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 20:30, 7 April 2009 by imported>Irony (→Urgent Help Needed Please: new section)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the community portal! Click here to add a new comment section.

Consensus = ?????

How many people voting one option constitutes a consensus? I think this would help our debates on ability names if we established some sort of standard like that. 2/3 majority? 75% maybe?--SacValleyDweller (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

  • Consensus means that everyone with a logical and non-biased opinion either agrees or at least does not oppose. That's what it is to me, there may be a more accurate definition. Consensus is not the same as a majority or super-majority. Those are aspects of a vote. (Admin 00:51, 25 October 2008 (EDT))
  • I believe you are correct in your destintion of consensus vs vote. Agreeing with, or not opposed to, as in "I can live with that" as a common stand on a subject.--Cúchulainn 03:33, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Featured Sites

Besides the new links at NBC.com/Heroes, 9th Wonders's link for Heroes Wiki now redirects to us, and it's a link that's at the top of almost every page they have. NBC's original Heroes Wiki has 9th Wonders in the sidebar as "Message boards". Since we can't claim 9th Wonders as our message boards, that's probably not the way to go; but since we are now highly featured in their links perhaps we should consider making 9th Wonders and NBC.com/Heroes featured sites so the linkback could be on our main page. Just a thought I had, that it would be a nice courtesy.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

  • I'd go for giving 9th and the official site more visibility here. --SacValleyDweller (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
    • I'm not sure if this is under negotiations or anything, but no one else has spoken up here about this in over a week, so I'm bumping this question.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2008 (EST)
      • I'm bumping this one last time for discussion.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2008 (EST)
        • I agree, some fan sites I have been on have no link to the official website of the subject and it drives me crazy, here it is only a few clicks away but I think it could be somewhere on the front page. Having links to 9th Wonders would also be useful, maybe in the navigation box? On a side note, Heroes Wiki is now linked to from the Graphic Novels Library page. -Lөvөl 01:15, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Other Heroes Wiki

  • Hi, I'm an admin in the other Heroes Wiki. I'm currently helping the other wiki to grow to its full potential. I'm writing here to ask if I could use your Portal idea for our Heroes Wikia Character page? And I won't copy information from this site. :). Destiny! 03:14, 3 November 2008 (EST)
    • I don't know where the portal here originally originated from, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's a concept someone liked from another site and implemented it here, too. Our templates rely on specific extensions we use here that I don't think Wikia uses, so I wouldn't be surprised if they don't work over there. I don't think there's any real issue with implementing a portal over there as long as actual content isn't copied from here to there (since it'd be a violation of the license). That being said, keep in mind that Heroes wikia site gets very little traffic and is virtually unmaintained, so you might find a more collaborative environment here than over there. The wikia site is already ad its full potential. ;) There's a little bit of a learning curve here at this point, I admit, so it sometimes takes a little time to get a grasp of the different policies we have... but they've evolved over time in order to create a site that works very well if I say so myself. :) We also have a partnership with NBC now and many of the staff involved in Heroes actually frequent this site from time to time. Hope you stick around! :) (Admin 21:47, 3 November 2008 (EST))

Need help on a few questions. Can someone please help!

Hi I'm new to this Wiki talk, but I have been following Heroes since day one and I am a little confused anbout a few things and was wondering if someone could help me out? Am I understanding this correctly that next week will be the last episode for this season? If I am, then I undertsand why Heroes was cut short last season, but why are they ending it so soon this season? I would really appreshiate any clarification any one can give me!

