Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heroes/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Lex94

I am Lex94, member of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Disambiguation, WikiProject Puerto Rico, WikiProject Computers and Videogames and I have just joined Wiki Project Heroes! Looking forward to editing and contributing to this project. Cheers, Lex94 Talk Contributions Guest Book 00:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

New Layout

I joined the Project, and I immediately noticed that the Project page was uneven, plain and didn't even link to the talk page. So, I kind of made a new layout.

Project Page - Please give opinions on layout

Cheers, Lex94 Talk Contributions Guest Book 02:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Good layout, but gods that green is killing me. Something lighter, perhaps? It just seems obtrusive to me. --iTocapa t 04:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Usually, I don't like big changes to articles where folk don't discuss it beforehand. This does look okay. I agree the Tocapa that the green (which is very similar to your user page, if I might note) is too much. Perhaps a 10-15% gray or blue might work better. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Overall, it's excellent, I'm just not a fan of the alphabetic list, would prefer to see the member list returned to a chronological list. ThuranX 15:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I shall try to fix the green later. Cheers, Lex94 Talk Contributions Guest Book 02:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Talk:Genesis (Heroes)#Genesis or In His Own Image? Wikipedian 01:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mass-{{notability}} tagging of all episodes

I have asked RMHED (talk · contribs) to explain his mass tagging of all Heroes episodes with the {{notability}} tag. Personally, I think it's rediculous. But reverting seems pointless, as he already mass-reverted Ckatz once. — Edokter • Talk • 15:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If you think WP:EPISODE is ridiculous then perhaps you ought to try and change this guideline, but as it currently stands none of the Heroes episodes except possibly the pilot meet the WP:NOTE/WP:EPISODE criteria. RMHED (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion, not necessarily fact. As I tried to explain to you, the episodes are all under review and are (admittedly, somewhat slowly) being reworked. The mass tagging (how many series did you tag en masse yesterday?) doesn't help anyone. --Ckatzchatspy 16:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
He has previously stirred up controversy by applying his interpretation of policy/guidelines on a mass basis. He was doing something similar at AfD, speedy-closing numerous discussions prior to the full 5-day run time. I would suggest continuing your work on improving the articles, leaving him to tag whatever he wants. I would also remove the tags, if you feel they're incorrectly applied, and make contact with an admin that can review the notability of the episodes, if you're concerned that there may be a kernel of truth to the tags. RMHED has his own reasons for what he does, but I would suggest that you just keep plugging away, improving the Encyclopedia as best you can. Mr Which??? 17:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I never said WP:EPISODE was rediculous; I said tagging the episode articles with {{notability}} was. Currently being one of the most popular TV series, notability of the episodes should hardly be a matter of debate. What is under review is the quality of the articles, but that is completely unrelated to notability of the episodes. — Edokter • Talk • 17:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Just because a series is very popular that does not mean that indivdual episodes meet with WP:NOTE. If you can add the references to show otherwise then please do so. RMHED (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    Just because you find all the episodes non-notable, doesn't mean they are not. Thus, mass-tagging is extremely unhelpful. Mr Which??? 18:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I brought all this up above, in a call for massive reduction and reworking of the episodes. It was met with silence. As such, I support the notability tags. Project apathy is high, hopefully these will stimulate a response. ThuranX (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't see how article quality has any relation to the notability of the episodes. The notability tags are inapropriate. We have different tags for quality control. — Edokter • Talk • 20:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
easy. With only In-Universe content, there's NOTHING asserting notability. It's simple. ThuranX (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
(EC)I've since been contacted about this and that about RMHED. The simple fact is, I brought this to everyone's attention a couple sections up, and a month or so ago. I talked to User:TTN about his actions on individual episodes, and I tried to get something going here at the project. A notability tag isn't a speedy delete tag. It's a propmt to get your ass in gear and do something. I'd do more myself, but I have real world stuff to do for the next few weeks, some home improvement stuff which needs doing. (winterizing, if you will.) I tried to remove some cruft, but it feels like a pointless fight, since I keep seeing WP:HEROES members cruftcrapping the articles up. There's an in depth discussion above about what needs doing. I've tried, a bit to get it going, but it didn't hapen. Hopefully now it will. If anyone wants to hear it, here's what to do. Go to Genesis, the first episode. Reduce the plot to no more than three paragraphs. Remember that we are not providing readers with prose interpretations of each 'chapter(episode)', and get the basics across. 'People get powers, and react.' then find real world information abotu the premiere and start of the series. From FHM to US News and World Report, there are articles. Stripmine them for real world reaction and interpretation. Post a links list back here of everything you find. then incorporate that. ThuranX (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not dispute anything you say here; the episode articles need improving badly. But, using a notability tag is going ablout it the wrong way. Notability is not in question, as it pertains to the article's subject, not it's content. Asserting lack of notability does indeed put the articles in danger of being deleted. It would be no different then putting an AfD tag in order to force the articles being improved. So using the notability tag is defenitely an error in judgement. {{Cleanup}} would have been the proper template to use. — Edokter • Talk • 22:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect. Notability is 'Are these particular items, in and of themselves, noteworthy?'. The answer is going to be, not all episodes are individually noteworthy. The show is, the numerous media articles support that. the first season is, numerous critics raved about it as a birght spot in the line-up. The second season is, because the same critics have found it in someways lackluster, and written about it. Is each episode? no. I knew that promoting the first clean-up, that not all would be ,and some would need to be re-merged to the main 'episodes' list article. Notability means 'did the real world take note of it in any meaningful way?' Not particularly. Series, Season, Episode. Yes, Yes, and Sometimes. The premiere got buzz and response in the media. It's noteworthy. The other 21 may or may not. Five Years Later was notable; Sci Fi journalists and critics made comparisons to 1984, BNW, X-Men:DFP, and other future-speculative fiction. that's two episodes. While an article may be plot-crucial, if its importance is not reflected in the world outside the show and the watercooler chatter, then it fails WP:NOTE. Using the WP:NOTE tags to force us to provide real-world context is not the same as clean-up. In fact, I think it makes more sense to tag each for notability, let that get added on in its own section, and THEN, when 22 episodes either have or lack Real-world, Delete the lacking articles with a merge back to the main list of episodes, and then tag the survivors with clean-up, so they can get into a good shape. ThuranX (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
What the episodes do need are sources. Eonline.com, TV.com and NBC.com can be excellent souces, as well as any other coverage on the episodes. Lex T/C Guest Book 22:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Heroes Members

