Talk:Ted's cell

Um..couldn't this be the same place they held Sylar? Heroe 10:50, 27 February 2007 (EST)

• they blatantly are the same cells. --Frantik (Talk) 11:01, 27 February 2007 (EST)
  • They are the same sets. Whether or not they're the same cells can't be confirmed.--Hardvice (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2007 (EST)
    • Indeed.. we don't even know if that was Ted in the cell.. it could have been a shapeshifting hero.. sure he looked in every way perfectly identical to Ted and even the same actor was used, but we just can't confirm it.. --Frantik (Talk) 19:19, 27 February 2007 (EST)
      • There's no need to be obnoxious about it. Other than the fact that it's the same set, there's simply no reason to assume it's the same cell. It takes no more effort to say it might be than to say it is. Why risk being wrong? Lots of things on this show are obvious, but obvious isn't the same as "confirmed". Why should this use any lower standard than any other uncertain information?--Hardvice (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2007 (EST)
        • I'm just confused why only in this case is the same set not assumed to be the same location. When you have two pages, it implies that they are assumed not to be the same location. Imo, there should be a note on the combined page saying they might not be the same location, not the other way around. --Frantik (Talk) 19:49, 27 February 2007 (EST)
          • I had the same arguments. However, when I added Ted's info to Sylar's cell, I was told that we should distinguish between the two. I nominated that we make a neutral article that doesn't depend on "whose" cell it is, but at the insistence of some of the admin, I made this one. Refer to Talk:Sylar's cell--Baldbobbo 20:30, 27 February 2007 (EST)
          • I can't think of any other instance where the same set could reasonably be used to represent two locations. It's not unreasonable to assume that they're the same cell, but it's also not unreasonable to assume that the AWI has more than one cell that look similar enough that the same set could be used. Since neither assumption is unreasonable, it's best to err on the side of caution. I just can't see how anybody can get worked up over it. It's not confirmed to be the same cell, no matter how you slice it. We apply the same standard to all speculative information.--Hardvice (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2007 (EST)
            • Assuming Primatech Paper has more than one cell is speculation. We only know for sure about one cell. We also know "ted's cell" and "sylar's cell" and adjoining observation room appear virtually identical (to the point even you suspect they used the same exact set). There is more evidence to support the fact that they are the same cell than there is evidence to support they are not the same cell, and thus is would make more sense for the wiki to reflect what is actually known by having only one cell page. --Frantik (Talk) 22:11, 27 February 2007 (EST)
              • Someone could make some theories for this:
                • Theory: Ted’s cell and Sylar’s cell are the same. Evidence: They look perfectly identical, down to the location of the lights outside the room and even the imperfections in the cement. Notes: The bed has been turned 90 degrees.
                • Theory: Ted’s cell and Sylar’s cell are different. Evidence: The bed has been turned 90 degrees. Notes: They look perfectly identical, down to the location of the lights outside the room and even the imperfections in the cement. Primatech Paper Co. is big enough they could have more than one.
                • Theory: Sylar was in two different cells. Evidence: He destroyed the first one he was in. Notes: They look perfectly identical, down to the location of the lights outside the room and even the imperfections in the cement. Primatech Paper Co. is big enough they could have more than one. -Level 03:15, 28 February 2007 (EST)