 23:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys talking about Jessica/Nikki's pistol? That's a HK p2000SK, not a m1911.ChronoSphere 03:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the funky-looking travelling gun that always seems to shoot sympathetic characters but not unsympathetic ones. Lately used by Isaac to accidentally shoot his girlfriend, and by Mohinder in an unsuccessful attempt to kill Sylar. There are apparently more than one of these guns, as they seem to end up in multiple places at once; perhaps they're the standard-issue sidearm of The Company. --Robotech_Master 05:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It is probably coincidence rather than an homage, but another Colt M1911 is one the Battle Royale weapons; in fact, it is the weapon that most often exchanges owners and IIRC the one that kills the most people in the whole series (at least in the Manga versions). Luis Dantas 12:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, if anyone wants to see the Usenet topic, it is here. Also, see the articles about (drilled) pistol slide and (extended) compensator aka muzzle brake. I do not know yet what a double stack is. According to the M1911 article this weapon is extensively customizable, so perhaps those three modifications are not really notable. Luis Dantas 11:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

Do we have a Heroes timeline somewhere? Considering that the show plays a lot with dates, I thought this would be relevant. I found this and this to be helpful as examples. GameCreator 21:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We have the episode articles and the character articles. I think that's enough. dposse 20:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a wiki, we can never have enough! Maybe have a link to the timeline, this sort of information does not need to be on the main page.--Lostcause365 14:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually we can... Wikipedia is indeed a wiki, but also a Encyclopedia, not a fan guide to a television series. As such, there CAN be too much at a point. If you can create a detailed timeline, that clearly illustrates some of the plotlines, and ties it all in with the various episodes, then I think it can be useful. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that you make that point, I do see your logic. And I agree with your assessment of what a timeline page should entail.--Lostcause365 15:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In defense of a possible timeline: the fact that we have so many individual articles would seem to justify (to me) the need to have something besides the main page and episode list that tie them together on a single page. And because this is not strictly a linear show (i.e. the episode titled Six Months Ago, Hiro's time travel, Peter's visions, etc.), a timeline would be that much more relevant. Just my thoughts. GameCreator 15:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sopranos has a timeline, and I find it most helpful. Heros will have to have multiple timelines, i.e., the organic unaltered, natural timeline, the First Altered Timeline (Hiro tells Peter Save the Cheerleader), the Second Altered Timeline (Early Hiro starts working to kill Sylar), and I suspect there are other altered timelines that will be revealed.--Raymm 18:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be nearly impossible to create a timeline on wikipedia. According to the director[1], he is using the theory used in many Science Fiction shows (most notably, Stargate SG-1) where there are an endless number of universes and timelines, due to the decisions that we make altering reality. That's the first huge problem with this plan. The second might be very well what wikipedia is not. Oh, and may i mention again for the record that it's unnecessary to create one, due to the episode and character articles? dposse 13:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that the first time Hiro teleported to NY in the early episodes, the bomb went off in broad daylight on November 8th. I don't know what changed, or what didn't.

Don't be a heal

Hayden's page credits Claire with a healing factor. AFAIK, this isn't established; she's unbreakable, but her disease or poison immunity aren't proven. Correction in order? Trekphiler 03:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Claire's healing factor could not be more established. Per the healing factor page "A healing factor is a term used to describe the ability of some characters in fiction to recover from bodily injuries or disease at a superhuman rate." If that doesn't sound like an apt way of describing Claire's power, I don't know what does. She's not unbreakable. She bleeds, her bones break, she's even died. She heals quickly and that's precisely what the term healing factor means. EvilCouch 06:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree with EvilCouch. If you watched the show, you know that she has the ability to heal. She survived a nuclear explosion (and the radiation from it), being cut apart and autopsied, ect. "Unbreakable" would be like bullets bouncing off of Superman. Bullets don't bounce off of her, she just cannot die from a bullet because she can heal. dposse 15:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally correct. NBC's promotional stuff (teasers and whatnot) tends to describe her as "indestructible," "unbreakable," or whatever, but she clearly can be broken. She just gets better really, really fast. BobGreenwade 15:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Third agreement here. Copywriters aren't always concerned with what the show's writers say and do. They rarely if ever run that copy by the show's writers, who have a far more important job. Citing advertisement text and voice-over for Wikipedia's a bad idea, It's like citing the janitor at the White House about bush's foreign policy intentions. ThuranX 22:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fourth agreement. Evidently she didn't become poisoned from the radiation, and she did indeed get shot as was mentioned above. She broke, has been broken, and recovered at a remarkable speed. Also, I don't doubt she can get sick; however, perhaps symptoms relieve themselves too quickly to be noted. Specusci 12:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Didn't Claire die earlier after the attempted rape, in the episode entitled "One Giant Leap"? She healed only when the coroner removed the stick that had impaled her skull. She died at the scene of the attempted rape and was then presumably transfered to the hospital where she would have been pronoucned dead. Afterwards, she would have been taken to the morgue for the autopsy. Claire has healed herself in very short order in all of her other "events," but in this case the time between her death and her healing seems to be very long. If I remember correctly, Claire only healed AFTER the coroner removed the stick from her skull. So it appears that Claire might have remained dead had no one been around to remove the stick. Claire could not remove the stick herself. Is that a possible oversight in the show, or am I missing something? It might be speculation only, but if this was not an oversight in the show, could we interpret Claire's inability to heal without outside action in this case as a sign that damage to her brain that is not somehow "undone" may be sufficient to keep her dead? My guess is that it was just an oversight in the show and it made for good TV to have her chest opened up on the coroner's table. 155.104.37.18 00:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that Peter didn't heal when he was "killed" by the panes of glass shot by Sylar until the pane (note the pun) was removed from his head by Claire. And, as I understand, Peter absorbed his healing ability from Claire, and presumably his healing ability has the same limits as hers.--Raymm 01:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I took it to mean that her healing factor doesn't work like Wolverine's; her body won't expell foreign matter, it'll just repair itself as soon as it is able to. I'd say that having her spit out the bullet in Company Man is a better example of done for the sake of good TV. EvilCouch 09:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

look at xmen 3 , wolvernie skin is comeing of but it grows back because of his healing factor- red 4/2

Her body was able to get rid of the bullet in her stomach. It's likely not a matter of her body not able to heal with something in side, it's that shes unable to heal with something preventing her brain from working. Peter has since mentioned this, that if he explodes aim for the head. All their powers seem linked to the brain, hense why Sylar is cutting their heads open to steal their power. (Rekija 01:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

The Helix

I just watched the Episode "Don't Look Back" and when Suresh shows the girl his father's code, it appears as ASCII art in the code. Just thought you'd like to know, not sure if it's in all instances of the code or just this one. Never done anything on Wikipedia, so I don't know the ettiquette as far as editing articles...so I just posted here.

The list is much better, but what about when Claire drew it on her notebook? --Lostcause365 18:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

sHE SAID SHE TOOK BIOLOGY IN UNEXPECTIED SHE COULD HAVE SEEN A PICURE OF IT AND DOODLED IT...MAYBE- RED 4/4

(1) Caps lock makes it look like you are shouting. (2) That's speculation. (3) If she drew it, that's a bit better than just the random "I saw it in the smoke!" appearances, and could probably be integrated into the list. Valaqil 16:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I always thought those smoke references were just that, SMOKE.--Lostcause365 17:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Where do we want to go with this information anyway? The last edit is "there is something resembling a helix floating there." I mean, we're now up to "I think I saw something that may look something like the helix". Why should we need to know every single moment the helix appears? I'd take all these off of the article. -- Lyverbe 13:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed that last edit, "there is something resembling a helix floating there". Right now, the infomation should stay as it's an important plot point which has yet to be revealed. You're right, we shouldn't know every time that the helix appears, perhaps that infomation would would better suited for the character/episode pages. When it is revealed what the helix has to do with anything, we will rewrite that section into prose. But for now, there's really nothing we can do except to wait and see what happens. dposse 20:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

An important plot point? I hardly believe it's anything else than the writers/producer/whoever having fun manipulating objects to make us look for the helix. I might see the importance of mentioning its presence on the haitian's necklace and Hiro's sword, but who cares about the layout of some rocks on a table. It's clearly like a "Play a game while watching the show: Find the helix!". This is why I really feel these observations should completely be removed from the article. -- Lyverbe 19:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I meant the infomation about Hiro's sword, the necklace, ect. Those pieces of infomation are important to the plot. What it means still has to be revealed. The fact is, the writers talked about it at a convention not too long ago, so it still seems like it's important. In the future, if there's nothing else to this helix or the other symbols, we can always move it to the episode pages. dposse 20:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Question: Why did you remove my addition of a place where the Helix appears? In my case it was not "something resembling a helix", but a clear helix drawn on the edge of Claire's book. Who decides that some instances should be mentioned and some not? Who decices that some instances are more important than others? xvrbx 18 April 2007

Choosing what is important or not regarding Helix sighting is Subjective. Remove them all or include them all, anything else has an unneutral POV. It's not anyone's right to decide if any sighting is more or less important unless it has a physical plot point involved (for instance the Helix that appears whenever Jessica is in control of Niki's body). (Just my two cents)Jacobshaven3 11:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand of dposse comment is that we should only mention where the Helix seems important. For instance, on the haitian's necklace, Hiro's sword and Jessica's "tatoo". A drawing on a book shouldn't be really relevant. But I do agree (as I said before) that these observations should all be removed. -- Lyverbe 12:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I recently re-watched several of the episodes to look for the "helix" shapes. I still think the drawing on Claire's notebook is significant. It is a clear drawing of the helix. (My personal favourite is the one floating in the pool @ the house where Parkman first demonstrates his power formed by a hose and 3 pool toys). Conversely, maybe a section called "Helix Appearances/References/Stylised Appearances/Shaped Objects needs to be created to house all of these non plot-important Helix sightings.--Lostcause365 15:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Significant, maybe, but it is important to the plot? Peter also drew it on a doodle of him flying. Just as clear of a drawing, but is it as significant? The list on the main page should be examples important to the plot. There can be another page listing all examples, but that's a bit fansitish. PureSoldier 15:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that a plain list of Helix-shaped symbol appearances in too fansitish (great word BTW). Maybe if there was also speculation about the symbol's meaning that would reek of a fan site. I believe that lists are a part of an encyclopedic article. _{Your comments, however, are greatly appreciated and respected by myself.}--Lostcause365 18:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the argument that this is an encyclopedic article, and any appearance of the helix is worth mentioning. In any case we shouldn'd be discussing this thing over and over. Let's agree on a decision :) xvrbx 19 April 2007

Think about it this way; if you would be reading this article for the first time and you'd get to this list of helix appearances, would you honestly start reading every line of this section? would you actually care to know about this? I wouldn't. -- Lyverbe 12:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that an exhuastive list would be an exercise in trivia, leading us to an WP:AVTRIV issue. There are a few significant sightings, which WP:COMMONSENSE can help us find. One, Hiro's sword: Not only does Ando specifically draw attention to it and give us a translation, but it appears on an object made 400? years ago, which one specific major POWERED character is drawn to. Two, The Haitian's jewelry: He wears it and thus, instead of the casual 'sightings' in clouds, spilled milk, and cigarette breath, we see it multiple times, and that he actually engages in a willfully and deliberate act (putting it on each morning), we can assume he's cognizant that it is on his person, and it probably has a meaning to him. Three, Jessica's tattoo: It indicates to the viewer which persona is in charge, making it a narrative device, and will probably eventually be a clue for Micah and his father. If there are more which can be so clearly reasoned out, let's do so, then fill out the section with something such as 'and has been seen briefly at least once per episode in pssing in an episode, either as decor in a building or structure, adorning some item as graffiti or art, or in some other less significant manner.' Some phrasing which summarizes that hte symbol is pervasive, but not always significant. ThuranX 00:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ThuranX on this. Only a few plot-significant occurrences should be mentioned. All the "symbol-in-the-food" stuff is too trivial. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 03:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Or let's keep it to only recurring, plot-significant occurances. We've seen in the helix in the algorithm several times, the Hatian's necklace multiple times, etc, etc.PureSoldier 13:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point the argument seems very speculative. I would think it would be better to include none of the specific sightings since including them all would clearly be a waste of space. The symbol has not had any impact on the plot yet and so we assume that it is some kind of foreshadowing or it could be just some NBC put in for fun. 70.7.107.165 07:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is on Hana's ring in the new graphic novel.