I just created Category:WikiProject Heroes Members, but it needs some cleaning up --Is this fact...? 11:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Condensing character biographies

I recently attempted to condense the biography on Claire Bennet's page, but I have received little response on my attempt (posted at Talk:Claire Bennet/Temp). However, I would like to bring to the attention of the project the overly detailed biographies of all the Heroes characters. As with episode summaries, we should not summarize each and every detail of each episode for each character, but rather provide a general summary of events. Each episode can, for the most part, be condensed to two to three sentences for a character. Agree/disagree/comments? --iTocapa t 19:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree! I did not read the revision, but it was of an appropriate length. <script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>Nice work, –thedemonhog talk • edits 10:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was a nice improvement over the prior version. I think that, since the season concludes next week and there will be a significant delay before the third season (assuming there is one), there will be time to condense both Claire's article as well as the other characters' articles. I think that this is the way that it usually works. While the season is running, the articles tend to bloat up a bit, attracting cruft, trivia and general plot-arcing. Attention like yours, iTocapi, knows this and addresses it once the dust settles. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Take it live now. No reason to wait, and this is a long overdue update. Per multiple above threads, this is well needed. Let's use this as a springboard for change now, instead of procrastinating. ThuranX (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I actually agree with waiting until the season's over (it's only four days, now), that way we can finish it up and polish it. It shouldn't take too long to do so, anyway. I feel like if we take it live now, then after the season finale, someone's going to come in and add a large summary for the episode on Claire's page, or cruft will otherwise appear somehow. I agree with this being a potential springboard of change, but I don't think we're procrastinating by waiting until just after the season finale. --iTocapa t 04:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You are not saying that it cannot, but summaries of the first season can be condensed regardless of whether or not we wait until the current season has concluded. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If we were to just condense the first season, we would end up with something that looks similar to the main article's plot summary, in which the second season is several times larger than the first. I'm just putting that out there. --iTocapa t 02:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's warm up those condensing muskles and work the first season out. the second season closer is less than 72 hours away. After that, squeezing out all the bloat will just happen. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Family Trees