Thanks.--Freakylady555 (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2008 (EDT)

  • I think that's just a rumor. Last I heard, the schedule for Volume 3 of Heroes is planned to go through till December. There is still potential for an actor's strike called by the SAG, but if that happens it will simply delay Volume 4 (Heroes as of January) as most of, if not all of, Volume 3 is already filmed. You can see the official schedule for the next three episodes of Heroes at NBC Universal Media Village.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2008 (EST)
    • Oh okay, thank you very much, I was worried there for a minute. I couldn't find the information anywhere. Thanks again, Freakylady555
      • They've just rapped up shooting episode 2 of volume 4 i believe, so volume three should be full lengthLilRebel616 12:00, 18 November 2008 (EST)

SAG talks

The SAG and AMPTP were negotiating with a federal mediator, but the mediator has given up on trying to reach a resolution. It is expected that the SAG will now call for a strike authorization vote. You can read about it at Reuters. I'm still hopeful that there won't be an actor's strike, and even if the authorization vote passes it doesn't mean a strike necessarily has to be called.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2008 (EST)

  • Some potential good news; the SAG and AMPTP are back at the table this morning per the New York Post.--MiamiVolts (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2008 (EST)
    • The above story appears to have been an update of an older article as new talks have not been confirmed and the SAG appears to be preparing to call for a strike authorization vote to gain the ability to call a strike if they can't get the AMPTP to cooperate. Hopefully, it doesn't come to a strike.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2008 (EST)

General page for abilities?

  • I'm quite surprised we don't have a general page for abilities. The page would detail everything we know about abilities - where they come from (hereditary vs. synthetic), what affects them (eclipse, The Haitian maybe) and talk about how they work (i.e. Mohinder's discoveries about adrenaline, catalyst, the formula). What do you guys think? I just reckon it'd be good to have a general overview. Thanks,--  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  03:54, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Heroes Wiki portal on NBC's site

"The Haitian"

"The Haitian" is a prominent figure on Heroes now. He arguably has one of the most important powers on the show. Why doesn't he have a name? Why didn't the random African character have a name?

I don't really understand that artistry in calling someone by their country of origin. --Sunshine 21:21, December 9, 2008

  • If you're referring to the precog who was creating those paintings in Africa, his name is actually Usutu. (Admin 21:39, 9 December 2008 (EST))
  • I think the idea of not giving somebody a name keeps an air of mystery about them. Mr. Bennet didn't have a name for a very long time--in fact, he wasn't even called "Mr. Bennet" for the first bunch of episodes. X-Files comes to mind with their terrific Cigarette Smoking Man. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Petrelli's = Kennedys?

I've been googling this, but can't seem to find an answer to it anywhere. Someone else must've thought that there is a strange similarity between the Petrelli family and the Kennedys, almost like one inspired the others.

Arthur Petrelli = Joe Kennedy...slightly evil, controlling father trying to set up his sons to run the country/world Nathan Petrelli = JFK, attractive older brother who acts as a leader, his younger brother remains his moral compass Peter Petrelli = RFK, younger brother, portrays excellent leadership abilities

There's more to it than that, just seems to be a little too coincidental

Hi people. im new.

hi im new. i was thinking, when are the producers going to think about an ability never heard before? cause i was thinking that throughout the whole 3 seasons, the abilities we've come to see are ones we've already known or heard about. do you think they might create a new ability like maya's? because maya's ability was the most "new" abilities i've never heard of. because me and my friends were thinking of some abilities and how they work, one of them may sound retarded, but we didnt specifically call it a name. and it was the ability to mentally give someone the feeling of extreme pain, like this ability could be used if someone broke they're foot, and some asshole was laughing at them, someone could mentally make them feel the pain mentally like they broke their foot but physically it looks like nothing happened to their foot. and eventually people will think their going nuts. sorry it's not completely explained well.--Skeletal Augmentation (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2009 (EST)

  • Hi Skeletal Augmentation and Happy New Year! Be sure to add your signature by putting --~~~~ at the end of comments you add to talk pages (or click the signature button to do so); it should show up like the one I added for you above when you save it. As to your comments, there are already many abilities have already been done before in comics, films, etc. To come up with something totally original isn't easy; electronic communication is one that's rather original, imho. Your idea is basically a form of emotional manipulation; in the Heroes universe, there is already a power called "bliss and horror" which lets its holder force someone to feel pain or joy.--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Suggestion: "Plot Holes" category

