This wiki is a XML full dump clone of "Heroes Wiki", the main wiki about the Heroes saga that has been shut down permanently since June 1, 2020. The purpose of this wiki is to keep online an exhaustive and accurate database about the franchise.

Heroes Wiki talk:Community Portal

From Heroes Wiki
Revision as of 14:03, 5 November 2007 by imported>Lost Soul (New section: Strike?)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archives Archived Discussions
Nov 2006 - Aug 2007 Red Link • Theories Tab • Theories Tab (Cont.) • Character Summary and Character History • Full episodes at NBC • Web Episodes — Nice, clear credits at last! • Real community portal • Number of Examples on Powers Pages • Theories • Standardizing External Links • NBC's New HeroesWiki • Recent lack of commenting in the Summary • Hana and Ted, sittin' in a tree... • Newbie Guide? • Heroes Wiki takes off its training wheels • Digg Heroes Wiki • Copyright • Non wiki related show discussion? • Car (disambig) • 1000th user • .07% • Order of Examples • NBC.com Heroes Wiki • Statistics • Frequent Misconceptions • Origins • How to submit 3D models? • Comic-Con • A Global "To Do List" Page • Wikis about Heroes are popular! • "Create Your Own Comic Book" winner • NBC videos • Deleted Scenes • Credit on Fan Creations • Heroeswiki Forum • Interview images • Micah Gunnell


Google translations

  • How would people feel if I just took Google Translations out of the sidebar completely? We've got a number of localized wikis already even though only a few of them are being actively updated. The quality of the Google translations is pretty poor and might even be distracting people from wanting to work on the localized wikis. People would naturally still be able to go directly to Google and translate the site from there, but I'm thinking we may be better off not making the Google translations so prominant. Plus it'll help unclutter the sidebar a little. Any thoughts? (Admin 21:12, 21 September 2007 (EDT))
  • At the same time, I can move the "in other languages" portlet up right below the sidebar in its place so that on pages where we have localized versions it will display those links. (Admin 21:16, 21 September 2007 (EDT))
    • Right, instead of just removing it maybe you can consider adding it to Heroes Wiki:Languages and adding a 'Translations' link to the sidebar as was done at Bionic Wiki.--MiamiVolts (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
      • To be honest, the Google translations are so poor that I'm happy to just get rid of them entirely. If people use Google or Altavista or something built into their browser, then great. If not then I don't think offering them Google translations is really helping out that much considering just how unreadable the translated text is. MiamiVolts, have you tried translating the site into Spanish using Google and seeing how accurate it is by any chance? Is it understandable or just aweful? (Admin 21:24, 21 September 2007 (EDT))
        • So it's better to have nothing at all for the languages we don't have wiki's for? It's not perfect, but it's not so terrible either that it doesn't help. I think it helps more than you realize. For those that don't understand english, it's probably better than nothing. It also helps vice versa, and I've been using it on occasion to translate to/from Spanish words I don't know or have forgotten. If it's a very long page, I might translate it first to get a gist of it. You might also check with the users on the French, Spanish and Portugese wikis as they are doing a lot of translating and it might be helping them to do their translations.--MiamiVolts (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
          • People are still able to use Google translations by going directly to Google, I just don't know if having the links so prominently on the site is helping or hurting. People may see them and assume that the issue of translating the articles is solved already. It could be discouraging people from contributing on the other wikis. At the same time, you could be right and it might be helping people. All the feedback I've gotten so far about the Google translations has been negative so far so I'm not sure if they're very valuable as a sidebar item anymore. Of course, I'm interested in hearing opinions. I can always change it back if we want. (Admin 21:44, 21 September 2007 (EDT))
            • I think you misunderstood me, then. I'm fine with them not being a sidebar item, and in fact I didn't like them there. However, I do think they should remain "in" the site. So that's why I'm suggesting to add a link to 'Heroes Wiki:Languages' in the sidebar and re-add the autotranslator links there so people can know that both the autotranslator and the alternate language sites exist.--MiamiVolts (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
              • That sounds good to me. (Admin 22:14, 21 September 2007 (EDT))
    • I have no problem getting rid of the Google translations. (Though while we're on the subject of the sidebar, we should probably capitalize "Heroes merchandise", and make it italicized, if at all possible.) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
      • Actually, MediaWiki automatically converts the labels to lowercase and it's probably not worth the trouble to modify the code. (Admin 22:29, 21 September 2007 (EDT))
        • That's kinda what I figured. When I tried to fiddle with it awhile ago, nothing worked. I just wasn't sure if it was my lack of knowledge or MediaWiki's lack of flexibility. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
          • Calling the link 'Translations' makes more sense to me than Languages. Languages could just be a list of the languages spoken in Heroes the series. Can you change it?--MiamiVolts (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
            • That makes sense to me. I'll change it. If there's some reason I'm overlooking, Admin, please change it back. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Google Translations Bug?