Is there anyone out there who would be able to create family trees for the characters? Family information is fairly important since they've all been screwing around and it is no longer in the charcaters' infoboxes. I'd do it myself but I am not enough of a technowizard. Thanks asyndeton talk 13:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for Episode Summaries (moved from heroes talk page)

How does everyone feel if the episode summaries were condensed into a list, rather than prose, basically listing the major plot points of the episode, rather than having them as detailed as they current are? Example:

Powerless

  • Peter and Monroe head to Primatech Paper in Odessa Texas, to steal the virus strain 138, and destroy it. Hiro attempts to stop them, but is outpowered by Peter.
  • Angela Petrelli reveals that she didnt betray Monroe at first, but that Linderman, Arthor Petrelli and herself beleived in Monroe. She learns of Victoria Pratts murder and that Peter is alive. She tells Matt how to kill Peter if he becomes too dangerous.
  • Peter realizes that Monroe murdered Hiro's father. He is convinced by Nathan that Monroe is evil, and that his true intent for the virus is to release it.
  • Monroe reveals to Hiro that he beleives he is a God and that the world needs to be washed clean.
  • Hiro, releazing that Monroe can not be killed, teleports Monroe and buries him alive in a Japenese cementary.
  • Peter, Nathan, Matt and Hiro sucessfully stop Monroe from releasing the strain 138 of the Shanti Virus.
  • An assasination attempt is placed on the life of Nathan Petrelli by an unknown shooter, after Nathan attempts to expose the Company and reveal his ability to the entire nation. His fate is unknown
  • Monica is capture by a gang after attempting to recover Micah's stolen comics and his father's metal. Monica is locked in an abandon building, which is set a fire by a gang member.
  • Niki rescues Monica from the building, however, she is unable to escape herself. The building explodes while Niki is trapped inside. He fate is unknown.
  • Claire attempts to expose the Company. West does not support her plans. Fearing exposure, Bob Bishop makes a deal with Noah Bennet to keep his family safe and protected. The deal is Noah must come back to the Company. The Bennets discover that Noah is still alive.
  • Mohinder is taken hostage by Sylar, who has come to Suresh for help in getting his powers restored. Maya discovers that Sylar used her and, with the help of Molly Walker, she also discovers that he murdered her brother Alejandro. Sylar shots Maya in the chest, and killing her. Sylar then prompts Suresh to use the mixture of Claire's blood and Mohinder's blood to regnerate Maya, which he does.
  • At the Company, Bob is disappointed in Elle. In an effort to get abck into her fathers good graces, Elle goes on a mission to stop Sylar.
  • Elle chases Sylar away, but not before he steals Mohinder and Claire blood mixture, thus curing himself of the virus and restoring his abilities introducing Volume 3: Villians.