Unless there already is a section which I've missed, I'd like to suggest the addition of a page which catalogs the various apparent plot holes/contradictions that seem to come up on the show. There are a lot of them, and it would be nice if there was a source somewhere online for a moderated and well written documentation of them. SvenBoogie 23:11, 3 January 2009

  • It's probably best to record definite plot holes at Production errors#Continuity errors. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2009 (EST)
  • I took a look at that section, its not really formatted properly to allow documenting plot holes, and furthermore, production errors are a different category entirely and are more like technical errors than storyline/writing problems. --SvenBoogie 16:51, 5 January 2009 (EST)

People's Choice Award!

Heroes just won a People's Choice Award for "Favorite Sci-Fi/Fantasy Show"! Congrats to the cast and crew of this great show! :)--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2009 (EST)

SIPA to bring NBC photos to Europe

I'm not sure how much this will help international viewers, but today SIPA has formed a partnership with NBC to provide NBC's online photo archive of its television broadcasts in Europe.--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2009 (EST)

NBC Hires Naked Communications

According to an article in Variety, NBC has hired Naked Communications to help with "sharpening [NBC's] image". The article calls it a brand makeover, groups Heroes as part of NBC's young male-oriented brand, along with NFL Sunday Night Football, "Chuck", and suggests that the findings from NBC's brand initiative will hopefully help the net determine its series orders for next fall. Raissad at 9th Wonders posted a link to the article there.--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2009 (EST)

A Better Organized Way to Document Memorable Quotes

I was looking recently at how bloated the Memorable quotes page is, and how it isn't consistent with the quotes listed on the character pages (ei: Claire Bennet), and would like to suggest we restructure all quotes so that they aren't all lumped into one Memorable quotes page, nor are they all cited on the main character page, but that they are given their own page that is linked off of the main character page like we do the character images, from the See Also section.
Fundamentally what I am suggesting, is to remove all of the quotes from the Memorable quotes page, and combine them with their actual character page-quotes, onto a new page linked to that character. For example, if this was Claire Bennet's page, her See Also section would look like the following:


Changing it this way, will associate all quotes with the person making them, and their page, eliminate redundancy, and it will also free up some space from their mainpage (since all of the mainpages are growing pretty large anyway), and it will be consistent and of the same design as we effectively organize and handle images of characters. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 01/26/2009 11:13 (EST)

  • Sounds like a good idea, but I'd name the articles like 'Claire Bennet quotes' (lowercase quotes since it is not part of a title).--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2009 (EST)
    • I don't mind separate pages (though "Claire Bennet quotes" seems odd to me--I'd prefer "Quotes from Claire Bennet" or the suggestion that follows), but I don't see what's wrong with the memorable quotes page. If the issue is that it's getting too large, I'd rather see subpages, like "Memorable quotes/Claire Bennet".
      As far as having memorable quotes on the character pages, I don't mind having two or three that help define and illustrate the character (not just funny quotes or quotes that show sass). In fact, a quick edit to template:MQ would help with linkage. They're not essential to the character pages, though. So if it's decided that they should come off altogether (I don't mind one way or the other), then a link in the See Also section is a good idea. However, the wording should probably go through a template ("template:seealsoMQ" could be created) so that the wording would be consistent and could be changed easily if needed. "For memorable quotes of Claire" sounds very odd. I'd prefer "For some of Claire's memorable quotes, see..." or something that flows a bit better. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2009 (EST)
      • I'm not opposed to keeping it as-is, but I do like the format "Memorable quotes/<character name>" for the split better as it makes the related pages easier to organize and find. On a side note, I noticed it's also being recommended that Memorable quotes be split by Season/Volume. I think we should split the article one way or the other, but not both.--MiamiVolts (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2009 (EST)
  • I saw that afd tags were added to a lot of the quotes pages that were recently created, citing that the idea was nixed. Was it? I didn't get the feeling that the idea was shot down from the discussion on this page. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2009 (EST)
    • Personally I thought this was a good idea, I have been looking for a job (I'm at a bit of a loose end). If the idea hadn't been axed I would definately be willing to set everything up (I don't want to help until it gets the go ahead). Thanks --IronyUTC CH 12:28, 25 February 2009 (EST)
      • Bumping here, but does anyone know what is going on with this? +1 Bump +2 Bump --IronyUTC CH 12:28, 25 February 2009 (EST)
        • I've looked at it a number of times, and my thoughts are above. I don't mind too much what happens with the page(s). -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2009 (EST)
          • I would be willing to do it but I want the go ahead first, does anyone object?--IronyUTC CH 16:03, 28 February 2009 (EST)