Count me in the camp of either all or nothing, on the grounds of subjectivity/objectivity reasons. As with all art in whatever form, it means different things to different people. I actually came here looking for where others have seen the figure; I was going to add in Mohinder's/Chandra's "algorith," the hose and misc. objects in the pool, and any others I happen to come across as I view the recent Sci-Fi marathon. But then I saw what I thought at the time was an absurd SGML comment about not adding that stuff. My personal hope would be to see anything and everything, but in reading the Wikipedia's guidelines on trivia, I can see this is clearly discouraged, and more appropriate for some other site. Joe 00:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Helix found in the last episode be noted as in episode "Generations", rather than "How to Stop an Exploding Man"? It was part of the preview of "Generations". It was also on the sword that the japanese warrior had. Does this mean he is Kensei? Packerbacker89 20:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ando etc. (arbitrary section break)

Forgive me if someone has mentioned this, but... I was under the impression that the main character was someone who events revolved around. As such, perhaps Hiro is a main character, as he is often a driving force to make things happen, but as has been said previously, Ando is a sidekick. A supporting character. As the journey Hiro took was, in fact, Hiro's, it doesn't really place Ando in any "main character" role. Originally, he was just Hiro's friend in Japan, and wasn't until Hiro took him with him to America that Ando really did anything notable. And even then, it wasn't that big. As opposed to Bennet, who certainly started off as a secondary character who showed up in various characters' stories (not unlike Linderman), he nevertheless began to have a larger role as the story itself focused on him for good portions of the time. Sorry if this was something of a rant, I just felt it was necessary to point out what a "main character" was. I mean, yeah, Ando is certainly an important character, but it's not necessarily a "starring" role. Now that I think of it, shouldn't we have a section for notable guest stars? -- MasterXiam 23:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it would be simple enough merely to note him in a "recurring first season guest stars" section, along with some others. It's not accurate to bill them as the show's stars, but it's also grossly misrepresentative to exclude them. The idea that Ando doesn't belong on the page is ludicrously misinformed. If the same standard were applied to Sylar that is applied to Ando---neither of them are credited as main cast members, after all---then he would not be mentioned on the main page either. It's a subjective judgment to put him up there, since he's deemed important despite being a "guest star." I will be adding a section to include notable guest stars. My standard of evaluation for who makes the list will be (1) guest stars, like Ando and Sylar, enjoy a significant amount of screen time (defined as a majority of episodes, minimum 12), (2) who are played by actors who are otherwise notable (like George Takei Clea DuVall, and Christopher Eccleston's characters), or (3) have appeared on the show and are revealed to have special powers. These will be included on a separate list. Guyminuslife 08:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you'll have to be prepared to support your "standard of evaluation" against Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, verifiability, and "no original research" (among others). If you make any sort of claim as to the notability of a character, it has to be based on what a reliable third-party source has written, *not* on your own assessment of screen time, number of episodes, and so on, and you will have to provide proper references. (By the way, it is in no way "grossly misrepresentative" to omit supporting actors from this article. Keep in mind that this is the main article, an overview of the series. We limit the list of characters in the same way that we don't go into extensive detail about the show's plot - that is what the "see also" links to related articles are for. Characters are in the "list of characters" article, and this page should *not* attempt to duplicate that page.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Your addition has been removed. It is excessive and subjective - there is no need to double the length of the section. If any characters are added at all, they should be as simple name mentions with links. Please discuss this further. --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guidelines for determining whether a character is "major" or minor are kept intentionally vague. Arguably, Heroes has several major characters who aren't credited as regular cast members. I think screen time is as objective a criterion as any, (this is reflected on, say, IMDB credits, which is the source I used and neglected to cite) and I would say that notable guest actors confer notability to their respective characters. I am, however, not going to get into an add/delete war over this; and besides which, after compiling the list, I felt that it made the character section a bit long anyway. I do think that certain important characters with guest credits are worth putting on the main page---especially Ando---but I'm not going to give myself a headache for the sake of arguing about it. Guyminuslife 08:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We appreciate your desire NOT to argue. It's really simple, man. Even if WP guidelines are vague, regular editors on the page have repeatedly established and maintained a consensus that NBC's press releases and official listings of Main Characters by their crediting is a good threshold for our list on this article. Matching that is the most concrete way to avoid the very discussions that we keep repeating over and over anyways. Not using that guideline would at first let, reasonably, Ando and Sylar in. But soon we'd see people demanding Ted, because his character's power was central to the big boom. Then Hana, because she's so important to the story, (see thi comics, of course) if not the show. Then someone else, and so on and so on. It'd get huge fast: Charlie's death inspired Hiro's quest... Matt makes choices to save his wife... Thompson knows a lot more than he's saying... and so does Angela... and on, and on, and on. Using the credits is a simple binary solution. either they're listed by NBCas a main character or not. ThuranX 11:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Simone Deveaux

Why do the edits stating Simone's death get removed? It is a confirmed plot element and a part of her character's story.--Lostcause365 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd wonder that myself...if we're going to stick with NBC's cast stratification and call her a main character, than I can't see how her death is "unneccessary information".--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually more concerned that we seem to ignore crucial information simply because the network has not published it on its various sites. This is the 1st edit, however, that I felt worthy of defense, due to its factual accuracy.--Lostcause365 21:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if its verifiability that somebody is making an issue of, one can always just use Template:cite episode as a citation.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I just don't want a WP:3RR battle going on over a trivial piece of information--Lostcause365 22:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The question has "edits" with a 's', which should never happen. Debates must be discussed in the talk page. Articles are not fight zones. As for my point of view on the matter, I also agree that this piece of information should not be there because it doesn't describe the character of Simone, but rather state a moment of the show. It's like if we needed to say "Niki is the one who killed the men who went to get her money". -- Lyverbe 13:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lyverbe. The infomation about Simone's death is not needed here because it's an unnecessary spoiler which deserves to stay on that character's own page. This page is basically a portal which gives a brief description of what Heroes is. The main ideas and nothing else. Details should go where details are supposed to go, on the character pages and episode pages. Any infomation about deaths have no place here. dposse 20:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Lyverbe (and Dposse) about the main article being an overview. By the same token, we should start making plans for Season Two, given that there is talk of a large-scale shift in the character list. If this is the case, I'd like to see the "main characters" section here sub-sectioned into "Season One" and "Season Two". That approach (I hope) might help to avoid a series of changes and reverts as editors remove Season One actors in favour of Season Two actors. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat _spy 22:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If that's true, then that sounds like a good idea. dposse 00:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's another argument for leaving it out...

POTENTIAL SPOILER FOLLOWS

There are now rumours that Simone isn't actually dead, and that she'll return in the season finale. (I'm not suggesting we add this info yet, just mentioning it as yet another reminder that death is so very temporary in television...) --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. For now, all we know is that she's dead. We just have to wait for a more reliable source (like actually waiting to see what happens in the show) before we do anything. dposse 12:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have is with the wording "The main cast, not all of whom have been shown to possess powers, currently consists of:" This should be changed otherwise you'll have edits like the one I made (which obviously got reverted) that moved Simone to the former recurring character list. 68.146.41.17 15:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Character Details

Could i suggest removing the fact that Nathan Petrelli is Claire Bennet's biological father from the main Heroes page? Personally I don't think the main page should contain any big spoilers as if any new viewer (for example, Heroes won't be shown on terrestial UK television until June) was to come on to this page they stand the risk of ruining future episodes - and the identity of Claire's real father is a big spoiler to read if you've only seen a handful of episodes. By the same token I think its a great thing that it doesn't say beside Simone's name that she's now dead. A little bio info is ok but not to the extent that it actually spoils the enjoyment of the show.

What are your views? <The dead don 18:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've removed it. There is no particular reason why this one detail needs to be on the main page, as opposed to many other facts about individual characters. --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh... there is a spoiler warning... Wikipedia is not censored for people who haven't seen a show yet. I have to avoid all Stargate articles because most episodes have already aired in Canada, but not in the US. It's inconvenient, but we don't censor those pages for US citizens either. If information has been aired in a show, it's fair game to mention in articles about that show. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 19:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if I wasn't clear - I'm not anti-spoiler. However, there is a place for things, and details such as Claire's parentage - when they are such a major plot twist - arguably do not need to be in the main article. Her article, Nathan's article, the episode where it happens - certainly. This page, however, is a brief overview of the characters and the show in general. --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. Even if there's a spoiler warning, it doesn't mean that we must put spoilers. We still only put them in if we really need to. Someone who only wants to know what the show is about doesn't have to have all the picky details. -- Lyverbe 01:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with CKatz. Major plot twists like who someone's parents are or who dies should stay on the character and episode articles. dposse 17:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. That's what the spoiler warning is for. If you (or anyone else) doesn't want to know, don't read the page!--Gillespee 17:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on this specific detail, but in general, we do not censor "spoilers" if they haven't been aired everywhere yet. Whether or not this detail is important enough to warrant mentioning in the main article, I'll leave to you. But once it has aired anywhere in the world, it is fair game.↔NMajdan•talk 15:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we're missing the larger issue here. This page is to serve as an overview, not to detail specifics about the characters. In fact, once the character blurbs have been established, there should be no need to change them, only to add new characters in season 2 and beyond.--Lostcause365 17:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The page however lies. The current cast does not consist of all these people. Tawny Cypress and Santiaga Cabrera's characters are dead. If people don't want to be spoiled, they should go to an censored page, which Wikipedia is NOT. I'm not saying we need to mention their deaths in the article, but we should remove them as main characters from the page. --71.239.131.201 20:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You're forgetting that the article reflects the series as a whole, not as a moment in time. Those twelve are the main characters, and being dead as of one particular episode doesn't remove you from main character status in the larger work. --Ckatz^chat _spy 21:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mrs. Peterilli

In 0.7% Mrs. Peterilli tells Claire she had her ability. So deoes this means she can heal?- RREDD13 22:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What? What gives you the idea that she can heal? Nathan is her dad and he can fly, her mom can start fires. It's currently unknown what her powers are, but i suppose that we'll find out soon. dposse 22:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You wrote the header "Mrs. Peterilli" (instead of "Petrelli"). Interesting mistake! :) -- Lyverbe 00:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

She did not reveal what her power is, although there was a definitely pregnant pause where I was waiting for her to say or show us what her ability is. I would suspect it is somehow related to Eden's power, that is to say: Influence. But that is PURE conjecture. If I may be allowed, I am guessing her influence, rather than one on one as Eden's was, is more diffuse with a much wider area of effect (statewide? national? global?). Imagine the usefulness of a person that could nudge a national election a few points one way or the other? --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 15:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand the conjecture that RREDD13 is hinting at (or possibly just impossibly luckily guessing at). There is a hint in Hana Gitelman's research ("Congratulations on your marriage to Au Co...." Signed by everyone except "Dallas" Petrelli) that Mrs Petrelli may actually be Au Co.

Wait who's Au Co?

Read Graphic Novel War Buddies Pt. 4, No Turning Back http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/novels/downloads/Heroes_novel_027.pdf] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.173.226.232 (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Where exactly is this "Congratulations on your marriage to Au Co...." message? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 17:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

On page seven of War Buddies, Part 5, Petrelli is seen at home in his living room. The woman with him looks very much like Mrs. Petrelli from the show, and nothing like Au Co. Also seen is a young boy playing with an airplane and a humanoid figure with wings--both are toys that involve flight. Au Co was a young Vietnamese girl; Mrs. Petrelli is a Caucasian woman who appears to be roughly the same age as "Dallas" Petrelli. She's not Au Co. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 19:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Gitelman document is located at [2] She posted it on 4/10/2007. You may be right ΣΕ, but it seems like an odd coincidence.