What does everyone thing of this method? If you dont like it, we still do it in prose, just make the articles less detailed, because they are currently very long.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This proposal belongs on the WP:HEROES talk page, not here. Frankly, I think that even less than that is needed, but I think many will find that a good compromise. ThuranX (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree re: the proper location for discussion, disagree with the structure. The plot summary should be written as prose, not point-form notes. (It might be useful for discussion purposes, however, to use such a format on the talk page to reach consensus on what the key points are.) --Ckatzchatspy 00:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Somewhere in the manual of style guidelines, it says to use prose when possible. The plot summaries for numerous pages of Heroes WikiProject should be condensed and those of episode articles should generally be under 450 words. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
What the other WikiProject I am in is doing is merging the episodes into season articles. We are giving a concise but thorough summary , then will move on to production notes. THis is how Smallville (Season 1) does it and we are using it is our template —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:The Placebo Effect (talk) 1:35/2:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Symbolism revisited

I'm going into this discussion with some trepidation, though I was wondering if the "now-deleted-and-redirected-here Symbolism/Recurring Elements/ Mythology page ( List of elements in Heroes ) " could be re-instated? It was swiftly deleted and redirected to this main page in November and I just didn't have the energy to argue it. To clarify, I think the section on this main page looks great and uncluttered, I don't think that should change. However, I am now noticing that some folks are now re-adding the deleted info to this main page and are starting to mess with it's pretty little format, thus giving us more cleanup to keep up with. I'm wondering if it isn't too much to re-instate a separate place for them to add that info (in an encyclopedic and verifiable way of course) so that those who are looking for it, have a reference and an outlet. I personally like having a separate article available as a reference. Thoughts? Thanks. I will drop this issue if I'm outvoted. I've also posted this to the main Heroes page. Magkaz (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Essay on Heroes in Wikipedia

Shortly after the second season concluded, I wrote an essay which outlined my concerns for the Heroes articles on Wikipedia. I deliberately delayed posting it until now because the past week has been finals for me, and I knew I would be too busy to respond to the discussion. Anyway, I have posted the essay here. I encourage all editors on this project to take a look at it.

I know that many of you will think me arrogant and/or controlling for this, but this is merely me trying to express what I think the direction of this project should be. As mentioned, I wrote this about a week-and-a-half ago, and some things have changed which I may have not noticed since then. Please inform me of this. When you find anything you disagree with (and I am sure you will), please note it either here or on a user talk page. Thank you for listening to my concerns. --iTocapa t 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You have a great idea of which direction the Heroes WikiProject should be taking. I have just a couple notes on the Lost WikiProject. While the main page is well-written; it is not well-cited. Standards for references in featured articles have changed over the last fifteen months and most of the citations there lack authors or dates. Secondly, there are no summaries in the episode list because season-specific pages exist, such as Lost (season 3). –thedemonhog talk • contributions 00:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the citation problem, which I completely neglected in all of my effort. --iTocapa t 00:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why this hasn't been noticed by more people. --iTocapa iChat 00:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

New Format

I have devised a new format however a number of users have undone the editing i had started. Would these people please explain why they have done this and then a proper correct discussion can take place. (Electrobe (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

PLease note that if i do not recieve any answers to this page within 2 days i will resume my editing formatt and if i am stopped i will report the people stopping me as vandals (Electrobe (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

I'm not sure how much more discussion you need, as your changes have been reverted by at least four other editors. You have been edit warring to add your changes, you have been ignoring the concerns of other editors, and you have narrowly escaped being blocked for multiple 3RR violations. Please don't compound the matter by issuing threats; you might wish to read through this guideline. Look, people are trying to help you - don't just reject them. --Ckatzchatspy 11:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that i tried to create discussion pages which i constantley told you about and you did not reply so in my eyes you were in effect vandals. And that i have not issused any threats asuch, the closest to a threat i have made is saying that if no one relplies and then tries to stop me editing i will treat them as a vandal(Electrobe (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