  • Thanx, Ryan. BTW: Did I port something wrong with the links? There's a couple bugs I'm trying to figure out. The accented characters are printing correctly for me for Google translations on Bionic Wiki but here they show as gibberish. Also, the "Automatically translated" frame at the top keeps being removed.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
    • No problem. I have no idea why those things are happening. I'm heading to bed in a few minutes, though, so I don't really have time to look at it now. Plus, I'm kind of ignorant when it comes to those questions. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
      • I just double-checked by entering both site's addresses manually at Google translate, and I get the same results, so it's not a template problem, it's a server option problem.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
        • The "automatically translated" frame disappearing at the top is expected. Can you give me an example of where the foreign characters aren't being displayed properly? Using Google Translate there shouldn't really be anything specific to the site that would affect the display of foreign characters. If you can give me a link that doesn't appear to be working for you that'd be helpful. Also perhaps a screenshot of what you're seeing specifically. (Admin 01:18, 22 September 2007 (EDT))
  • Ok, screenshots have been sent by e-mail. It is a weird bug, imho. It works with the frame, but not without.--MiamiVolts (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
    • This only appears to be a problem in Internet Explorer and isn't limited to just this site. If you use Google Translate to translate http://cnn.com for instance it looks fine in IE until you remove the frame at the top, then the characters get all messed up. In Firefox it comes up fine. It looks like a problem with Google's tool. The Heroes Wiki automatically breaks out of any frames which is why the characters look strange by default. We're just going to have to wait for Google to fix their tool or switch the translations so they use Altavista Babel Fish instead. (Admin 10:23, 22 September 2007 (EDT))
      • So I changed us over to Altavista Babelfish. Yahoo has a Babel Fish translator too, but they use an ip instead of a name address. The font is a little bigger than with Google translations, but I'd rather have bigger font than gibberish text.--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

2.01 Four Months Later

This just aired, where is everyone?! --SacValleyDweller 01:20, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Out on the west coast, perhaps. :) It finished on the east coast 3 hours ago. (Admin 01:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT))
    • I'm on the east coast, too, but after watching JourneyMan now I got to come back and watch a YamagatoFellowship video and a new Hana video. Heroes 360 galore!--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
      • I slapped something together on that new Hana post, but the video in it needs massively better translation services than my 2-years-and-counting rusty 3 years of Spanish can render on speach.--SacValleyDweller 02:05, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Character Histories

How are we going to put Season One and Season Two into the sections in Character Histories? The issue is trying to work around the fact that we can't squeeze an H2 or H3 "Season #" heading between an H2 "Character History" and an H3 episode title. I'm certainly not in favor of changing every character page (and item and event and place page, for that matter) to fix the headings. :) So here are a few choices:

Leave the seasons and the episodes both as H3: 

==Character History==
===[[Season One]]===
<summary>
===[[Season Two]]===
===[[Four Months Later]]===
<summary>

Put seasons and Character History as H2: 

==Character History==
==[[Season One]]==
<summary>
==[[Season Two]]==
===[[Four Months Later]]===
<summary>

Put summarized seasons as H3 and current season as H3: 

==Character History==
===[[Season One]]===
<summary>
==[[Season Two]]==
===[[Four Months Later]]===
<summary>

Leave off current season, and keep summarized season as H2: 

==Character History==
===[[Season One]]===
<summary>
===[[Four Months Later]]===
<summary>

Personally, I'd go with the last choice. I'd leave the everything as it is, and just not include the "Season Two" heading until after it's summarized. Not only is it the easiest choice (fewest changes to articles), I also think it's the most aesthetic choice. Then the History (H2) is broken down into a summary for Season One (H3) and a summary for each each episode (also H3). When we're in the middle of Season Three, it would carry through, and would still be easy and good-looking. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Advertising Slogans