I always took that as a code for where Dallas' mission was going to be and the names of his team mates... though I guess it's possible. Jacobshaven3 11:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you all in on a little secret. That message is code. "marriage" is code for success, after they had terminated Au Co. Plus, Mrs. Petrelli's powers are...different.PureSoldier 14:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by different?- RREDD13 02:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

They involve some form of getting from point A to point B. PureSoldier 17:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

From watching the show and reading the comics I don't see anything other than her influence on close family and friends to suggest that she has an influencing/persuasion power. If she has a power, I doubt it will be that.

Remove deaths

How about we remove the dead charater from the home page. We wouldn't delete the entries in the List of characters in Heroes also when we edit the pages we don't have to go through the dead characters?- RREDD13 00:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Per the discussion three sections above that would constitute a major spoiler. Major spoilers should not appear on the main article. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 00:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, as per another spoiler, certain "dead" characters will be returning.PureSoldier 15:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not go with the deletion of dead characters. Just because their dead, doesn't removed them as a main cast member. 207.160.251.38 12:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Addition of information to the section 'The Helix'

I recently added a piece of completely true information to a section in this article, only to find the article had been updated, and this information removed, a few hours later with no real reason or explanation. I'm wondering why this may be? Any light you can shed on this and maybe why this true information was removed would be great. I thought that this would be useful for other readers and fans of the series. Was I wrong in doing this? Cheers.

The information I added under the 'The Helix' heading was:

On the surface of the swimming pool in Episode 2 'Don't Look Back'.

--Chaproy 21:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read the rest of the talk page. Only plot-significant occurrences are to be added to the article. The myriad background occurrences are not notable. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 21:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I see all the furore now. Quite exciting reading really. I am new to this, and now I see how this whole system works. I can't say I understand why some entries are allowed to stay and not others as they are all equal in so far as they refer to the symbol but there you go, not point it dwelling. After reading some of the issues surrounding this matter, and to prevent the further addition and deletion of things from this article (as it seems to be done frequently - much to some people's anger it seems, to which I wholeheartedly sympathsise), I think it would be wise to maybe have another page that lists all sightings of the Helix within the show. Also it is definitely worth stipulating on the page that the current list is by no means definitive and that an exhaustive list could be found elsewhere....follow link to suggested page. This will almost certainly help.--Chaproy 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What we could do instead is move all of them to the episode articles. dposse 22:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this sounds like a very sensible resolution. To avoid confusion, I think it is worth stipulating in the main article that all these references can be found in the respective episode guides. And, the list there only displays a handful of examples (I know that it has been said that the current list is supposed to display plot driven examples. This current list, however, is arguable; save that for another time and certainly not here because I doubt anyone is interested). Otherwise, I feel you'll receive a constant barrage of people adding and removing to this list of 'Recurring Elements' demanding explanations and then arguing over which should or should not be included. Anyways, you have my thoughts. Cheers for the replies and input.--Chaproy 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would love to see a proper listing of all helix sightings. I think they are all important, as the symbol has been repeatedly thrust in our collective faces.--Lostcause365 00:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence immediately preceding the list of occurrences states: "This symbol frequently appears as a pattern formed by mundane objects, but it also recurs on certain plot-significant items and on several characters" (emphasis added). That notice should be sufficient the discourage the addition of "OOOOHH I SAW IT IN TEH POOL !!!1!!1111" stuff. I also put in a hidden HTML comment directly aboe the list. Things directly related to the characters, i.e. Jessica's tatoo, Hiro's sword and the Haitian's necklace are important. other stuff SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED! - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 00:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, SigmaEpsilon, chill out. Second of all, as a recommendation, you should read and understand what others have written before you resort to unecessary use of CAPS LOCK and exclamation marks. If I can just copy and paste exactly what my point was above which clearly states (displayed for you again in case you missed it the first time or read above) "...I know that it has been said that the current list is supposed to display plot driven examples. This current list, however, is arguable..." you should hopefully see what my original point was. To explain it plainly, the current list is tenous. Personally, I can't understand why the "catch all" term of "On various paintings by Issac Mendez" holds anymore relevance or plot siginficance than seeing this symbol in a pool, on Suresh's computer screen, on the Haitian's necklace, or as a logo for Primatech Paper, in "Company Man", for example. To say that "the placement of the helix here is more relevant than it's placement there" is laughable. Each sighting of this symbol is equally as significant as the other. Otherwise, what is the point of putting it there in the first place? They are all there for a reason. It seems to me (and to others judging by some of the comments posted here) that too many "fanboys" of this series are too akin to having this article written the way they want it and refuse to listen others points of view. Whether this is true or not is up to others to decide, I'm merely stating my opinion on this. But to finish I'll leave you with one final though from "Lyverbe" who posted this comment on this very discussion page below "...Whatever it is, people must stop edit wars. It's childish...". I give up on this now. Thanks very much for reading thus far.--Chaproy 01:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear!--Lostcause365 02:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Look. Not every occurence is signifiacant. Those that tie directly to a character are. Stuff about Greyhound signs and pools, or images in food, broken glass, and smoke are far too excessive. "Fanboys" are the ones insisting on excessive, unnecessary levels of detail. Mendez' paintings are far more significant that some background details floating in a pool. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 03:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

My Dear ΣΕ,

Try to knock off the use of perjorative terminology, and be civil eh? You aren't helping by ranting and raving about how everyone who disagrees with your view is a fanboy, L33+ speaker, or crufter. I personally am a big fan of adding the pool toys to the list, if only because I was totally shocked to spot that and it was the first time I had seen it made "mundane" objects, but the consensus (or at least the vocal crowd such as yourself) isn't with me, so I let it go. Take a chill pill, d00d. This message bought to you by the forces of goodness and decency, as self-appointed by WookMuff 06:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This "discussion" is getting more and more personal (ie. name calling) and getting away from the article. Perhaps you both should consider personal messages. -- Lyverbe 13:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear at the flags of the sumrai army in the last episode. Instead it appears on the flag of the one samurai (IMHO Kensei) the army wants to fight. I'm not able to correct it - maybe someone is? 84.56.202.209 19:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cockroach

I think the cockroach should be included in the list of recurring elements. It is mentioned in the first episode in Mohinder Suresh's lecture, where he proposes that if God made anything in God's own image, it would be a cockroach. It then appears at least several times throughout the series thus far (such as when Sylar is being held in the hidden cell in Primatech Paper). Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? How often should something appear in order to be considered a recurring element? Zorander22 02:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely more than twice... - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 03:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It apeared in episode 19, again in a cell in Primatech... talk about lousy pest control. Vicco Lizcano 13:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC) ^{(Hey! Listen!)}

Though it may appear more than once... not once has it been a plot-important figure. You could just as easily say that "every hero dies with their eyes open" is a recurring element (which it is not, just a coincidence)--Lostcause365 15:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the "cockroach will inherit Earth" is not something new, it has been known for years, therefore is not an "element" of the series. It's just a theory that is mentioned in the series.

Unless at the next episodes we discover there's a plot and that cockroaches are involved somehow, I say that "Cockroaches as a Heroes' element" would be OR. Garavello 23:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Cockroaches are tied in with the concept of another species (the heroes) being more evolved or superior to humans (from Mohinder's opening speech). They also are linked to the idea of a divine plan at work (as they are proposed as the true image of God). If they had just appeared randomly without introduction, I would agree that they wouldn't deserve the status of recurring element. However, their being mentioned the very first time we meet Mohinder combined with what he's saying about them puts cockroaches in the status of recurring element, at least in my mind. Perhaps future episodes will help clarify one way or the other. Zorander22 06:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

He was just trying to explain evolution, nothing more. dposse 14:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with dposse.--Lostcause365 04:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A cockroach appears in the finale, on the manhole cover (Syler crawls? into) right at the end of volume 1. This definitly needs to be a recurring theme!

It is not a recurring theme at all, and not even close to being notable. The cockroach at the beginning of the series is used to explain how the concept of Evolution works. At the end, you saw a cockroach because they wanted to add a small inside joke that brought the series full circle. That's it. It's not a theme. It's not plot significant. End of story. dposse 12:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, the Cockroach is about as recurring as the eclipse, it does seem to be a 'theme' they have running through season 1, the first 2 episodes of season 1, both when Sylar and Matt were heald at Primatech Paper and at the end of "Volume 1". I don't see how you can make the arguement that the The eclipse is a reccuring element, but the Cockroach isn't because it's not plot important. What plot significance does the eclipse actually have? I think at the very least it is worth a mention somewhere on the page Zurtex

The eclipse is seen at the end of "How to Stop an Exploding Man", so it's obviously important to the plot. What it means is unclear. The cockroach is just a symbol for evolution, nothing more. dposse 16:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And your point is? The scar is listed as a recurring element, but all it is is the mark left by the two pronged needle to track "special people" using the "old system" that used radio isotopes. Not even all heroes have it. The cockroach has been there since the first chapter. Further, if we go by Suresh's postulation that the heroes are the next evolutionary step, the cockroach is even more important since it was his original suggestion as to what the "pinnacle of evolution" would be. tendim 17:15:51 EST May 22 2007.

My point is the scar is a plot significant thing, that is referenced in the Graphic Novels and the series in MULTIPLE episodes. The scar actually affects the characters and the plot. A character is bringing an end to the tracking system that's linked to the scar by going up in a rocket. The cockroach, however, is just a piece of symbolism for Evolution. It has no significance to the plot. It is only shown in two episodes so far. The rooftop is show in more episodes, and that was shot down as a recurring element. dposse 21:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And there are net theories about Sylar learning to play dead from the cockroach, which is highly significant because it keeps him alive throughout the course of the series. Combine his learning to play dead with the cockroach crawling around the rim of the manhole cover, and you have an instant link between the "villain" and the pinnacle of creation: Sylar escapes (again) thanks to playing dead, and the cockroach is there to remind us about how he learned this skill. Further, this is about Heroes the TV Series, not the graphic novel. You are making assumptions of the TV Show based on the GN, and as we all know, the TV/movie adaptations don't always follow GN's. :) The cockroach appears in at least seven episodes. Also, referring to the rooftop is a poor example since it is a geographical element, not necessarily a recurring symbol. Heck, my argument about the scar still stands: it's just that, a scar. If you wanted to use the scar as a symbol you might as well make a link to the symbolism of peoples heads resembling empty bowls when Sylar is done with them, symbolizing Sylar's "consumption" of their power. In fact, the only two symbols that make impact thus far, as shown in the TV Series, are the symbol and the eclipse. tendim 22:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Net Theories" are simply that, theories. And the graphic novels are inked to the Heroes series as a whole, expanding the Heroes' universe. The scar is something that are proved over and over that are something created by the plot. But the cockroach still has to be shown as something related or told by the producers/writers that are something related to the plot. Garavello 22:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, "net theories' can be verified as possible theories, and until proven otherwise they should still be taken at face value. My previous argument remains: you can not refer to the GRAPHIC NOVEL when we are discussing the TV SERIES, they are distinct. While it is true that the GNs (and I use the term "GN" loosely since they are not conventional GNs) offer additional information to the plot, that information does not necessarily carry over to the TV Series. For example, why is there nothing about the way that Chandra Suresh's completely destroyed taxi cab in the TV show? Because introducing an element from the GN into the show, when not everyone reads the GN but they *do* watch the show, wouldn't make sense. Now, if this was "Heroes" in general, and not "Heroes (TV Series)" the GN would be fair play. But until then, it isn't. If you want to argue that the cockroach hasn't made any significant contribution to the plot, then what contribution has the eclipse made? There isn't any direct factual evidence showing that the eclipse has anything to do with the plot of the series, other than an interesting visual effect. tendim 23:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said: The GN are part of the Heores series, as its expands and explains some occurrences (the connection between Linderman and the Petrellis for example and how Ted escaped and discovered about the hypo gun). It's not separate entities, the GNs are continuations of the series. Just like the Heroes 360 Experience, it's something that completes and expands the heroes TV Series, and doing so, can be related to the series itself without problem.

And the eclipse is mentioned by NBC on its page [3] and by Tom Kring himself [4], so it's a element related to the plot.