NBC Universal partners with American Airlines

NBC Universal has signed a partnership agreement with American Airlines, which officially begins March 1st, 2009. Shows from NBC, USA, Bravo, SCI FI, Oxygen, MSNBC and CNBC, as well as films from Universal Pictures and programming from NBC News, NBC Sports and other divisions of the company will be shown during flights. So you might be able to watch Heroes on your next flight. And although advertising for American Airlines on NBC Universal programming isn't mentioned as part of the deal, perhaps one day soon we'll be able to see Nathan or Peter flying past an American Airlines jet.--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Assignment Tracker summaries

Now that we have facsimiles of the full Assignment Tracker 2.0 files on the wiki (see Assignment Tracker 2.0/Hana Gitelman or Assignment Tracker 2.0/Echo DeMille), I think we should simply summarize the information on the character's page, rather than posting the full text. Our standard has always been to summarize info when we receive it. We included the full AT text on the character pages because it's full of great information, and it's nice to be able to have it return in a search. That will happen now that the full text is on the wiki. However, I think it's redundant to include the full text on the character pages.

I created a template (template:seealsoat) that will easily link people to the facsimile page as well as to the original page at primatechpaper.com. See Syn Anders#Heroes Evolutions for an example. Also see here or here for other examples of how the summaries might look]. I think they're cleaner and help with the flow of the page. (FYI, there's a bit of previous talk about this subject here.) What do you all think about summarizing? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2009 (EST)

GN and iStory history headings

Both the graphic novels and iStories are part of Heroes Evolutions. There is currently discussion at Talk:iStory about giving the iStory chapter summaries articles a namespace, but keeping the character histories under the Heroes Evolutions headers. The graphic novels headers are not under the Heroes Evolutions headings anymore, so I have proposed that we move them back mainly so we have a standard format, though there are other reasons too. The discussion about moving the graphic novels headings is at Talk:Portal:Graphic Novels.--MiamiVolts (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2009 (EST)

  • I don't see any value in moving graphic novels to the HE headings. The graphic novels have proven over two and a half years to be extremely consistent and reliable, and are always presented in the same medium. The graphic novels never break help:perspective and lend themselves very nicely towards narratives. The Heroes Evolutions content has not been as consistent. The medium in which it is presented often changes--sometimes a video, sometimes a website, sometimes an email, sometimes a blog post, sometimes something else. The iStory has been more consistent in its presentation, but by its nature, it breaks perspective. Miami has done an excellent job in his summaries (as have others) in using the term "player" or "agent" etc. It's fine for the summary pages and for the HE sections (which frequently break perspective), but the style does not fit our character history summaries. Also, the Choose Your Own Adventure style does not always lend itself to a nice narrative format. They're very fun, but there is no definite history of what happened, since multiple routes can be taken to get to an outcome. Ultimately, moving the iStory content out of HE breaks perspective and doesn't fit a nice narrative. Moving the graphic novels to the HE section seems like a choice to slavishly follow a self-imposed standard of placing all HE content in that section. There's no denying that the graphic novels are a separate entity, even considered special in their own right. Yes, they're technically under the umbrella of Heroes Evolutions, but that doesn't mean the content on some 1,500 pages needs to be moved. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2009 (EST)
    • Are you opposed to moving the graphic novel content to the HE headings or just don't think it's necessary? The way I see it, Heroes Evolutions has three clearly defined subsections: 1) pure ARG content--IC websites, videos, e-mails and blogs; 2) graphic novels; 3) iStories, and if we are going to leave the iStory content under the HE headings, which I agree with doing, I think we should move the graphic novel content back there too. Imho, keeping the GNs separate while leaving the iStories combined with the ARG content implies that the GNs are not part of Heroes Evolutions, which they are. About the number of pages that would be necessary to move, I was thinking a great majority of the move might be automated using a bot to move the sections as required.