As I wrote below, lets get past who did what, who didn't do, etc. Start from scratch, as though none of the discussions had perveiously taken place. Khukri 12:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
May I just ask that everyone eddresses the issues, and not the editor please. The question was asked about the recent changes, though I'm not going to comment on the content as I'm not an expert of the subject, I will say Electrobe, that large scale changes are usually discussed before being implemented. This way we can improve on the change and in the long run gain concensus about what the changes are expected to achieve. You all know where I am now, so any problems ..... Khukri 11:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Spot on, Khukri. Electro, tell us what your idea is. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. Really my idea makes a very minute change to how the pages work and really i dont see why it caused such a fuss in the first place but anyhow this isn't the time. All that is different is that each series has its own section and alternative histories/futures are added into the section as sub-sections. The word/s Plot or Character History are no longer needed. That is all i have ever tried to do and the accusations that i have deleated information and misspelled words are incorrect becasue the longest sentence i have written so far is Volume 1 - Generations. I hope you will except my changes as it will, i believe, greatly improve the presentation of the page/s (Electrobe (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

Your idea is hard to understand. Each Series gets its own section? do you mean each episode? Each Season? each Volume? On which articles would this new format apply? character, episode, themes, overview, all? How does removing Wikipedia-wide established sections like Plot and Character History and using Alternate Future and Alternate Histories improve the articles? What would the overall framework be in your new format? Currently, articles often use a lead para, Character history, and where we have it, real world context, including production attitudes, writing history, actor's approach, and so on. How does your format improve upon this? ThuranX (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternative future/histories are currently in use already. and i would have thouhgt the word series would have given you a clue to what the sections would have been split into. Basicually this new format is identical to the old one bar the fact that the word plot isn't there anymore. I know it doesn't sound very different and it isn't i didn't think it was even worth creating a discussion page for its so mino an edit but a few people seemed to go rather over to top about the whole think and started accusing me of all sorts of thinks like rewritng the article. To answer your other question on which characters would this new format be used on as this is the Heroes page i would have thouhgt that was pretty obvious. Next time think before you speak/type .(Electrobe (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

Consider this a formal Civility warning. Your tone is unacceptable.
Further, no, nothing about your proposal is clear, and your insulting reply makes nothing more clear. Since you cannot explain your idea, I guess it's not likely to gain support. It's been objected to already, as you note, and thus, consensus is against it. Thank you for coming here to try to win us over. ThuranX (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It cant be explained any simplier, the word plot is deleted. and what is this about an unacceptable tone? im merely fustrated that when you ask me what pages this would apply to and we are discussing this on a Hereos page it cant be any clearer.(Electrobe (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

The issue at hand is that several contributors are taking the time to try and hear you out, to try and see if your ideas are worth integrating into the articles, and you are giving them attitude over it. "Next time think before you speak/type" as you wrote above, as well as being snippy when we ask for explanations of your points, is 'unacceptable tone". Please, the whole point of wiki is to have a community building the articles and when you ignore the community, that's uncivil. Please, if you feel strongly about your POV, explain it clearly. Thanks. Magkaz (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I am guessing that Electrobe is a Brit or Aussie (or, God forbid, a kiwi - lol). Whereas in the States we use the term season, in the UK, the proper term is series. A common misunderstanding that might have been avoided, had Electrobe taken a moment to investigate the difference before posting. I think what I find bothersome about the proposal is that it seems to move a bit further in-universe than is really comfortable for me. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. I've been following this and I think I understand your meaning. I don't relish it, the way we have it is fine. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