So far, no writer/producer talked about the cockroach as being something important to the plot. Garavello 23:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do the recurring elements have to be something directly related to the plot? I think that the purpose of many recurring elements is to add another layer on to the story, to provide more depth through symbolism than would otherwise exist. Thus far, the eclipse has not proven to be a significant plot element as tendim has already pointed out, though it is a recurring symbol. The same is true with the helix, the helix itself has not really been plot significant, its significance has been symbolic. I believe the same is true with the cockroach. To claim that Mohinder's opening speach only used the cockroach as an example of evolution, given the way he was presenting it, is to ignore the symbolic power placed in it. Continuing to ignore the cockroach as a recurring element, after it has appeared numerous times, and having our attention drawn to it in the finale of volume one, seems like a big oversight to me. Zorander22 15:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think people are forgetting that the cockroach isn't just seen with Sylar. It was seen when Parkman was imprisoned in the company's interrogation rooms.

I have so many responses to this, I'm going to try to run through them fast:

Cockroaches can be 'wrangled' easily, making them a great candidate for emphasizing mood and atmosphere in a setting, especially for dirty, dingy, dank, disgusting, and other descriptive detail D words.
For a production that was lacking budget, a close-up of one cockroach can convey that mood better than wrangling 50 to scatter when a light turns on.
Even accepting the 'full circle' theory regarding Mohinder and evolution, its' appearances bookending the first volume can be taken as a literary device emphasizing the 'full circle' and not as a sign of something bigger.
Not everything is a theme or motif, or 'recurring element' of any sort. The rooftop's a SET. It's a room artifically constructed inside a studio. That's expensive. Using it as a 'nexus' where characters meet and interact over and over makes good business sense and allows the production to take place. If we're going to navel-gaze so much that we start seeing hints of Olympus or the JLA's satellite there, we're so far into OR we won't ever get back. The Helix matters, the writers have said so repeatedly, as cited elsewhere in the article and here on the talk.

I think that some editors are enjoying the show, and enthusiastically search so hard for clues that some simpler common sense realities are being overlooked and dismissed. I'm not insulting anyone, I geeked for 2 hours with a friend across the country about the finale; but we must be cautious and rational in our capacity as editors. That often means applying Occam's Razor. The production blog about the Chalkboard plot-hole/bad writing shows that the show's been under budget constraints; thus using a set as much as possible saves costs more than it indicates some hidden meaning. Let's try to keep this logical, and cited. (For the record, I did briefly wonder if Molly's badder boogyman wasn't using the roaches, and maybe all insects, as spies, but that might just be the post-'The Other' Spiderman stories speaking. I'll refrain from all other supposition.) ThuranX 20:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to know that other people agree with me that the Cockroach is a recurring theme. However, I've already been messaged directly telling me that I am in violation of WikiLaw by adding in the section continuously, even though they seem to ignore the continuous undos of other Wiki users (whose actions are also in violation of WikiLaw). If some other people would like to re-add the cockroach seciton, or add one of their own, PLEASE DO and do not let a few overzealous editors control the state of the page. tendim 05:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is good to know that we're not alone. I've already added a section and had it removed. This has been an eye opening process for me... the tyranny of the majority in terms of knowledge. Hopefully future episodes will provide more evidence (one way or the other). Zorander22 23:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

An interesting article about the significance of the cockroach can be found here: http://www.buddytv.com/articles/heroes/heroes-zach-quinto-confirmed-f-7406.aspx

Recurring Elements Endgame

I'm looking to see how much support/opposition there would be if I created a separate page for The Recurring Elements. The reason I ask instead of going ahead and doing it is because some people will just revert it and I'm not wasting my time if that is going to happen. This page will give a place to all of those NON plot-intrinsic occurances (and about that, how come nobody mentioned the "eclipse in the hospital light" thing as cruft?), as well as highlight all of the important ones. --Lostcause365 17:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea to me... my vote is go for it :) Zorander22 21:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The eclips is going to happen the day the bomb/exploding man happens. it just seems a bit obvious to me. -wonder

I disagree. I think that placing the Elements within the seperate episode articles would be a good idea instead. dposse 14:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You disagree and then you state that you agree?

I disagree about making a seperate article for it. However, i'd agree to a plan to merge all the infomation to the character/episode articles. dposse 13:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with this idea. I'm so sick and tired of this "Helix" section that is responsible for almost 70% of the edits... -- Lyverbe 11:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Yamagato Fellowship

Are they working on including http://yamagatofellowship.org/index.shtml Kaito Nakamura's website? and doesn't Linderman have one too and also Nathan P.?OuryLN 23:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Information on such would be at the Heroes 360 experience article. It's got a link in this article, look there. (I also reformatted your comment for space.) ThuranX 02:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

X-Men

Why is there no mention that this show is clearly influenced by and probably inspired by the X-Men films? Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 02:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It has. Many Times. read the talk page, read the archives. There are NO meritorious citations about it, and given the fact that Stan Lee and the early X-writers looked to other characters and such, and that since then, thir innovations have become pervasive, making such ties would be difficult. Anything done here first would be Original Research. ThuranX 02:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The shows creator has said several times he has never read a comic or seen a comic book film. He was inspired by watching The Incredible's and I think another film he watched straight after. Although the writers have done comics before, I'd say that means that in no way is it based on X men, though some stories (Five years gone = days of future passed) may have a comic book origin. Actually, I believe theres a citation for that episode and that comic being compared by the writers... I'll go find it. Jacobshaven3 11:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Error

There is an erro in the article. In the right menu, there are 23 episodes.

Sorry, but what are you talking about? I don't see an error. And please, sign your comments. — « hippi ippi » 10:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

ARE YOU ON THE LIST?

A few weeks ago, someone posted the list on the recurring elements page. It was taken down about five minutes later. Why is that? I think the list i extremely important. The third story arc of tghe series was based on the list. Also, I think we need to change the Primatech paper page to the COMPANIES Page. Wouldnt that make more sense, because a lot of the company was revealed in the HARD PART and we know Linderman has ties to the company, primatech and thompson. Please consider adding these important elements to the show. I think THE LIST would be interesting to have posted, because tim kring has been taking names off the list and making them minor characters like sparrow, candice wilmer and charlise andrews —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.168.220.243 (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Heroes: Origins

If anyone can find any extra infomation on this new spinoff, please add it to the article. thanks. dposse 17:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Not much about at the moment, but I'll keep an eye out. Berym 23:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Helix Apperence

The helix appears in the phonebook for the bladesmith entry. That should be added.

It's not significant to the plot and thus not notable. dposse 17:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

WHAT??? i mean come on clearly it's notable in the phone book since it was what drew them to the store (and it was likely used by Hiro's dad to draw them to the store). If this isn't notable then NONE of the current list are notable. Harlock jds 12:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not significant? If not in the phonebook, it should be noted for being in the shop. Hiro points to it and calls it by name. That seems important to the plot.

I agree with the anon's comment. It's just as notable as many other entries in the Helix section.Berym 23:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This damn helix appearance topic will never end. Put it in a separate article and let people fill it with anything they want. Just leave this article as is. -- Lyverbe 11:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, either the article mentions every major use of the helix (and I would qualify the use of the helix in the sword shop - given it's the scene of part of the episode - major, especially compared to "Well it's on Claire's book") or it has a general overview of the helix symbol and links to a seperate article containing all known appearances of it. Berym 23:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What makes a use of the symbol significant? I mean who gets to tell? The OR argument is used over and over on this page but here it seems that it's up to the editors of the page to decide what is significant or not. I think you should go with Berym's second idea and remove the appearances from the first page and just keep a general overview.193.11.209.134 21:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We have got to remove these annoying Helix appearances. We keep editing the article just because of them. People just don't understand which appearances are important and which aren't. Lets make it simple, remove them all and end this neverending topic. -- Lyverbe 01:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

DL

Surely he's a formerly escaped criminal? If Peter is a former nurse, after all. Berym 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

He still is an escaped criminal. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 23:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when Niki handed herself in she told them where the bodies were and that she did it. So DL is a free man. Otherwise, why wouldn't Micah have been put into a home whilst his mother was in prison. Jacobshaven3 13:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Then he'd be a former convict, former criminal immplies he was guilty. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 14:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

True. They do, IIRC, mention at one point that he's a free man(and the police stop hunting him); he tries to get work and so on and raise Micah honestly after Nicki goes to jail. Technically he -was- an escaped criminal... then he was absolved of his crimes, though we don't know to what degree (whether he was given accessory and time served or what). Regardless, it remains so that he is no longer an escaped criminal. Berym 23:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to edit the section on DL, please note why you have. He, like Peter Petrelli, is a -former-. If Peter is a former nurse, DL is just as rightly so a former criminal (since he has been cleared of all charges). Berym 10:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since he was unjustly placed in prison, he's not a former criminal... Jacobshaven3 11:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless if he was unjustly placed in prision, he still commited criminal acts. 65.42.26.190 15:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"Escaped criminal" implies that he remains on the run. He was released and absolved of his crimes. He is -not- an escaped criminal. He was tried and convicted of crimes he did not commit (I'm actually trying to remember if he's actually performed crimes in the show, beyond the break and enter and petty theft stuff that most of the characters seem to have performed at some point - such as Hiro and the sword). I've altered the entry to report "jailed for crimes he did not commit" - which is entirely true (since Jessica was the actual guilty party for the crimes he was jailed for), and avoids the grey area of assuming information or OR. Berym 22:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The term "ex-con" could probably be best used to describe DLThe dead don 15:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Heroes on DVD

I'm not really sure how to do this, but all of the information about the season 1 DVD of Heroes has been released if someone would like to post it. Thanks! Here is the link: http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/newsitem.cfm?NewsID=7322 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajwhales2007 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Characters - Ando

I was thinking over the edit made by Thedemonhog today about Ando being one "most notable recurring character" among Sylar. I really don't see why it can't be that way, neither I see that is "not our call", as Ckatz said when reversing. Ithink if it's not our call to consider Ando one of the most notable, then it's not our call to determine Sylar as the "most notable" (after all, what would be the criteria for one being most notable than the other?). What do you guys think? I would prefer either Ando and Sylar being noted as "most notable" or neither of them there. Garavello 03:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm... well Ando is in many, many episodes, and is apparently considered something of Hiro's innocence and joy of life (see the Future episode). I don't know if I'd consider -any- character being most notable, honestly; they all have their parts in the play, without any forming a lead role. I'd say that neither Sylar nor Ando qualify. Berym 04:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded the text so that it is not a question of "notability" - instead, Sylar is mentioned due to his role as the primary antagonist. This is how it now reads:

"The main antagonist in season one is Sylar (Zachary Quinto), a serial killer who hunts "heroes" in order to take their abilities. The series also features many guest and recurring characters, including friends and family of the main cast, criminals and villains, and other individuals with remarkable powers."

Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat _spy 08:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess that way is better. The issue of "main", "important" characters are giving so much trouble that we better avoid using that definition without a official source. I would rephrase "heroes" for something like "super-powered individuals", as not every person hunted and/or killed by Sylar was a "hero" (unknown victims and Eden McCain for example). Garavello 15:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sylar himself calls his victims "special" individuals, as opposed to "super" or "heroes". - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 16:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops... I saw Garavello's note and made that change, then saw SigmaEpsilon's comment. Which way should we go? (I'd like to see a reworking of the second sentence in that paragraph as well... I just did a quick once-over yesterday, so it's certainly not polished in its present form.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 16:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should be listing the notable characters, it's irrelevant if they're: main, recurring or guest stars. Verifiability, not fact; if it's verifiable that the character is notable and encyclopaedic, then there's no reason they can't be listed here. Matthew 16:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ando has appeared in the third most episodes out of any character. I think that qualifies him getting a mention in the characters list. Isaac is dead and he is listed. --thedemonhog talk • edits • count 06:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

When one considers Heroes as a static television series that is always in the present rather than real life, it doesn't matter if any one is dead. If you watch the first episode, none of them are dead. You can't verify that Ando is a main character, saying it is subjective. However we can confirm that Ando is not paid as a full time cast member and is still cast as a special guest, therefore he's not put here as a main character. Simple really methinks. :) Jacobshaven3 09:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ando is in many episodes, though. That is not subjective. --thedemonhog talk • edits • count 07:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's true he's in quite a few. But lots of other chracters are in a lot of episodes too, when does an amount of episodes become less important or more important? It's easier and more verifiable to go by whether an actor is paid as a guest or as a main star. Plus, Ando is never given his own story, he's always a part of Hiro's, even Niki, DL and Micah have had seperate off shoots to their stories and work independantly of each other. Ando is also shown as Hiro's friend, nothing more. Jacobshaven3 17:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. As I stated in a previous section here (from myself and others), Ando is a sidekick, a minor character. Sure, he's in every episode, and some of Hiro's decisions revolve around Ando, but the fact is that compared to Hiro, Ando is still a supporting character. And compared to Sylar, Ando is far from most notable. -- MasterXiam 23:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Emerson Lawsuit

I think we need to add something to the Emerson Lawsuit section.