So, I was thinking we might come up with a slogan for our Wiki to put in mine and other's sigs for when we post on other forums as an ad. Here's some I've come up with. I'm not sure which is best. Feel free to add on, correct, or let me know it's just plain too corny... ;)

  • BionicWiki.com and HeroesWiki.com--making the Wiki world a little larger
  • Bionic Wiki and Heroes Wiki--building a fan-run community together
  • Bionic Wiki and Heroes Wiki--fan run and fan built community sites
  • Bionic Wiki and Heroes Wiki--theories, spoilers, synopsis & other Wiki magic
  • Bionic Wiki and Heroes Wiki--not forums, they're a Wiki phenomenon--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Chronological Order

I think that most pages should be written in chronological order rather than an episode-by-episode guide. For example, it would be better to say in the right beginning of the Claire Bennet page that her mother is Meredith Gordon and her father is Nathan Petrelli, how she was saved from the fire and given to Noah Bennet rather than breaking down the whole information, saying that in Genesis her foster parents are Mr. Bennet and Sandra Bennet, then in The Fix her mother was revealed to be Meredith Gordon, then in the episode Distractions her father is revealed to be Nathan Petrelli, then in Company Man she was revealed to be given to Noah Bennet. Readers can scan through unwanted information through the chronological biography. The episode-by-episode guide can still be kept for readers who want no spoilers or information from an episode.

For other pages that the chronological order cannot be applied, it should be changed into other formats. For example, for the article Suicide, it should be done character-by-character, as Peter's "suicide attempt" arcs through at least 3 episodes (Genesis - One Giant Leap). Again, readers will be more comfortable reading the whole incident under one topic rather than finding different fragments of the same incident through different episodes subtopic. Chrisyu357 11:19, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, that would only mean major format changes to over 1,000 pages. :) Less glibly, we run into a problem if we can't figure out chronology. For instance, if another GN comes out about the Haitian's childhood, we're stuck since we don't know the exact year, or where in the chronology it fits with the It Takes a Village series. Same goes for Betty's backstory. We also have the issue of multiple futures on Heroes. Suppose another episode is produced which takes place five years in the future, but it's, of course, a different future than the one shown in Five Years Gone--how exactly would this fit into a chronology? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
  • If we are not sure about which incident goes first, we could begin with "Another notable incident that happened in the Haitian's childhood is...", and I'm sure we can dealt with the multiple timeline issues since we have articles for both characters from the current timeline and future characters. However, in some case, say Claire, have at least 3 possible timeline ("current" timeline, 5YG timeline, "Killed-at-Homeciming" timeline) - we can add the "real" timeline into Claire Bennet, and the other two in Future Claire Bennet, under two subtopics. I have to admit, however, that rewriting over 1000 articles is a extremely harsh job. :) Chrisyu357 05:01, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Fixed bug breaking section editing when transcluding templates with sections