      As to what you are saying about perspective, I think I understand what you mean but I think you are not saying it right. We are documenting the iStory content as presented to us, the users, so we should note the user interaction as part of the documenting--that is proper perspective. I think what you mean is that the iStory format is different because the content itself, not our documentation of it, breaks the standard observer perspective that is customary for reading a story by allowing the user to control the characters' actions. The standard Evolutions ARG content, not our documentation of it, breaks observer perspective because it allows the users to make contact with the characters. However, it's worth noting that in the ARG, the users always interact as themselves; whereas in the iStory, the users always interact as a character. So in that sense, the iStory content is different from the ARG content as well and has it's own perspective. So if we are to define headings by perspective, the iStory should be in a separate section from the ARG too, imho. Regarding fitting as a narrative, the iStory chapters are not your typical choose your adventure story. They have been continuous and definitive in the sense that they build on the events that occur in prior chapters. The story that we end up with may not be the official story; but I don't think we can just assume that the content is unreliable because of the format in which it is presented.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)
    • With regards to the GN's, I deffer to the age-old mantra "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" on the whole mess.

      With regards to this new iStory business, I think this aproch would serve well:
      1. YES on an iStory namespace, since it appears to be part of the presenting of this universe that is here to stay and we are bound to get more.
      2. NO on on incorporating the content into the Character History/About sections of Character pages on account of the the differing perspectives of the documentation of the respective media. Similarly...
      3. NO on putting said content under the Heroes Evolutions umbrella, as the iStory content can be arranged in a narrative and the rest of the evolutions content (save the videos like Sword Saint, which have a different perspective entirly) cannot. I DO think we can safely...
      4. MAKE a new section on the character pages specifically for the iStory. That way, the content can be arranged in a narrative and have the perspective not clash with the rest of the article. --SacValleyDweller (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Clear and Present Danger

the end of the show was bogus, while in the USCG I have flown SAR on C130 and unless ur at high altitude you DONT get sucked out of the plane. If you can see the trees as you do from the scene from the cockpit, THEN YOU ARE NOT AT HIGH ALTITUDE!!! We flew alot at a higher altitude than they were at, while doing SARS, with the back side doors and the ramp down so we could get better looks while finding boats and people. I realise this is SIFI but I wish they would please keep most stuff real. Bmunzz 20:28, 3 February 2009

  • Good point. However, I think it's more a matter of the plane being used being specially pressurized than them being at high altitude.--MiamiVolts (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2009 (EST)
  • HMMM, I guess that could be possible, except that I saw no operating equiptment to do that, I'll have to look again, but if I remember correctly most of the cargo on the plane went out of the whole. And most of the equiptment to subdue the charaters was self contianed on their person. Sorry...I'm a stickler to accurate details, and it makes me mad when a director or writer does something thats impossible and thinks we the viewers are stupid.---Bmunzz 16:40, 4 February 2009 (EST)
  • OK, I watched it again and two things come to notice. 1st in support of your idea is there are what appear to be sealed doors, on each end of the cargo area. It also appears the two guards are pushing buttons to do something, which could be maintaining pressurizing the cargo area. This could support your idea.
  • 2ND The pilot, while radioing a “MAYDAY” says that they have lost pressure. To alleviate this problem you would have to drop your altitude so that pressure stabilizes. He could have lied and said this because that’s what would be a normal problem. The fact that the plane is going down and people are being sucked out of the plane appears that more is wrong than normal loss of pressure. I am also curious if the plan had the reverse pressure would it suck things in rather than out? Is anyone out there with a knowledge of aeronautics know the answers to these questions?--Bmunzz 17:04, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Character articles; Long range plan