On May 20th, 2007 when Sci-Fi Channel aired the Heroes Marathon, the scene where Claire Bennet placed her hand in the emerson garbage disposol was NOT edited out of the scene. It was shown as it was originally shown on NBC. I think that needs to be noted. Chrisisinchrist 21:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up.

I don't know how many of you are still hard over about Heroes Wiki, but I figured you guys should know: A few of the members of the Heroes production team, and a few of the actors and actresses of the show, have accounts there. Beyond that, one of the lead admins, RyanGibsonStewart, had a night club named after him in the the most recent Graphic Novel, The Death of Hana Gitleman. (RGS) - Tim Sale himself has mentioned Ryan in his blog, thanking him for help with research.

Just hope you guys realize this means it's not a shithole of a website, that it IS a good source. Otherwise, such people wouldn't be there. -Rob

I don't believe that anyone actually hates HeroesWiki, but the standards for this site and HeroesWiki are different. Wikipedia must have verifiability. HeroesWiki has their own set of guidelines on what is accepted on their website and what is not. I check HeroesWiki from time to time, as they have more theories and such. PureSoldier 00:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI it was Jason Badower, one of the graphic novel artists, who mentioned Ryan in his blog thanking him for the help, not Tim Sale. --69.248.190.107 18:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I knew that, and I realized it, and I felt dumb when I posted it... but my laziness got the best of me and I didn't edit it back out >_< -Rob

Expected Date of Volume Two Premiere?

If anyone knows (via a reliable source) when the premiere for Volume Two, entitled "Generations," is supposed to air for the first time, please add this information to this article. Considering that this is an ongoing series, and a second season is already guaranteed by NBC, it would make sense to include the expected premiere date of Volume Two (when it becomes known officially of course). Homologeo 06:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

September 24th is when Volume 2 is coming back. Also the DVD of Season 1 is coming out August 28th. I know for a fact that Volume 2 is returning on September 24th because on the Heroes Myspace it says Heroes returns September 24th, they even have a timer counting down the day,hours,minutes,and seconds. Knight Whitefire 02:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Inspiration from the comic Watchmen by Alan Moore

I was a bit suprprised that noone had commented on this before?

A couple of things seems very inspired by Watchmen apart from the fact that both are attempts to take a more serious approach to superheroes than the standard fare:

(Spoliers here)

Heroes : A mysterious and powerful group that has lost their belief in humanity wants to cause an explosion in new york that will cause the death of million and trigger the uniting of people (under their new leader). All for the greater good. Watchmen : A former masked crime fighter (think batman or such) has constructed a fake alien that will be teleported into new york causing the death of millions thus stopping the nuclear threat and uniting the people in world in the fight against the nonexistant alien invaders. All for the greater good.

Heroes : One of the main villains is a watchmaker that can pick a part people to learn their powers, has the fixing of watches as a reocurring theme. Watchmen : One of the main characters Dr Manhattan (indeed the only one with superpowers) is a watchmakers son that learns how to put himself together after a nuclear blast, watches and cogs are a reocurring and important subject in regards to his charater.

Also note that Watchmen is *the* comic to read if you would want to make a tv series about superheroes so I would mark it of as impossible that the makers of heroes hasnt read Watchmen.

I'm sure someone else can comment more on this?

Found this outside wiki: http://www.nypost.com/seven/04242007/entertainment/heroes_pulls_rug_from_under_watchmen_entertainment_stephen_lynch.htm

It has been discussed on several occasions, but the reality is that it is nothing more than speculation on our part. Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability (and against original research) rule out making comparisons. (If you're interested, you might wish to look through the talk page archives for past conversations about comparisons to comic book heroes.) Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 08:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

To see superheroism portrayed with reliance on acting and steady drama with solid camera work rather then special effects and Razzle-Dazzle-McTazzle I feel Bryan Singer is a larger influence. If they really were inspired by Watchmen wouldn't have Angella Petrelli be *correct* about New York? Vis a vis the endings of Watchmen and Heroes season one. And wouldn't they have more supercostumes and Peter be clothing optional and sit around on Mars? ^_^ Neutralaccounting 00:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Major rewrite of all character articles needed!

Now that we have a clear picture of all the events of season one, a major rewrite of all character articles is needed. We can take huge articles like Hiro and Peter down to perhaps five or six paragraphs. But please, DO NOT just go deleting things all willy nilly. People who decide to take on this project must have a logical plan that will allow those paragraphs to fully explain his character and what he goes through, albet in a more condensed way. Thanks. dposse 16:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the lack of regular integral edits, I don't know how many people will actually be willing to take this project on, but I, for one, am more than up to the task. My main area of emphasis will more than likely be the individual episodes. Too many of those articles are "this happened, and then this happened, and then this happened, and then _______ did this cool thing, and then this happened." There is no reason why both the episode and character articles can't be more than three to four paragraphs long. This show has only been through one season, so the information in the character articles should be concise, limited to only the most important information about the particular character establishing who they are, not every little thing that happens to them. People need to realize that there is a difference between character analysis and plot analysis. Even if it's just you and me, dposse, let's do it. I'm game. I'll be mapping out my strategies for each episode soon to share with the rest. Windmillninja 17:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Just make sure you give us your plan before you do anything. Not doing that could result in revert wars. dposse 20:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. I don't plan on making any significant changes without first consulting the rest of the members of the project. Any suggestions as to where I might post my ideas so that they will get adequate circulation? Windmillninja 02:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My idea of a character bio was what I did with Peter and you rejected it immediately. I'd love to see your idea of what a character bio should look like *grin*. Like I said in Peter's "bio" (or should I say "complete and total existence"), read the bio of Beverly Crusher, Janeway or Jack O'Neill; THIS is what a character article should be. Short and sweet, straight to the point. These articles don't have 10 pages of useless junk. Ps. Why didn't you use the "Character articles" section already present in this page? -- Lyverbe

I strongly recommend that you create subpages on your userpage, copy and paste all the contents from the articles you want to edit, then we can all edit it without interfering with the real articles. It'll be like a sandbox, where we can all craft a brilliant article. dposse 14:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'll just update my own user talk page with suggested edits and allow them to be voted on by a community consensus. Windmillninja 01:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I will help with this undertaking. I for one think pages should be based more on their personality, traits, and connections rather then a play-by-play of their story. I've been trying to stress this with Peter's article but not planning on making any major changes without consulting first. (Rekija 07:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

That is exactly what I tried to do with Peter's page, but it was considered "gutted". Of couse it was, after removing all the useless cr*p out of it. I'll wait first to see how dposse cleans up an article without deleting stuff. -- Lyverbe 11:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirby Plaza nominated for Deletion.

Kirby Plaza has been nominated for deletion. Please discuss it at the AFD page. Thanks. dposse 22:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Verified reference that says the web comics are canon?

I've seen people mentioning the official web comic as references for fictional canon in the Heroes universe (ie things that happen in the official web comic supposedly happened in between television episodes). While I'd like to think that this is true, I can't actually find any official statements to that effect and there are some minor inconsistencies between events in the comics and events in the series. So I'd be more comfortable accepting the web comics as actual references for the official continuity of the television series if someone can find a statement backing up that assertion. Dugwiki 23:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

From NBC.com:

NBC.com exclusive! Pick up where the show leaves off by delving deeper into the Heroes universe with original graphic novels created by the world's foremost graphic artists!

If NBC considers them part of "the Heroes universe", that makes them canon.- SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 23:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I saw that quote but it doesn't actually say just how "official" the comic books are. The statement above only confirms that the comics reflect the basic premises of the show, a bit like Star Trek novels or comics reflecting the basic premises of the various Star Trek television series and films. It might be that the comics reflect "likely" in-between episode storylines, but not confirmed ones and therefore inconsistencies could appear between issues of the comic and future storylines. This would be similar to comic book series that have two or three slightly different continuities. The continuities are similar, but not necessarilly identical. One reason discrepencies might occur, for example, is if the writers initially plan to do one thing in the series but, at the last minute, the producers make an executive decision to change that part of the plot. Another problem could be that the television episodes are collabortively written, but the comic books are not, which could lead to one writer not fully realizing some details of what he wrote are inconsistent with something that is about to happen in the television series.

Of course, I'd like to think the comics can be taken at face value. I'm just saying that the NBC quote above doesn't actually verify it. Dugwiki 00:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the list of Heroes graphic novels and list of Heroes episodes, you should see that many of the writers worked on both. You could also go to nbc.com and watch the crew commentary for the episode .07%, the three people doing the commentary all talk about how they all work on the comics. Then there is also the commentary for Company Man where producer and writer Bryan Fuller talks about a scene that they were originally going to put into the episode but didn't, which later becomes the comic Hell's Angel.67.167.126.102 05:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Also if the graphic novels aren't "official stuff", why would NBC post them on the official site? Plus, it's more than proved that certains things are explained only in the novels (like how they recaptured Sylar after Eden killed herself or how Ted found about the "isotope gun") and are part of the plot. Garavello 05:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

To reply briefly to the above points -

The fact that the comics and the series share writers doesn't mean that the television series necessarily has to or will directly coincide with the comics. The television series episodes are written by the writers as a whole, while the comics are written by individual writers on the staff. So it's possible that a given comic may reflect a particular writer's view of what should happen, but in independently derived collaborative screenwriting for the television series that view is altered or discarded in favor of what the writing collective feels is more appropriate. Similarly when an inconsistency develops between the comic book and the television series, it's pretty clear that events in the television series trump conflicting events the comic.
That the comic Hell's Angel is based on an unused scene from the television series doesn't necessarily mean that other comics or even that comic are "official canon" in the sense of being something that you can safely assume will be consistent with future events in the television series itself. It could simply be an interesting story or piece of a story that they thought was interesting enough that fans would want to read it, but that if the story turns out to present odd contradictions with the series might be discarded for consistency's sake. And even if Hell's Angel were verified as "canon", that wouldn't necessarily mean that all the individual comics are canon.
Something being "officially sponsored by the publisher" doesn't necessarily mean it's "canon". They could easily post "What If" style comics on their website if desired, for example, and still validly say that they are "official Heroes comics". I imagine if Startrek.com, the official Star Trek website, wanted to they could post issues of the various old official Star Trek related comic books and novels on their website for the fans to enjoy. They would still be "officially licensed" and generally reflect the basic Star Trek universe, but events in the comics and novels could still conceivably conflict with events in the television shows and films, in which case the shows and films would take precedence.

So my point is that for the comics to actually be verifiably considered "canon", there needs to be something proving that events in the comics and events in the series must coincide, and that the comics have some sort of equal footing with the television series in terms of setting continuity. Otherwise all we can actually say for sure is that the comics are generally consistent with the series, and are "official" in the sense that the television series writers also take part in the creation of the comics. Basically what I'd be looking for is a statement from the producers along the lines of "everything that happens in the comics is presumed to have happened in our television series". Such a statement might exist, and maybe I overlooked it somewhere, but I haven't seen it yet. Dugwiki 15:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Source: Talk to the producers at comicbookresources.com...You will find your answer at that website.