More than a new format this is just a minor modification, one so small it cannot justify such a long debate. Curious about its magnitude, I looked into the genesis of this discussion and discovered it's all a show put on by Electrobe to save face. He got severely bitten by established editors when he attempted to implement his "new format" by force across the Heroes pages, and instead of accepting his mistake and backing off, he turned his ill-advised idea into this crusade.
Many good editors have been drawn in, an unusual amount of goodwill has gone his way, but still he digs in deeper and finds more trite and banal excuses. The crux of the matter is that he's arrogant and ill-mannered, and has such a poor way with words he actively deterrs support for his cause. He's not going to get it here, why don't we all leave him be and get on with more profitable matters? J.Cierva (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I've had comparable problems at Talk:Briton. I've since left this user (who, it seems, has been around for around one month) the standard welcome message (per WP:BITE) at his talk page. Having had a discussion with him/her where the debate was hard to follow and broke down quickly, it is strikingly clear that this user is a newbie. I'm not condoning his/her views, but I would hope this project treats them accordingly. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but something needs to be done about this user. He continues to disregard policy, even deleting other users comments off the talk page on Heroes main page talk page. His status is far beyond good will edits and he is clearly breaking policy that has been explained to him. He also has deleted several comments left on his talk page by established contributors and editors. and disregarded their help. administrative response may be needed. for him to continual site facts and original research with citations, even after he is warned and educated on the facts, is vandalism. i certainly wont support this user, because he feels his edits have superiority over the other users. i dont understand him or her. i disagree and vote against the new format--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
He's had a final warning, and I'm watching his and quite a few editors contributions. Since the warning as far as I can see he has not deleted or reverted any heroes material, and the deletion of warnings/message on his talk page is not an offence. Again he has tried to explain his/her changes, they are unacceptable it seems, simple the articles stay as is. Watching the development of the discussion with a neutral eye, it's a classic example of how the subject matter evolves from the changes themselves to the being critcal of the editor. I am keeping an eye, and will block if necessary. Khukri 08:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Right then so nobody minds if i go ahead then? I will begin the update straight away. (Electrobe (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

No, the way I read this discussion is that no-one has even suggested that they agree with your proposals. Just because no-one has said anything in 12 days, doesn't mean you have consensus. And anyway, most of this discussion is about your tone. asyndeton talk 17:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont see what relavence that has to me editing a page. (Electrobe (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

What do you mean you don't see the relevance? You came here to explain your proposal, hoping for people to agree with you, because so many editors reverted your changes to the pages. You have not received the consensus you want, so please just leave everything alone. Everyone aside from you is happy with the current format. asyndeton talk 17:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Episode Ratings

I have noticed that for a lot of new shows, a ratings table for individual episodes has been put into the "list of episodes" page. I think this would be great for Heroes. Most of the individual articles already have the ratings and sources ready, so all we would have to do is insert them in the table. We may not be able to find ratings for all episodes straight away, but I believe if we work together we can do it.....wow that sounded so inspirational! ;) For example, have a look at the page for 30 Rock. I think that would be great to achieve. (Wikirocks2 (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

Note that this is duplicate of Talk:List of Heroes episodes#Ratings table. –thedemonhog talk • edits 08:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

FLC for episode list

See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Heroes episodes. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Saving Charlie deletion

Nobility of Heroes: Saving Charlie needs to be established. I want to upload the cover, but I will not bother if no one has any intentions of adding information with links to interviews and reviews, in which case the article should be deleted. So, is someone going to save Saving Charlie? –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. I invite you to comment at Talk:List of characters in Heroes.

The Golden Goose and Bob Bishop

This concerns the "List of heroes comics" article.

In the lastest Heroes comic, a character who looks like Bob Bishop (I.E. fat, balding w/glasses) turns someone into gold, something that Bob Bishop has done in the past. For a comparision, check out this photo.[1] In addition to this, the EE photo is of Bob Barker. User:QuasiAbstract disagrees with the identification of this as Bob Bishop, because although it fits Bob's criteria, its not identified.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources for identification? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to bet that when the next issue comes out and it says Bob Bishop on it this whole thing is going to sound absurd. This isn't speculation or original research. I mean, it'd be one thing if it was just some guy with the power of alchemy and I assumed that it was him. But in this case its so obvious that its Bob Bishop.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The same thing happened when we found out Austin was Linderman. We still couldn't state it, until the last comic had come out. Same thing applies here. QuasiAbstract (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
(EC) I'm not arguing with your interpretation, nor do I disagree with it. But adding my interpretation to yours, does not a reliable source make. And that's why it's a wiki, we can always go back and make yet more edits; but for now, erring on the side of verifiability is preferred. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

i'll make the changes back to not having Bob mentioned. Salamander Yes 69.225.179.162 (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's Bob for sure, but you should probably wait. Wikipedia:The world will not end tomorrow. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Members of this project may wish to review the dicussions ongoing here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Halves. Please bear in mind that WP:EPISODE is under dispute. Catchpole (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Episodes