I know I'm jumping the gun royal with this idea, but I wanted to put it out there before I forget it and see what others think. After the show is over, and the series finale has aired (knock on wood that's not gonna be for another 5 or so years at least), what should our character articles look like for characters like Nathan and Matt? Should they have season/volume summaries/histories up till volume umpteen that we will have reached by then (which is kind of what we are currently doing) and left like that for as long as the Wiki remains active? Or should the documentation be more of a narrative, with articles for characters like Hiro having headings for his life as a child followed by headings for his adult life broken down into things like his quest for the Kensei sword, his time with Kensei, and whatever other arcs come up in his life, and those season histories stored in subpages? Personally I think the latter would be kind of neat. --SacValleyDweller (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2009 (EST)

  • Wow, you're thinking ahead! If you're asking right now, I kind of prefer the former, which is the way we've been doing it. Things might change down the road... -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2009 (EST)
    • I prefer the former too. It's kind of a style that we have built up.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Character History Changes

Hey there are two big changes I think we should make to Character History Pages:

  • 1. Volumes not Seasons. From this few Volume we can see that the story is completly differnt from that of Villains. There are two ways to do this. Change every season to volume on all the pages or split the season historys in half and have Season 3: Villains and Season 3: Futatives.
  • 2.Pre-Season 1 History. Say if I was looking to see how Noah joined the company, at the moment I would have to find the right episode in season one. If we had a part talking about the characters before season 1 then the articals would be in more of a chronogical order.--Skywalkerrbf 08:36, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Templates, DPL, etc. concerning episode links

  • I think we're going to run into an issue with next week's episode. I think some templates (manual and DPL) may simply be linking to the episode name without the explicit Episode: namespace and relying on the redirects. The redirects generally bypass the original intent of having a separate Episode namespace which was to handle cases where an episode might be named the same as an article. We're going to run into this with "Building 26" which is both a location and the name of an episode. Because it's a location the article "Building 26" will refer to the building, and Episode:Building 26 will refer to the episode. I expect there will also be a disambig page that explicitly lists both, but that's not a problem. If any templates don't include the Episode: namespace prefix then we'll end up with an episode link that points to a location article instead. If you know of any templates or DPL that is relying on the usual redirects we put in for the episode then they need to be updated to include the explicit Episode: prefix. As a reminder a link like [[Episode:Villains|]] is automatically formatted into: Villains. If you don't specify alternate text for the link then it automatically just strips off the namespace to form the text so you don't have to explicitly write [[Episode:Villains|Villains]]. (Admin 01:10, 10 February 2009 (EST))
    • Would this not have happened with Homecoming as well? -- Tristan0709 talk 01:32, 10 February 2009 (EST)
      • Right. In that case, we made the event for Homecoming be Homecoming (event) and left the Homecoming article as the episode article. I don't see why we wouldn't just make the location be Building 26 (location) to follow that, as episode titles are normally prioritized over other content. Am I missing something?--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)
        • Ah, I didn't notice that. It shouldn't have been done that way. As I said, the entire reason for the Episode namespace is to address these conflicts. By adding all these episode redirects in the main namespace we've defeated the purpose of the Episode namespace. So far it's been of limited consequence, however in cases like Homecoming and Building 26 the appropriate action is to have the main namespace article be the location/event since episodes (and therefore redirects to them) do not belong in the main namespace as it defeats the very idea of a namespace. I don't mind the existing redirects as they haven't caused problems per se, however in cases where there IS conflict we should respect the criteria for the namespaces. (Admin 02:22, 10 February 2009 (EST))
          • I don't think there were much problematic links, and I think I've taken care of all of them. Also I've created an article for the location at Building 26. --Radicell 10:01, 14 February 2009 (EST)
            • Thanks for taking care of that, Radicell.--MiamiVolts (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2009 (EST)
              • Not a problem, I might do the same with Homecoming too. However, a quick glance shows that there's ~150 misplaced links in the Main namespace alone, so there's quite a lot of work there. --Radicell 10:24, 14 February 2009 (EST)
  • Just want to bump this discussion so people are aware of how to link, especially considering that the newest episode is the same name as a location. When referring to the government building in which Nathan works, please use [[Building 26]] to link to Building 26. When referring to the episode, please use ''[[Episode:Building 26|]]'' (note the extra pipe) or [[Episode:Building 26|]] (in the case of Character History headings) to link to Episode:Building 26. When citing the episode, the episode namespace should always be stripped or removed. That's done by piping. Thanks, all! -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Vacation