They've already stated it. NBC states that they "go deeper into the Heroes universe", kind of like the Animatrix did for The Matrix trilogy. I don't see why wikipedians continually insist that NBC is somehow not a reliable source. How much more reliable can you get then infomation straight from the publishers? dposse 16:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say NBC is unreliable. I said that the NBC quote above does not say that the comics are "canon". The phrase "go deeper into the Heroes universe" only means that it is exploring concepts of the Heroes universe, much like Star Trek novels "go deeper into the Star Trek universe" or Buffy the Vampire graphic novels "go deeper into the Buffyverse". All fiction in a franchised fictional universe by default can be reasonably said to "go deeper into the universe", even if the fiction isn't official canon. Dugwiki 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If you need a "word spoken by someone in the series" [5] quotes:

"Alright, so now we know Molly is the tracking system. If this is the case, what were the injections given to Matt and Ted? Is that related, or is that another tracking system we haven't learned about yet?"

"Tracking system 1.0. For more on it, you’re going to have to go to the Webcomic. Where Hana Gittelman (you may know her as wireless) has been tasked to take care of this conventional system once and for all. Part one is up right now (11 pages – we took the bulk-up challenge) and part two is up by Tuesday Morning."

So, it proves that there is a statement from a writer that the comic book events are linked to the TV series.

Case closed. I hope. :) Garavello 16:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, that at least is explicitly saying that the producers are saying "everything going on in the Hana Gittelman satellite tracking system story" is considered official canon explanation of the injections. At the very least that implies that a good chunk of the comic can be considered pretty reliable. It would still be nice to have a more general statement, though. Dugwiki 17:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What discrepancies are there between the Comics and the actual programme? I've read them all and can't recall one which had different facts... Jacobshaven3 10:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If there are any discrepancies, they can't be any worse than the discrepancies between episodes. Like how the end of Collision and the begining of Hiros both show Future Hiro and Peter's first meeting, but the conversation is slightly different depending on the episode. Or when Claire woke up after her autopsy at the end of One Giant Leap she says "Holy sh-" and in the next episode she said "Oh my god" instead. And about the arguement against the comic because every issue isn't written by the entire staff, they're too short for that. They usually have about five pages of content which adds up to about one tiny scene. But then there are the multiple part stories in the comics, like the six part War Buddies was written by seven people, those writers would have had to work together for those story to make sense. Which is similar to how they write the show, in which each writer gets a scene to write and they all come together later to make the script.67.167.126.102 16:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

if you follow this link, the video is of Jeph Loeb in which he states that the online comics are the stories that "happen in between the episodes." AWarriorStill 14:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's another doozy...a recent web comic shows the origin of Candace, which depicts her as someone who's overweight and has really bad acne, but casts enough illusions to convince people otherwise. That being said, in the season ending episode where she's knocked out, wouldn't she revert back to her "Betty" form? Toquinha 16:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned in this interview with writers Joe and Aron, but not really answered. To me it seems like her comments earlier may have been intended to setup the background for the graphic novel. They may have had no intention of showing her reverting in an episode, but since we didn't know about the graphic novel coming up we were expecting something to happen in the episode to confirm the hints she made. --Nonance 16:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

Is the show deserving of a Wikiquotes page? I think so... Chozen1 17:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe so. HeroesWiki have a "Memorable Quotes" for each episode and I find 95% of them silly. For example, the first "Memorable quote" for "How to Stop an Exploding Man" is "I know you're there, Peter" and the last one is "@#$%!". yeah... truly memorable. -- Lyverbe 11:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I believee quotes are trivial and trivia doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. — « hippi ippi » 12:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What about in a wikiquotes page, which was the point of the question. I don't think it deserves one, can you think of many quotes if any that are particularly memerable from the series so far? Jacobshaven3 14:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

However: "Hiro: It is not the sword. It is the man." is a good generic quote even if you haven't seen the show, and: "Nathan: You saved the cheerleader, so we can save the world." is a great quote from the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.228.184 (talk • contribs)

Warning regarding possible deletion of all episode articles

I've posted a note here on the Heroes project page. It is in regards to an editor who has embarked on a unilateral campaign to eliminate most individual episode articles. Please read it and help discuss how to approach the matter. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say it, DO individual episodes actually conform to wikipedia guidelines? WookMuff 10:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they do, indeed they do. I've done some reverting of the redirects this morning. Matthew 10:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

But are the individual episodes noteable? Do they all have external secondary sources? I hate the way wikipedia treats fiction and I think this may be an accurate reading of the wikipedia rules... they may not fit. They are more concerned with plot and in-universe stuff than real world noteability and, as much as I dislike that particular set or rules, I believe that makes them bad articles. WookMuff 11:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Multiple millions of people tuning in to watch a television episode, that's pretty darned notable to me! Matthew 13:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To counter, though, notability in this context is not the same as "popularity". Rather, notability is a function of the subject of the article having been written about by reliable publishers (ie having been "of note" to reliable publishers). In the case of individual television episodes, it's quite possible that the series as a whole have been written about, but that most of the individual episodes have not beyond just the plot summary and cast list. Thus it follows that one can reasonably argue that individual episode articles are not necessary and are at risk of overly relying on original research for their construction (since the only resource would be the episode itself) and thus should not generally have individual separate articles about them. Rather, a list article summarizing episodes for the entire series, possibly divided by season, would be preferable. Dugwiki 17:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The overriding concern, from my perspective, is the manner in which it is being done. There was no warning, no discussion, and no attempt to examine articles on an individual basis. --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, unilateral deletion isn't the polite way to do things by any stretch. WookMuff 21:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Australian show times

Tonight (Thursday) heroes is on at 8:30pm, AEST, as I believe was the case last week. This is in response to the editor who asked when it was on thursdays in Australia. WookMuff 05:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

More Helix Appearances

I'm new to Wikipedia Discussions, so I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but the Helix was also seen..

- Drawn on the bottom of CLAIRE's geometry book in one of the early episodes - On the poker chips used in the LINDERMAN casino —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sariandra (talk • contribs)

First, welcome to Wikipedia :) Second, please end all your comments with four tildes to sign them. Now, for the Helix appearances, yes, it's been mentionned before. We try to keep the list to a minimum because there are so many. Managing this list has been a nightmare. Lyverbe 11:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We keep the Helix apperances section to only plot significant apperances. dposse 17:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

How is the jewelry plot significant? 67.167.126.102 00:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

We are NOT going through this again, aren't we? -- Lyverbe 13:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

TCA noms Heroes for 3 categories

Can an account user please add this to the "Critical Acclaim" section: On June 5, 2007, Heroes was nominated the Television Critics Association in three categories: Program of the Year, Outstanding Achievement in Drama, and Outstanding New Program of the Year. Source (Press Release): "Television Critics Association Announces 2007 Award Nominees" http://tvcritics.org/?q=node/201

List of main characters

should syler be on the list of main charaters? Kiran90 03:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed this before. Unless NBC lists him as such, he is not a main character. dposse 13:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

source for "production notes"

Anyone interested in expanding the production notes section of the article should check it out: http://gregbeeman.blogspot.com/
It's really extensive, but if you have the time, browse through it and see what can be added to the article. Also, my apologies if this has been brought up before. The no erz 09:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The scar and improved use of powers after abduction?

Is there any basis for this? The show was very clear that Ted was confused when he thought that the company gave him his powers. Matt used his powers before being abducted and showed no significant imporvement immediately afterwards. I think that line should be deleted. (Slick023 11:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

From what we know the scar is nothing but a tracking implant. The Company does work with its captives to improve/control their power, and gives them the scar to find them later. So while improved powers and the scar are connected, saying that the scar causes improved powers would be wrong. Matt didn't stick around so thats why his powers never improved. So anything suggusting that the scar gives power should be removed. (Rekija 03:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

Template:Dated episode notability

An editor has requested deletion review on this template after a decision was made to delete the template at TfD. You are invited to participate in the discussion at the DRV if you so wish, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4#Template:Dated episode notability. The original TfD is located at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 24#Template:Dated episode notability. Ursasapien (talk) 05:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Character table

I like it. I don't find it bulky and rather find it cleaner than a big block of characters. Ckatz, you should discuss before selfishly remove somebody's hard work because you don't like it. Who knows, you might be alone not liking it. -- Lyverbe 11:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I find bulleted lists in which the bullets are longer than one line to be harder to read than formatted tables. The text simply does not flow in an eye-pleasing style. EvilCouch 12:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, if there's general consensus to include it, then fine. I find it bulky, obtrusive, and not very elegant. Furthermore, if you look at the series articles that are generally considered to be top-notch (such as The Simpsons and Doctor Who), you'll see that they do not use tables. That aside, however, Lyverbe, what right do you have to say "selfishly" removing? Did you look at the table critically? Did you read my edit summary? Have you read the standard "be prepared to be edited" notices we all agree to when we click on "save"? You're getting on my case for removing the table without asking, but I don't recall Jaxtelles asking to add it in the first place, and I certainly don't recall anyone agreeing that he/she should rewrite Mr. Bennet's entry to describe him as having a superpower. --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Jaxtelles didn't ask to add, but I could do what you did and say "I like the table and I don't approve the fact that you removed it, so I'll revert your revert without any discussion". You know where that would lead. That's what I mean by "selfishly" - You didn't discuss it. You said to yourself "I don't like it, so it's gone! End of story!". A table like that isn't created in 1 minute, so you have to consider the person's hard work vs. the *second* it took you to obliterate that work. You should have come to the talk page and ask people's opinion by saying something like "If there's general consensus to include it, then fine. I find it bulky, obtrusive, and not very elegant.". From replies to this, a group decision would have been made.

And yes, I also agree about Bennet's "powers". -- Lyverbe 01:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the reason why The Simpsons and Doctor Who's character sections work in non-table format is because they're better implimented. The Simpsons' character section in the main article is all in prose. The character article is in a bulleted list with a about a 10 word description. The character section in the Dr. Who article is even briefer per line. If we were going to truncate the character descriptions significantly, a bulleted list could look fine, although we may lose important information. I'd prefer a pared down table, though, as I think that it would be a more efficient way to convey the characters' information. The table as it existed was fairly bloated, though. EvilCouch 05:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a fan of the table. We had one here a while ago, and opted to follow GA and FA guidelines to change it to text. The table's bulky and clumsy, mostly as a result of the inconsistent sizes of the final column descriptions. Attempts to meter them out to create even tables would no doubt result in bizarre descriptions. Much as I appreciate that some readers and editors prefer to convert any list type info to charts, many others prefer to undo charts and tables. GA/FA guidelines are as good as any, and they recommend losing that sort of table for directly related info. Purely statistical info, like the channels and nations broadcast guide below are generally good in tables, but not plot/subject related info. ThuranX 03:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed table

I did a little work in my sandbox trimming down the table and came up with this version of the table. It should display cleanly for most people. EvilCouch 05:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I like it even better than Jax's, but if Ckatz and ThuranX are saying that tables are not well received by WP standards (I don't feel like searching for that statement), perhaps it's better to leave it the way it currently is, even though I personally find it ugly! -- Lyverbe 11:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Music

I noticed throughout the series that at several times the background music contains what sounds like a prepared piano, and sounds extremely similar to John Cage's works with the instrument. Is there any info about that? ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 12:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There's some info on it here. --69.248.47.254 04:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take a look at it. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 12:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know the music playing at the begining of series one, episode three? Jamesigoe 12:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)JamesIgoe Aug 14 13:23

Australian ratings

"A move to the 8.30 Thursday timeslot in the cities of Sydney and Brisbane has seen a significant increase in its numbers in those markets, especially in Brisbane." Not really. There was barely an increase. Ratings can be found at tribal mind

Does anyone know the music playing at the begining of series one, episode three? Jamesigoe 12:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)JamesIgoe Aug 14 13:23

Split between seasons

It was already mentioned before and I think that division by seasons (like it is done in many other series) helps organizing information. At this point I'm only concerned in adding information about the plans for Season 2 like release date and it's connection with Origins but that approach should work better for next seasons and even for other topics that are relevant to the series and not a specific season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.222.103 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of HeroesWiki

SigmaEpsilon if you are unhappy with edits other users are making, use the talk page to discuss this. Do not just revert edits if you are unable to point to a policy, a consensus or some other reason why this edit should not be made. --84.178.98.178 13:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Your change added a link that does not fit under the external links policy. It has been removed many times in the past, after being added by editors who did not understand that policy. That is the reason behind the comment to editors in the "Links" section". If you choose to ignore that message, in fact deleting and rewriting it without discussion to suit your purposes, you cannot complain if your edit is immediately reverted. --Ckatz^chat _spy 01:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather annoyed that this anon is dragging my name through the mud. He essentially accuses me of vandalism, violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Is this enough to request a ban/block? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 16:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I'd say not, given that it is (so far) an isolated event from an anon with only three edits in total. Your contribution history certainly disproves the allegations, and responding to it now would only draw attention to a misguided, mistaken individual. (Just my two cents, for what it's worth.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ckatz, could you please point out the policies you believe linking to other sites that document Heroes would violate? Just reading WP:EL for instance I'd say they fall under "Links to be considered". --Nonance 22:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

From "Links normally to be avoided": items 1, 2, and 12. --Ckatz^chat _spy 23:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's take the Heroes wiki for instance since wiki's tend to be pretty transparent:

#1 They include published spoilers (clearly identified), they have interviewed members of the crew, they include more in-depth information about events and places within Heroes than Wikipedia does (and rightly so, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia afterall). The very nature of and focus of the site allows it to go into more depth.