Given that the above deletion discussion will likely end up as "no consensus", do you guys think that you're ready to redirect whichever ones that do not assert notability? TTN (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, be aware I originally redirected the above article, only to have it reverted by Edokter (talk · contribs), "Revert redirect/contest PROD. Please send to Articles for Deletion." — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

All—yes, all—Heroes episodes are notable enough to reach featured or good status, however, WikiProject members are either too busy with other projects or too busy in real life to clean up the articles. Thus, I support redirection. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
While I imagine that Genesis and the eventual finale have the potential to be featured, it would seem only a handful really have the potential to become high quality good articles. I'm guessing that the information just isn't available in most cases (such as the in the one of the episode up for deletion). TTN (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that any article not meeting Notability standards should be redirected, and support such. Currently, I believe that Genesis, the first episode meets NOTE criteria, having had a lawsuit filed after its' airing, as well as buckets o' media coverage. The finale, similarly, can probably maintain an article, as can the Five Years later episode, and mmmaybe the one in which Hiro goes back 6 months for Charlie, as that ties into the new book. Beyond that, we should discuss here whether or not an article meets the criteria. I may well have missed an article which really needs to stay. ThuranX (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Why do I think that each episode is notable? Well, every episode has been reviewed by Entertainment Weekly, IGN, Television Without Pity and BuddyTV so reception sections can be made. Executive producer Greg Beeman maintains a blog in which he publishes information on the production of every episode so production sections can be created. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the first part is that as the number of TV-focused magazines increases, so do the reviews, and notability drops off. there are at least two british magazines that do reviews of each episode of about 3 dozen shows; its' the magazine's field. Doesn't particularly make it more notable overall, though it does make 'the market for tv review magazines' more notable. Beeman's Blog, while interesting, would actually have to discuss in detail the episode. SOmetiems he talks moer about the season or production in general, and references an episode. Such sections are better used on the main article, discussing the series, with examples, than splitting such info up or repeating it over and over to validate the articles. One of the theories for notability goes 'Series, Season, Episode', in which each one has to be separately validated, then it's own particular notability established. Further, after a point, all those repetitive reviews and even Beeman's blog, which I do credit more than generic reviews, becomes the new baseline, not above the baseline. Finally, even if I were to agree with all that, it's not in the articles, and they should be redirected until such time. I argued hard for this set of article reviews LONG ago, and was roundly ignored. Now the problem's back, and the same blowing of smoke is occurring. Redirect, then sandbox a fix, THEN unredirect. ThuranX (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Character Lists

What is the reason for having a seperate list of characters with abilities from the list of characters? Other than the length, I can't see I point to having the seperation. QuasiAbstract (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternate future

I just trimmed down Sylar's synopsis, and the alternate future section seemed to take up unnecessary weight. It's mainly covered within one episode, a few comics, and a few minor glimpses throughout other episodes, so it seems best just to let Five Years Gone handle the information. Is that fine, or is that the project standard. Sylar could also use some more trimming and a good copyedit/fact checking if anyone feels up to it. TTN (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that, if it's decided the individual episodes are not notable on their own, then the best place to put that information would be in the character articles. Additionally, since it is part of that character's fictional biography, albeit an alternate one, it is important to include that within the scope of that article. --iTocapa iChat 01:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

out of universe info

Does anyone know where I can find some out of universe information on the mythology of Heroes? Like interviews, press releases etc. Not about the recurring elements, but the mythology of the Heroes world and the mythological elements. Also, I need some out of universe information on The Company. It has been tagged for so long, and I have had a difficult time finding third party information from newspapers, mags, interviews and press releases.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)