  • Well, the title pretty much says it all even if it's a mouth full. If you've ever tried transcluding a template that has sections in it you may have noticed that when you subsequently tried to edit a section in the article you'd either get an error that the section didn't exist or it'd have you editing the wrong section. Unbeknownst to me until I figured it out today this was being caused by a modification I made a long time ago to automatically convert two dashes automatically into —. Now that this is fixed you'll find that section editing now works properly again even when templates define their own sections. In addition if you edit a section that has been transcluded it will take you to the section in the template itself so you can edit the appropriate content. (Admin 17:19, 13 October 2007 (EDT))
    • So two dashes don't automatically convert to the mdash anymore?--Bob 17:25, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
      • It will still automatically convert. I just fixed the bug that was a side-effect of that initial enhancement. (Admin 17:28, 13 October 2007 (EDT))
    • This is really cool. However, the link to the transcluded template is going to &section=1, which is usually the Usage section of the template (since the body of the template is usually not in a section). Can this be adjusted so the links edit the template without a &section=? Alternately, you could make it &section=0.--Hardvice (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
      • It's because we're using includeonly in the templates for the first section. For it to work properly I think we're going to have to allow the first section to be defined whether it's during transclusion or not. I'm not sure how easily I could change it to display the first section and I'm not really a fan of the idea since it seems like more of a hack that could have unintended consequences. I think we're better off just making sure the section is defined in the template whether transcluded or not. By the way, do you know of an example page where it's an issue? (Admin 18:19, 13 October 2007 (EDT))
        • Try Takezo Kensei. Anything with Fan Theories or Spoilers will work, but he had both.--Hardvice (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
          • Ok, that's what I thought you were referring to. So is there any big disadvantage to getting rid of the includeonly tags around the first section in the templates? (Admin 18:54, 13 October 2007 (EDT))
            • Not really. They need to be adjusted to not create redlinks on the template page. I did this for template:theories and the edit link now works fine.--Hardvice (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
            • Fixed template:spoiler, too. I made it so it creates a red link when included but not on the template page. Works fine now. Are they any other templates which create section headings? The appearance templates do, but they're a special case since they need to create different section headings on different articles. Otherwise, I'm drawing a blank.--Hardvice (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
            • I went ahead and changed the appearance templates, too, so that section edit links would work on Appearances. Incidentally, I discovered that the template needs a non-conditional section to work with the edit link from the page on which it's transcluded, even if either case of the conditional would result in a section being added (in other words, the == need to be OUTSIDE the {{#if:}} statement for it to count as a section on the template.) Good to know. I haven't done the GN appearances because there are a ton of them and I'm a lazy bastard.--Hardvice (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Does this mean that Template:Welcome will no longer have to be substituted? -Lөvөl 03:33, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
    • It probably should be anyway. Section edit bug aside, transclusion is a resource hog (though, of course, user talk pages tend to be fairly low traffic), and substituting it gives people the option to keep or delete as much or as little as they want (and to see how some Wiki markup works).--Hardvice (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
      • Template:MQ is used in section headings, but I made it so it just becomes the name, not the section. I think it's best that way. Template:GN could create a section heading if one so desired, but it would mean 54 unnecessary edits, and it would lose the ability to add an additional external link on the GN pages, if we so desired. I think it's also fine as is. (Thanks for finding the bug, Admin!) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 06:36, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Something wrong with the server?

I can't seem to make any changes, I'm getting a 400 Bad Request and another's not loading at all.--Bob 10:32, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Must have cleared up, seems to be working.--Bob 10:39, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
    • Checked the logs and it looks like either your browser was sending some malformed requests to the server or some intermediate firewall was mangling your requests. It only seemed to be affecting you. Aren't you lucky? :) (Admin 10:54, 15 October 2007 (EDT))

G4 Post Show

Well, I am officially the first host on the G4 Heroes Post Show. Man, it's going to be cool! They have a lot of really great things planned, some of which I'm not allowed to say quite yet. All I'll say is that I think we're going to be talking about the Post Show quite a bit on this site. From what I'm gathering, we will be referencing the Post Show about as much as we reference the CBR Behind the Eclipse interviews.

For those of you who don't know about the Post Show or G4 yet, Season One will air in a marathon on G4 on Saturday and Sunday, October 27th & 28th at 12 pm EST. Then, there will be a mini-marathon on Saturday, November 3rd, where G4 will air all episodes of Season Two thus far (episodes 201 through 206). Finally, at 11 pm EST, the Post Show will air. (See here for more information.) This is cool--it's a live and interactive segment that will feature exclusive interviews with members of the cast and crew, live viewer commentary, interactive polls, behind-the-scenes footage and a whole bunch of other stuff which I can't divulge. Even better, the episodes which air on Mondays will be repeated on Saturdays on G4 (at 10 pm EST) for those who missed it the first time around, or who just want to relive the experience. The Post Show will also air weekly, with new content, new interviews, new cast and crew members, and plenty more for us to discuss on those late Saturday nights.

So how can you be involved? Well, if you're in the Southern California area, you can be in the studio audience--just contact me and I'll make sure you get in. Not near LA? Then two other options exist for you. I believe you can go to Stickam, where you can be selected to do live videos that will air. If that doesn't work for you, then G4 is also accepting viewer mail through Stickam, where you can gush about the show, drool over Peter's pecs, salivate over Niki's assets, tell all the minutiae you noticed, and send all your wildest theories. I'm pretty psyched about being part of this, and about a new resource to give us depth into Heroes. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

  • That's cool. I was contacted by an owner of another cool HEROES fansite about the fun opportunities of this HEROES Post Show. It seems like it'll be fun! 'ROESian
    • Fun, and a great place for us to get some good inside info. I don't know how many shows I will be doing, but I kind of plan to use my time, if possible, to ask some of those nagging questions about Heroes and just to glean some good trivia heretofore unrevealed. I'm pretty psyched about the whole deal. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

"Wrestler" page needs deleted.