#2 See "Links to be considered" #4. Plus reading through edit histories it's clear they strive for correctness, so I would disagree that they're misleading people. At the very least they're not misleading anyone any more so than Wikipedia itself misleads people though information that's not yet totally correct (as both tend to reach correctness over time).

#12 I see both a substantial number of editors as well as a substantial history of stability. Granted "substantial" is subjective, but I see a large number of different editors in the recent changes.

I'll also point out that The Simpsons and Star Trek, two good examples of mature articles about a television series, are more link-friendly when it comes to external resources than the Heroes article is and both even include links to external wikis that expound on the information that can be provided within Wikipedia. Given the attention those articles receive, there's precedent for inclusion as well. --Nonance 00:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because other pages are more "link-friendly" does not mean that those pages set a precedent for inclusion. Second, Heoreswiki fails miserably on Links To Avoid #12. There are only 2230 editors, which is hardly substantial. (The Star Trek wiki you mention, for example, has over 120,000 editors.) As far as "substantial history" is concerned, the site was created on October 11, 2006. I'm sure it wasn't stable on that first day. Thus, there are only a few months of stability. Further, the whole "Theories" section of the site, while it is in it's own namespace, is still completely OR and thus violates Links To Avoid #2. For these reasons, it is noy appropriate to include Heroeswiki. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 15:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The link you provided is to an essay, not a guideline. Quite the contrary to the opinion in the article, if other examples exist and have existed for a while and have been implicitly approved by virtue of having not been reverted, then there is weight to the precedent. A set of policies and rules should exist which can be applied to each article deterministically. Different standards should not be imposed on similar aspects of similar articles. So either the links they have don't belong there, or the links are acceptable here unless it can be determined that the situations are significantly different.
Do you have a reference for that statistic regarding the number of users they have? I only ask because Memory Alpha is a Wikia wiki and the information from a Wikia statistics page is cumulative across all of their wikis. Across all of their wikis they're at about 160,000 right now. 2230 is substantial as far as I'm concerned even if dwarfed by the huge sizes of Wikipedia and Wikia. It's a highly subjective requirement and I believe it's not fundamental to the objections of such links, so at minimum we can hopefully exclude this as a major point of contention. As far as stability is concerned, I don't know what criteria determine stability... but I also don't think the stability has been a major point of contention either. If we're talking about stability in terms of availability I haven't frequented it enough to know if it's always available, though with some research it might be possible.
They make no attempt to mislead people with the theories. They're separate from the actual informational articles; were they mixed in I would definitely concur. Since they're clearly labeled as theories and separated they're legitimately documented. Just like non-factual User pages on Wikipedia don't make Wikipedia any less factual (because the information is clearly identified as a User page) the existance of a separate set of clearly identified theories doesn't necessarily cause the site to violate Links Normally to be Avoided #2. --Nonance 23:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop - consensus is against your position. --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Conensus is not static and can change. That is the purpose of this discussion, to re-evaluate objectively the criteria we're using to determine inclusion and non-inclusion of certain external links with the Heroes wiki simply being one such example. As discussion died down, I decided to be bold and try to encourage further discussion on this. I'll refrain from re-adding it while the discussion continues. If you could address my points above that'd be great. Thanks! --Nonance 19:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Where's the proof that Volume 1 is called "Genesis"?

I rewatched the pilot the other day. No mention of "Volume 1". Just Chapter 1: Genesis. Milchama 03:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you are correct. I don't think Volume 1 had a title. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 06:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an interview with Masi Oka, where he says that Volume one is called Genesis. [6]ThePoorGuy 10:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think thats credible enough. Perhaps he was mistaking the name of Chapter 1 with Volume 1... Milchama 20:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

DVD section

DVD section reads like an advert. Mention the unaired pilot's inclusion, if anything, and get rid of the rest. --24.19.144.93 06:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It should be short and straight to the point. -- Lyverbe 16:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Simone's Dad

You don't have Simone's Dad down here as a character of any sort, yet he is a pivotal plot device for Peter, letting Peter acquire his own ability to use dreams as a medium for showing people premonitions and historical events, like the conversation between himself and Angela Petrelli on his balcony. Those abilities and events where crucial to Peter's decisions during the season 1 finale. Shouldn't he get mentioned as a secondary (or tertiary) character?64.90.198.6 18:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he's there; his name is Charles Deveaux

Duckingham 18:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I mean to say that Charles Deveaux is not mentioned on the Heroes (TV Series) page in either of the 2 lists of characters that are part of it. Y is that?64.90.198.6 19:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha - basically b/c he's not part of the main cast. Some of the other characters who recurred more frequently (e.g. Claudde & The Haitian)are not included on the list either, but none of them are considered "main cast" - they are, as you mentioned, secondary and tertiary characters. Since there is such a large cast, and many supporting characters and bit-part characters, the other page is there to get into all them details. If all the characters that contributed as much as Charles, though not as much as the "main characters" were listed on the page it would be too long. As it is, the Heroes main page is intended as an overview to the program, therefore there is enough information to give a concise big picture, but not so much as to overwhelm the reader. If the reader wants to be overwhelmed he can click on the other links. :) Hope that helps. Duckingham 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Heroes - The Game

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i875ea62c3f121f746d26fd652250bd82

Not sure if it should be mentionned in the article... -- Lyverbe 16:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a section for the video game being developed by Ubisoft. NinjaRooster

Season 2

I just got the latest TV Guide with a feature article about Heroes and a few hints regarding Season 2. I will try to come back and add some specific info in the next few days. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 06:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Smith will direct the pilot episode of Heroes: Origins. It will premiere on April. In Heroes there will be a new female character named Monica from New Orleans. Heroes will also be released as a comic I think by DC. It is confirmed that Alex Ross and Jim Lee will do the art for some of the covers. I read all this in a reliable site and I didn't know if you were aware of this new info. I hope I was of help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.218.87 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Split off recurring elements

This article is over 32 kb long. I think that we can split off the recurring elements section into its own article at this point. If there are no objections I am going to do so. --iTocapa ^t 03:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Objection - primarily because if we do so, we are essentially creating an entire article that will just be a magnet for 'cruft edits. 32 kb isn't too long by far, and at least with the "elements" here we can easily keep some control over how long it is. (I'm referring to the way the section attracts every single non-notable helix occurrence, for example.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The international broadcaster list

Why is it here? I'm seeing that tv show articles are getting rid of these lists. Wikipedia is not a tv guide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.61.130.230 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I was about to write the same thing. It's useless information. I don't give a hoot if Portugal finished showing season 1 or if it's transmitted in Mexico and LA by universal channel broadcast. This is not directly related to the show. I vote to remove it. -- Lyverbe 15:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed most of this list so it would conform to WP:DATED. However, recent decisions have said these lists need to be completely deleted per WP:NOT#DIR, which is sometimes cited as Wikipedia is not TV Guide. Precedents here:

In both discussions, the decision to delete the articles was based entirely on WP:NOT#DIR, meaning the lists themselves are unencyclopedic, and can not be made acceptable by simply removing timely information (such as current broadcasters). Also, in neither decision was it suggested to shoehorn the information back into the articles.

Incidentally, several of the forecasts recently added to the list go against WP:CRYSTAL, even if sourced. Rumors of future happenings also go against WP:DATED.

I brought this up on WT:TV#Removing_Broadcasters, where no one seems too interested in dicussing the matter, and I've been yelled at by one editor on Talk:Scrubs (TV series), who reverts the deletion entirely (giving reasons that seem well-refuted on that Talk page). I'd support a motion to remove the list from this article, but as I've already intervened in that section, I'd rather someone else take on the screams of protest for removing it entirely. / edg ☺ ★ 15:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So, do we agree to remove that section? -- Lyverbe 16:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I say delete without exception. / edg ☺ ★ 10:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should be deleted ≈ Seraph 10:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, someone doesn't agree.[7] / edg ☺ ★ 23:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You're damn right I don't agree. It'd be a violation of WP:NOT#DIR if it had specific times, but the very tenuous justification that's being used to wipe out all international broadcaster information is... well, tenuous at best. The main argument seems to be "the primary use is to let international viewers know what channel it's on." If that's the case then we can't discriminate by international broadcasters; ANY mention of ANY channel the program appears on, international or domestic, is obviously only useful to people trying to find what channel the program is on. Following that logic, all mention that the show is broadcast on NBC needs to be removed immediately.

Now, obviously, the mention of NBC broadcasting the program needs to stay, which brings me to my point: just because something CAN be used for directory purposes doesn't mean its ONLY use is for directory purposes. There should obviously be some discretion as to what information makes it into an "International broadcasters" section, primarily based on WP:N (e.g. if Sierra Leone starts broadcasting it I doubt it matters much) but it's still relevant information, at least for as significant a show as Heroes.

Finally, I'd like to point out that while everyone here seems to think there's been some "big decision" or "decisive consensus" reached on the matter, between the two linked AfDs and the Scrubs RFC I count, total, 15 people who have even participated in a discussion on the matter. (And only 12 contributed anything more than a !vote) I don't want to jump to conclusions here, but that more sounds like a cadre of impatient busybodies who all have a common hair up their ass. I would suggest a more thorough RFC on the matter before people go saying "that's what policy says" when it comes to this matter. (And maybe that is what policy says, but that's not up to any one -- or ≈12 -- person to decide) -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Heroes World Tour

I'm very surprised to see there's not a mention on this page of the Heroes World Tour coming up.... Anyone willing to contribute to a small section on this page? -- No. 1 Chelsea Fan talk contribs email 16:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Season 2 Cast

Shouldn't we put the season 2 cast up yet? They were announced at Comic-Con 2007. They are: Ali Larter, Jack Coleman, Hayden Panettiere, Noah Gray-Cabey, Adrian Pasdar, Masi Oka, Milo Ventimiglia, Greg Grunberg, James Kyson Lee, Sendhil Ramamurthy, Greg Grunberg, Dania Ramirez, David Anders Specialk22 17:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

We must not repeat the information. For example, Ali shouldn't be mentionned in a section called "Season 1 cast" AND another one called "Season 2 cast". Perhaps just add a comment, like "Ali Larter - [description] (Season 1, Season 2)", "Jessica Collins - [description] (Season 2)", etc. Article must not be bloated. Keep it simple. -- Lyverbe 18:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should just take away the first season cast (or put it in its separate article) and put the second season cast on the main page. Specialk22 04:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... have two separate articles for each volume? Like "Heroes (TV series) - Season 1" and "Heroes (TV series) - Season 2"? I don't know if each season/volume will be THAT different enough to have their own articles. -- Lyverbe 11:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Since we have List of characters in Heroes we don't need a list of the Season 1 characters that aren't returning. The list does need some updateing too actually, it needs a new section for former main characters.≈ Seraph 13:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, I think that's the best way. Specialk22 19:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In regards to this issue, I think we should take a cue from the Lost page, and have the "Cast and characters" section be a section describing the original cast, and how it has been changed over the seasons (what characters have died, what new characters have been introduced, etc.). That way, we can save the cast list for the character page only, since I think it would be somewhat redundant to have it on both pages. Just my $0.02. --iTocapa ^t 18:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That would probably make sense. In the interim, I've cleaned up Specialk22's changes as there was a lot of duplication between seasons. (Now, it just lists the changes.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the updated list, and is it certain that Dana Davis is a regular? I don't recall her ever being announced as a regular, but I might've missed that announcement. The only new regulars I heard abotu were Quinto, Ramirez, Anders and Kyson Lee. Violetion 13:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Check the reference... according to Reuters, "Dana Davis has joined NBC's hit sci-fi drama "Heroes" as a regular, playing a new young hero." --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving archives

I was thinking of creating another archive and realized the archive box is bigger than some articles ;). When looking at the archives, I saw that most of them were done way too fast, like archives with very few topics in them. By the dates, archives #2 to #9 (inclusively) have a span of only a month worth of stuff.