What did I miss? — Raiku 00:09, 13 February 2009 (EST)

5000 users

  • YAY! HeroesWiki have reached 5000 users - probably more now - and most of them dont even contribute to the site lol --NiveKJ13 (talk2me) 21:55, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Gunnell's asking for questions

Prolific Heroes GN artist Micah Gunnell has made a thread at 9thwonders.com for any questions one may have of him. SacValleyDweller (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2009

Error spotted

On the main page "Did you know" section it says "Joe Pokaski's wife's maiden name is Tracy Strauss?" The Tracy Strauss page Notes sections says "Tracy Strauss is named after Aron Coleite's wife, whose maiden name is Tracy Strauss." I don't know which one is correct. Just thought I would let somebody know - and is this the right place to post? -- Pseudaxis 01:33, 3 March 2009

  • Sure, this is a good place to post that. I've gone ahead and corrected it, thanks! (Admin 01:49, 3 March 2009 (EST))
    • Thanks for the catch, Pseudaxis, and for the fix, Admin. Sorry about the mistake! Indeed, Aron Coleite's wife's name used to be Tracy Strauss. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Heroes timeline questions and inconsistencies

  • I'm compiling a list of any questions/concerns that may have arisen over time regarding the chronology in Heroes. Major events that we have trouble nailing down to a particular day or inconsistencies that we've found (i.e. Claire's true age). If you've run into any of these, feel free to list them here. We may be able to get some clarification from the Heroes team and get these resolved finally. (Admin 13:34, 6 March 2009 (EST))
  • Okay, here are some off the top of my head. I don't have many references handy, so some might just be me being confused, and not actual inconsistencies. Okay, here goes:
    • Claire's age has never been consistent. (See Claire Bennet#Notes)
    • What month and day is the show at right now? In other words, when did Flight 195 crash?
    • When was Evs Dropper defeated?
    • When did Elle meet Matt Neuenberg?
    • When exactly did Peter jump to the "exposed future"--or better yet, when did Costa Verde blow up?
    • I can't remember exactly, but I think there was something weird about Niki's timeline in the first few episodes of the first season--maybe somebody can clarify.
    • Without the quote in front of me, there was something weird about what Claire said regarding Homecoming (event)'s date in Genesis.
    • When exactly (month and day) did the second eclipse happen, the one that took all the powers away?
    • Villains had some things that need to be clarified. For instance, Noah and Elle meet Gabriel Gray, sometime shortly after April 2006, after he has killed only Brian Davis. Then it seems to jump to October 1, the day that Noah gets in Mohinder's cab. Some clarification would be appreciated.
    • Along with that last question, when exactly did Sylar kill David in Chicago? It seems to be sometime in July, 2006. When does this chronologically fit with Trevor's murder and Chandra's murder?
  • Maybe that will spark some other issues? :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2009 (EST)
  • I believe there was also something weird about when Echo DeMille was incarcerated in Level 5. --Radicell 11:03, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
      • i think that the crash (and pretty much the present day heroes-verse) is circa April-June 2007 b/c Episode:Powerless happens on March 20th and Episode:Dual can't be much longer after that chronologically and is said to have happened in March of 07 and in Episode:A Clear and Present Danger Tracy hasnt talked to Nathan in 2 months i think she says to the govenor over the phone....Lets do research and check any cell phone screen shots or any screen shots of a tv.--Anthony Gooch 21:22, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
        • There's definitely tons of shots of phones and TVs what with Rebel's communications... however, I've gone through all the episodes of Volume 4 and I'm pretty sure that none of the cell phones give away dates. We simply can't be sure of the date, since we have no idea when the events of Volume 3 happen. That's part of the reason why Timeline:Post-March 2007 is a bit of a mess right now. --Radicell 04:15, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
  • Another one, check Talk:Matt Parkman, Jr.. When did Janice become pregnant? -- Tristan0709 talk 04:29, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