This page needs to be deleted since there is already a page about the wrestler in question. --Avenger 05:22, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

  • No, actually. Wrestler is the page for the character. Oscar Gutierrez is the page for the actor. It seems odd, since he was playing himself, but it's the same as having two articles for Hiro and Masi Oka.--Hardvice (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Incidentally, since it's bound to come up: the reason the character is "wrestler" and not Rey Mysterio is that he's not explicitly identified as Rey Mysterio in the episode. Yes, it's obviously him. Yes, it's just stock footage. But we can't assume that the character that footage represents in the world of Heroes is called Rey Mysterio just because the wrestler in the real world is called Rey Mysterio. This is similar to how in Heroes it's the Las Vegas Police Department but in the real world it's the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Another analogy would be the pictures of Peter that Nathan looks at: in reality, they're real-life pictures from Milo Ventimiglia's childhood, but as far as the show's concerned, they're pictures of Peter--i.e. real-world photos of one person were used to represent a fictional person. The wrestler Micah and Damon watch could be called "Sue" for all we know, even though footage of Rey Mysterio was used. So we have a character called wrestler, who is represented by stock footage of Rey Mysterio, who is portrayed in the real world by Oscar Gutierrez.--Hardvice (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually, I remember the announcer at one point saying "Mysterio goes for the 619!" or something to that effect. I'll have to rewatch the episode to make sure, but I'm about 90% sure that he was identified.--Avenger 18:38, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

  • No, Damon says "Here comes the 619!"--Bob (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

The heroes Interactive says it's Rey Mysterio. Rayhond 18:57, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Or given it's just a shot from some footage and he's not a real character/actor within Heroes we can get rid of the pages entirely. There's little point in giving them their own articles. They're just as easily linked to Wikipedia. I think we're not being selecting enough about what gets its own article anymore and instead every little insignificant thing is winding up with its own article. It's cruft and is unnecessary. (Admin 19:08, 22 October 2007 (EDT))
    • Are we low on server space? I don't mind linking to Wikipedia for, say, real-life information about Tokyo, or Cadillacs, or whatever. But we still have our own articles for Tokyo and Jessica's Cadillac as they appear in the world of Heroes. I don't see how this wrestler is different. Granted, I didn't initially think there was any reason to make an article for him, but I don't think it hurts us. And he's above the threshold of, say, tuning fork.--Hardvice (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
      • If I were to say yes we're low would it help prevent this cruft? That tuning fork article is cruft, too. I don't know why we have these separate articles for people/places/things that are so insignificant within the show. Surely it's beneficial to mention them somewhere (such as the tuning fork would be mentioned briefly in character summaries and the episode synopsis where it was used), but why do we have a whole article on it? Why do we not create an article for Doc Brown because Hiro said "Great Scott!" once? It's just not necessary and isn't the kind of article that should exist at a Heroes wiki. It's scope creep and just isn't necessary. (Admin 19:36, 22 October 2007 (EDT))
        • -Coughs very loudly---Riddler 19:40, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
        • The argument above is not that the article is trivial, but that it's a double article since both Oscar Gutierrez and the wrestler have articles. The article is trivial, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it. If anything I believe it makes us more legit--on numerous occasions, I have searched for things on lostpedia: and memoryalpha: that occur very infrequently on the show, and have been excited when the article is there, and disappointed when it's not. I also wouldn't discount the footage as just being stock footage. NBC likely had to pay for the rights to use it (though I don't profess to know the legalities of such matters). And in this case, the character was mentioned in [[Heroes Interactive (The Kindness of Strangers}|]]; his counterpart, the cooking show host, was actually credited. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
          • If you search for it you would still get results within the page text which is sufficient. It's not feasible to have a separate article for every single thing that someone would search for, so it doesn't make sense to have an article just for the sake of searches (since the page text results would be returned anyway). My point was the original point should be moot since I think we should just delete both articles and link to Wikipedia's info for Oscar and Rey since niether require their own separate article at this point. (Admin 19:48, 22 October 2007 (EDT))
            • I'm ambivalent about objects and items, but there's something about chronicling every character which seems important to me. Characters with much less screen time and much less visibility have been credited. I think it's a slippery slope when we start deciding which characters and which actors merit their own article and which should just be linked to externally. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
              • I don't consider him to be a character since he wasn't acting for the show in any way, but I can definitely see how he could be considered one. (Admin 20:05, 22 October 2007 (EDT))
                • since he wasn't acting for the show in any way -louder cough- =P--Riddler 20:06, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
                  • What's your point, Riddler? (Admin 20:07, 22 October 2007 (EDT))
                    • Lol, nothing, I just like how my original points are coming back. Some of the stuff you said in your big post were thigns I've said before. =P--Riddler 20:09, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
                      • Oh, I didn't see your original points. Yeah, my personal view is that he's not a character in Heroes, he's just a wrestling character who's part of some footage that was shown in the show. Just like if Molly watches Sesame Street I won't consider Big Bird to be a character in Heroes. (Admin 20:13, 22 October 2007 (EDT))
                        • But if Molly then found Big Bird's true location, the argument would be made that he really is a character on the show--especially if he's credited or mentioned on the NBC site. Why not the same for the wrestler? Not only did Micah use his power to bring the wrestler's image on TV, but Monica watched him at length (and had that cool reflection of him in her eye) and then copied his signature move. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
                          • That would be fun if Molly located, say, the Nightmare Man near Kirby Plaza, though the map location was in L.A. for Bayer's Double Ascension. :) Just kiddin'. ;) 'ROESian
                      • And I continue to disagree with Admin just as much as I disagreed with you. :) --Hardvice (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
              • I guess we have a different idea about what constitutes "cruft". I'll take an article for a character, however trivial, who has actually appeared, over an article like Adam Monroe (who has only been mentioned in a licensed video game) or any of the journal people (who only exist in barely readable screenshots from a handful of frames from a single episode) any day. We know more about this wrestler than any of them (for one thing, that he actually exists and has a portrayer), and he's been far more important to the plot than any of them has been so far.--Hardvice (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