What I'm thinking of doing is merge from #3 to #9 into #2, and merge #11 to #13 into #10. That would greatly reduce the size of the archive box, that thing nobody ever use :) Objections? -- Lyverbe 11:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I object... Nah, seriously great idea. ≈ Seraph 13:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dead characters still on main cast list -- why?

There are so many actors who left months ago or have been confirmed dead and they're still on the main cast list, why? Isn't it time that got updated? There are heaps of new regulars too that should be added.

They're not on the main cast anymore, so why do they need to be on the sidebar under main cast?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.17.43 (talk • contribs) 03:39, August 11, 2007

It's been said several times: the "main cast" list is defined by the producers. Even if someone dies, they're still "main cast for season one" because the producers have said so. Besides, it would be unnecessarily spoilery to change the list to reflect character deaths. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 16:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a spoiler, IMO. The page itself states the characters that aren't returning. And it's not like they're being put on a list of the dead, where someone merely glancing at it can see. Unless someone took the time to read the list, they probably wouldn't notice the missing names. Ophois 01:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Dead, departed, whatever - they are still part of the cast (and thus the list) from Wikipedia's out-of-universe, "perpetual present" perspective. (Take a look at M*A*S*H (TV series) for one example.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 06:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with changing this page to something like the example you provided. My problem with this page is that is implies that everyone on the list is currently a cast member. Ophois 06:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No other TV show puts their old cast members on the list and I don't see why this should be any different. With the eventual kill-offs and adds this list wil get pretty lengthy. Specialk22 16:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

OMG SPOILERS

Please add warnings before and after each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.66.59 (talk • contribs)

New posts go at the end. Also if the show has aired it isn't considered a Spoiler anymore regardless where you are. ≈ Seraph 09:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC) PS. Please sign your posts.

He could be talking about the "Season 2 cast" where it reveals the new powers. I didn't want to know either, but it's too late for the first dude! -- Lyverbe 11:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right, sorry. I haven't read anything about Season 2 yet, but yeah, powers plots and minor characters should be under spoiler headings. ≈ Seraph 16:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the spoiler warnings and they were removed with the comment "rm redundant tags section will clearly contain spoilers". I don't get it. The warnings are nowhere, so why are they considered "redundant"? -- Lyverbe 11:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Per the spoiler guideline, the section does not warrant a "spoiler" tag:

"Articles about fictional characters, objects, or places can be expected to include significant elements of the story. They should only contain spoiler warnings around specific details that a reader might not expect to come across."

Readers are expected to understand that an encyclopedia section titled "Main characters: Season two" will contain spoiler material about the characters in Season two. --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"...around specific details that a reader might not expect to come across" is exactly what's happening here. I do not want to know someone's power until it's revealed on the show. I want the element of surprise and love the suspense/guessing. Who didn't go nuts when Mrs. Petrelli stood up after indirectly saying she has a power to Claire! Give me his name, nationality, race, sex, etc. but my view on this is that the power is perhaps too much info yet. I stopped reading when I read about the first character, but it was too late. -- Lyverbe 18:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The guideline is quite clear. I suggest you get over it. Dlong 18:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not quite clear. I suggest you learn the meaning of "discussion" -- Lyverbe 19:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the tags back, given that the majority clearly supports them. --YellowTapedR 04:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that the new powers are specific details that a reader might not expect to come across. I was disappointed the other day when I learned the powers of a new character before the character was even introduced to the show. Expected information would be the character's name, the actor/actress playing the character, and that's about it until the episode(s) air. I tagged the section myself the other day and the tag was removed. Really, what's so bad about the spoiler tag considering that at least some people were surprised and disappointed to see the spoiler? Even going strictly by the guidelines there's enough reason to consider it "specific details that a reader might not expect to come across". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There isn't consensus here to add them, and we don't do "majority rule". As I see it, there are two possibilities in this particular situation.

The character powers are just basic attributes of the characters, not plot details. E.g. "Zeus is the father of Athena".
The character powers are plot details, in which case they should go into a section about the plot of season 2, not a list of characters.

Either way, there's no reason for a spoiler tag on that section. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure there is. It spoils it for people to learn the powers of a character that hasn't been shown yet. Zeus being the father of Athena is ancient information and not surprising because ancient mythology is not expected to cause surprise. Part of the fun (which leads to the popularity of) this show is discovering what the person's power is through the unfolding of the plot. Option two is fine, but leaving it without warning is a disservice to readers. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Simplest compromise: Episode airs in a few weeks. Leave it up until then. After it airs, it's no longer a spoiler. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If the episode hasn't aired anywhere, what reliable source has published it? Is the reference on the article the official site, or a rumor/fansite? — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The source is listed as [8]. If it's removed as unreliable, that solves the problem as well. I don't typically remove stuff in my editing though, so it'd have to be on someone else. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And there the tag goes again. Seriously, what is so wrong about having the spoiler tag there? I can tell you what's wrong with not having it there -- the thing is spoiled. Is this just a "I have to be right" thing? I don't know why anyone would intentionally want to spoil it for people, especially considering the tag could legitimately be lifted as soon as the show airs in a few weeks anyway. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What is right about them? As it stands I think a spoiler warning is a basically a placebo that insults our intelligent readers. I have a solution for you though, every time you view a Wikipedia article utter the words "Spoiler Warning: Plot and/or ending details follow." Matthew 07:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

They have the tag for a reason. It's not to insult the reader, it's to warn them about spoilers. The second season hasn't aired yet, so it is unexpected (even for intelligent people) to read about a character's powers before the episode actually airs. This is all in WP:SPOILER which says in certain situations it is appropriate. It isn't like this is first season stuff, and it would be spoiled if you missed the first season, it's stuff that hasn't officially been put out there yet.

How about this tag: {{current fiction}} from WP:SPOILER#When_spoiler_warnings_may_be_appropriate, bullet 2. Any objections to it? Considering that this new work hasn't even been published yet, and they made the tag for a reason, I can't imagine another situation where it would be more appropriate. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 08:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The headings already make it explicit enough that spoilers will be present. As I said, a warning is just a placebo. Not everybody has seen the first season, even so we wouldn't add a warning simply because this is an encyclopaedia and the heading make it clear there will be plot info. PS: Consensus isn't determined through a vote. Matthew 09:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

WP:SPOILER also does say "where consensus demonstrates the need for their use." So hey, let's do a straw poll and see what the consensus is. I'm willing to go with consensus either way.

Should there be either a {{spoiler}} or {{current fiction}} tag placed on second season information until the information is aired?.

Support until the episode airs, I believe it's the responsible thing to do. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 08:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Supprt until the episodes air. There clearly is consensus for it, too. --YellowTapedR 15:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, someone reading information about the second season does so at his or her own risk, and should not be surprised to find potential spoilers. --iTocapa ^t 16:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Support Internet-wide ettiquette demands it. Blcfilm 16:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Support I have no strong opinion, but why not give them an unsignificant tag, those who oppose don't lose or gain anything by putting a tag, so why not just do it? They have SOME merit. Give the baby its bottle (not that I'm insulting anyone, just an expression). Specialk22 16:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Support The tags won't cause any problems. No tags will cause problems. -- Lyverbe 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - The whole "it doesn't hurt anyone" argument has always been stupid and that debunks two of your arguments (term used very loosely, there); internet etiquette is also irrevelant; it's rather obvious that a section about characters in Heroes will talk about the characters; if someone is too stupid to realize this and it ruins the show for him, too damn bad. I've never been a fan of catering to the idiots of the world, and I'm not going to start now. Dlong 17:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. This isn't a fan site, or a forum with numerous scattered threads. Readers have to understand that a section titled "Characters: Season two" will contain spoilers, without the need for a template cluttering up the layout. (When you think about it, any information in the section would be a spoiler - even the fact there are characters - since the season has yet to air.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove until episode airs ?

I didn't realize that none of these episodes have aired. On the Harry Potter book, for example, we didn't have any plot summary in the article (it was removed) until the book was released, on the principle that there was no way to verify the information. The source given for the info here seems to me to be a fan/rumor site, as the official site is http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/ . It seems to me that the plot/cast information here that isn't on the official website (which I do trust as a reliable source for the show) should be removed until it can be verified from the show itself. This is another example of a phenomenon noted by JzG once: on forthcoming works, {{spoiler}} is often a substitute for {{original research}}. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you're wrong, all cast adds were confirmed either by NBC or Tim Kring. For example, at Comic-Con, Tim Kring announced the adding of Maya, Monica, Sylar and Ando to the cast. David Anders and others were confirmed as cast members by official press releases from NBC. You also see them in newly released cast pictures released by NBC. So, cast members are very much confirmed.

Specialk22 16:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you find a published or online source for the NBC announcement? Anm oral announcement at Comic-Con is not a reliable source for us. Did the official announcement include the character powers as well, or just their names? — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There are (last time I checked) valid references for all of the new regulars and their powers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me what those references are? The reference given in the article is not a reliable source. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I support removal until the episode airs as well. WP:SPOILER is the guidelines for the above section. Here the guideline is WP:RS#Self-published sources (online and paper). The source for Kensei is a blog [9] --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved - the reference has been updated to TV Guide. --Ckatz^chat _spy 21:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Content isn't removed due to it being a spoiler (see WP:CENSOR). Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fansite. (now please repeat that to yourself, one-hundred times.) Matthew 22:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who has the wittier remarks here, Matthew or Dlong, but they don't add anything to the discussion. The discussion in the above section is about spoilers. The discussion here is about reliable sources. Reliability is cause for removal. TV Guide is reliable, so this issue is resolved. Hopefully whatever your issues are that lead you to tell people to repeat things to themselves (twice now) can be resolved as well. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Just ignore Dlong - he has no clue on how to communicate like an adult. I don't understand people that have objections to these little 2 lines (defined as "cluttering up the layout" above - but the %^(@%^ "Helix appearances" section stays though :-/). We're not talking about removing the ENTIRE section, but at least the new powers. -- Lyverbe 01:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re Matthew, the only main issue here is that spoilers for unpublished works are almost always unverifiable information, since reliable media don't publish many spoilers. The spoilers for unpublished works are usually taken from blogs, fansites, and other unreliable places. Even with the Harry Potter book, the plot summary was withheld here until the "official" release even though the book was unofficially leaked for a long time before that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If information is published by a reliable source, then often this information can be used as long as it's verifiable (criteria is "Verifiability, not truth.") Though I agree, people do have a habit of sourcing unreliable blogs. Matthew 07:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

New here, but Characters != Cast

It seems to me that the characters that are in a show doesn't have too much to do with what NBC says are the cast of a show. Whatever NBC says, it's really inexcusable to not have Ando in the characters list, not to mention Linderman, Ted, and other such significant characters. You could always rename that section "Cast" and have a seperate section for "Other Significant Characters". Anyways, it's pretty late for me here, but maybe I'll create an account and/or take a more active role in Wikipedia from now on. (I dunno) 207.172.135.71 07:10, 31 August 2007 (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)