You guys ever check the Alexa rankings?

http://alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=heroeswiki.com Out of all the websites on the internet, I'd say this site is doing pretty damned good. =]--Riddler 00:04, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

  • I do check them from time to time for fun, but who needs their estimates when I publish the real information? :) (Admin 00:07, 23 October 2007 (EDT))
    • True, but this compares with other sites as well, and I'd say the number (which I believe is getting better) is pretty good. =P--Riddler 00:10, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Power Image Cats?

  • Are we going to make image cats for all of the powers, for example Category:Images of Electromagnetism? Because if we are, I'd be more than happy to get it going.--  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  08:11, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
    • Category:Powers Images is what we use.--Bob (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
      • Okay. I asked because I thought it might be good to separate them into sub-categories. A lot of work, yes, but it would make it easier to search for images. Fair enough, though.--  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  10:19, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
        • Well, a while back, I went ahead and made the Cats for the main characters. My only issue with subcategories is a) making a category for something like liquification that only has one or two images, or b) when we have these long debates about names of abilities and renaming occurring so often. For example, Monica's ability was named something, then moved at least four times since last week. So I just don't feel too good about having people then making a bunch of categories that aren't necessary, yanno? But for some of the more established abiities (telekinesis, telepathy, empathic mimicry), I wouldn't have a problem with that. Just adjust the Template:image-screenshot to take parameters for the powers and that sounds like a good idea. (If you decide to do this, make sure to add some nicknames to the template, like "regeneration" instead of "rapid cell regeneration" or "stm" instead of "space-time manipulation"...my two cents). I'm sure you'll get help if you decide to embark on this.--Bob (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
          • You make good points, and I get what you're saying. I'll get to work doing it if other people say it's a good idea....--  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  12:10, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
            • Sounds good. I'll help when I can. I know when I did the character cats, I did it on a weekend since most people will be around to help. I'll help, but I work and have school, so I dunno how available I'll be. But if you want to hold out until the weekend, that sounds good. That way you can get some feedback. I like the idea, and it will definitely help when doing example pages for powers. I'd suggest any powers that are in this template.--Bob (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
              • I got a week off, which is why I'm on so much! But sure, I can wait.--  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  12:18, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
                • I personally don't see any need for it. I mean, if somebody wants an image that shows electromagnetism, examples of electromagnetism should have every image, is much more organized, and includes a brief description of each image. Changing the title of a page (which happens often with the newer powers) is not that big a deal--it only really requires tweaks to about 4 or 5 pages. Changing the name of a category is a much bigger deal because every image needs to be updated, and then the old category needs to be deleted. I know Category:Powers is huge, but I'm not a fan of splitting it due to the mercurial nature of the names of some of our powers. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT):(

2000th Article!

We should probably write a small news about that! We reached 2K articles :) --  (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

navbar

Keeping the navbar at the bottom might be the way it's done on other pages, but it messes up the layout when a new comment is added. Plus, I kind of like it at the top for a non-content page. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Yeah, I liked it at the top, too. And the way it avoided problems when new sections were added was very nice, too. (Admin 23:47, 27 October 2007 (EDT))

Comic-Con 2008

Comic-Con 2008 is Thu, July 24 to Sun, July 27 at the San Diego Convention Center. (Registration here).

  • Since the Comic-Con 2007 registration filled up early I took the precaution of registering early for Comic-Con 2008 so I should be there this year. If anyone else is interested in going I recommend registering early because they have a tendency to fill up quickly. Plus apparently hotels in the area fill up quickly and it was already difficult to find one nearby without having to pay both arms and both legs (it already costs an arm and a leg). As the conference gets closer I'd like to get a better idea who looks like they'll be going and I'd be happy to bring extra t-shirts for people who will be there. (Admin 00:48, 29 October 2007 (EDT))

Now here's an idea...

  • I think it'd be good for us to have somewhere where we can discuss the episode that's just aired. After all, we're all fans of the show, and everyone has their own theories! I know we do do some discussion on talk pages, but then people post stuff about the page itself, and it can be a bit confusing. But if there was a place we could actually all discuss the episode, it'd be cool. And it could be named after something in the show, like, I dunno, The Loft, perhaps, or something similar. I suppose this sort of links in with the forum idea I read someone suggest a while back. Anyhow, yeah, just a thought.--  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  12:44, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
    • Heroes Wiki isn't a forum. That's why I post some of my thoughts at IMDb.com (that's a forum). There's also 9th and 10th wonders forums. If you have a specific comment that will help document the show, I think it belongs on the episode talk page. If you have a theory about something specific, you can add it in the theory namespace.--MiamiVolts (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
      • Fair dues, but I'm not saying this is a forum. I'm saying I think it might be good to have something similar. What's the point in joining 9th Wonders or whatever and having to join a whole new community when you're part of one on this site?--  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  13:08, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
        • Cause it helps bring new visitors to the site when you talk about it on other sites? Word of mouth advertising can be much for effective than the advertising Admin pays so much money for. At least, that's my theory as to why Admin doesn't add a forum here. Heh, but I'm pretty sure Admin will answer for himself.--MiamiVolts (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
          • My reasons for not adding a forum are because: 1) Heroes forums are a dime a dozen. The world doesn't need yet another when there are good large ones out there already. 2) It would probably distract people from the wiki itself. 3) We can focus on what we do best. We run an excellent wiki that's only gaining in popularity. Let others who are experienced at running forums run the forums.
            That being said I'm not opposed to a "loft" or "water cooler" area where people can be a little more chatty than they might on the article discussion pages, though this page is already somewhat for that. I just personally don't see a big need for a separate forum especially when many of us already frequent other boards like imdb or 9thwonders.com. While you can implement a forum as a series of wiki articles it tends to be more clumsy to maintain and lacks some of the nicities that people will expect out of a forum (and as a result it won't attract as many people and won't be as popular). (User:Admin 14:44, 2 November 2007 (EDT))
            • I never said forum. I just meant a wiki page, like, I dunno, Chat:The Line or something; a page where people can go to discuss informally an episode or whatever. I know a forum would be pointless, totally get that. And now I just read your second point, which I understand also. It was just a thought.--  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  14:54, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
              • Yeah, if people really wanted one it would happen since it's essentially just a new set of articles and anyone could create them. :) I don't think there's been a great deal of interest in it because we're not too restrictive about what goes on discussion pages so people just mention the stuff there instead. (Admin 15:19, 2 November 2007 (EDT))
                • I don't think it's a bad idea. But instead of "Chat:The Line", don't we have Episode talk:The Line? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
                  • As I said earlier, I feel it may be good to have a distinction between wiki talk pages (which, generally, should be for page discussion), and actually episode (and character, and whatever else) discussion. But hey, I'm happy with whatever.--  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  04:52, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Stupid writers or whatever strike!

What the heck is this stupid thing that threatens to end Heroes? Would some one mind explaining to me what it is?--The Empath 17:06, 4 November 2007 (EST)

  • The writer's union is going on strike because their contract has expired. The big sticking points include royalties for online sales, online streaming ad revenue, and compensation for work for websites. It's industry-wide, but affects different shows differently. Reality TV, which is (officially at least) "unscripted", shouldn't be affected at all. Scheduled films with existing scripts should be able to proceed just fine, as should most shows which have completed scripts waiting to film. Unfortunately for Heroes, all of its writers are also producers, so even if they have unfilmed scripts ready to go, they likely won't be able to film them. Incidentally, last time this happened in the 80s, lots of shows attempted to proceed anyway. ST:TNG, for example, tried to adapt left-over scripts from the original series and film some cheap-ass clip shows (which is what a lot of sitcoms did). The results were pretty awful.--Hardvice (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2007 (EST)
    • Another thing the writers appear to want is more revenue for DVD sales. This strike could have happened in 2004, but then the Directors' Guild accepted a deal that included better pension and health insurance benefits, instead of DVD and other electronic media subsidies, that the writers felt they had to go along with. Thus, the networks and studios have known for a while this strike could be coming. Here's some sites you can check into for more info. about the strike:
      1. Alliance of Motion Pictures and Television Producers (AMPTP)--this is the organization that contracts writers from the WGA to work for the networks and movie studios: http://www.amptp.org/
      2. LA Times article about some of the shows to be affected: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-striketvgrid-html,0,7606966.htmlstory?coll=la-home-center
      3. Hollywood Reporter article explaining the situation and what happened 3 years ago: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ia9c51f5ef29150aa4498841d01bc0687
      4. NY Times article explaining that the networks/studios have only tried to negotiate this for the past 3 months: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/business/media/02cnd-hollywood.html?em&ex=1194148800&en=9015c8b4b5f53f4f&ei=5087%0A
      5. Kristin's E-Online article containing info. on how the strike may affect Heroes (article covers the series, how it affects Heroes 360 is unknown): http://www.eonline.com/gossip/kristin/detail/index.jsp?uuid=dcc84c3f-fa04-4fca-890e-8dba4a5dd7ba
      6. Website of the Writers Guild of America, West: http://www.wga.org/
      7. Website of the Writers Guild of America, East: http://www.wgaeast.org/
      • Hope that helps you understand some more about what's going on.--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2007 (EST)
        • It's also important to remember that this is a decision from the Writers Guild of America, not the writers of Heroes. Since they are members of the union, they must follow the strike, should it occur, regardless of their opinion of what should or shouldn't happen. It kind of reminds me of the union to which I belong--I'm a teacher. If my union goes on strike, so d I. What complicates things is that I might agree with the strike, but not want to see my students suffer--much the same way that many of the Heroes writers might agree with the principles of the strike, but they don't want to see their show suffer. Food for thought. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2007 (EST)
          • That's true. One advantage Heroes has, though, is that it is an international show and it could, if it so desired, contract writers from overseas to write the graphic novels. Such writers are not members of the WGA so will not be on strike. On a site note, the WGA gives its members the option to resign their membership and become 'financial core' members. Said 'financial core' members do not lose any financial benefits by resigning their membership (they don't lose any pension or health insurance benefits), and can return to work during a strike. However, said members cannot be elected an officer of the WGA and can no longer vote in the WGA.--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2007 (EST)
            • Oh god, we are going to be left with Reality Television *shiver*--The Empath 18:50, 4 November 2007 (EST)
              • Even reality television requires writers to make the script for the host(s). Assuming the strike lasts long enough, we may get to see re-runs of M.A.S.H., Lavern and Shirley, The A-Team and Magnum PI....maybe even the original Bionic Woman...--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Strike?

  • Does anybody else think we should have something about the strike somewhere? I know we have a news link in the main page, but that, essentially, is all speculation; besides, to understand that you need to have some background knowledge on the strike itself. I don't really know if it merits a page or not; just throwing something into the mix...--  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  09:03, 5 November 2007 (EST)
Retrieved from "https://heroeswiki.ddns.net/index.php?title=Heroes_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal&oldid=432361"