  • I think there something off about Daphne personal timeline.
  • Mrs. Millbrook funeral is on October 1, 2006 and meets Thompson
  • Oct. 2 Daphne leaves home after fighting with her dad
  • Beginning of January, Daphne arrives in Paris.
  • In the middle of January Daphne meets Samir.
  • 9 months later (middle of Oct. 2007) Daphne returns home and reconciles with her dad
The events of The Eclipse part 1 and 2 paint a different picture. From the timeline on this very site, the episode takes place in near the end of March. However, the end of the GN and the episode are suppose to occur on the same day, that means one of the dates is wrong. At this point I'm incline to believe the timeline established by the novel. The reason being that as far as I know, corn can only be harvested in the Fall, not in March. (I mention corn because Hiro was throwing corn at Matt when he was trying to convince Matt to go inside the house and talk to Daphne.)
If further explanation is needed, then go here. It's where I first wrote about the inconsistency.--JoyaOscura 06:45, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
  • About the Janice thing, so far even though we've been watching Heroes for 3 years the show has only spanded about 7-8 months, a minor inconsistance due to how old Matt Jr. looks...i'm saying that theres a chance it could happen but...--Anthony Gooch 07:06, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
    • I don't think there's a chance, unless Baby Matt has a growth ability, or is the Russian. :) Even if Janice was, at most, four months pregnant when she found out she was pregnant in the end of October 2006 (The Fix), the baby would have been born in March, or at the earliest February 2007. We're now in June 2007. That means that the oldest that baby can be is four months old, but more than likely less than that. Babies don't sit up or until later than that, and Baby Matt is definitely older than three or four months. Judging by his ability to hold himself up on the television, he's more like 9-12 months old. Oh well...At least he's cute! :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Whose going to h\te tomorrow?

Because heroes isn't on? --IronyUTC CH 15:41, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

  • Ah... Tomorrow is a sad day.--Alen (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
    • It is rubbish for me, 4 extra hours in schools as GCSE preparation!!! --IronyUTC CH 16:16, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Discussion of a new term!

There are a few characters who's status remains unknown either b/c it is not been pushed to the wayside, assumed, or in debate b/w fans and writers (or certain admins of certain sites lol) anyways...i think that we should add somewhere in the info box we add (Presumed Dead) and leave their descriptions in present tense...we've already thought up some of the characters this applies too:

....thats as far as we got! So what do ya'll think?--Anthony Gooch 21:39, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

    • If the new term is unknown there are a few others we could add to the list The Croatian, A local Guyanan, and Barbara. However, none of these have appeared so I am not sure if that could work, however it does mean we are not being speculative. My other idea was to include a current status heading in the info box but I am not sure if this can be done, I know there is a date of death heading but if the was a current status heading people can clearly see if the person is alive, dead or unknown. Just a few suggestions :) --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 12:57, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk 13:16, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

        • Considered it double bumped, i'd really like to hear what everyone thinks!--Anthony Gooch 15:12, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

Consensus checks

I'd like to propose a new way of doing consensus checks, especially as they relate to ability names. I think when discussing ability names, people should feel free to express the name they like the best, or the merits and demerits of proposed names. However, when we start doing a check where people place their names under a certain name, we really limit people a lot. Oftentimes, there are a few names that I might like--or better said, there are a few names that I'd be okay with. However, I usually place my name next to the one that I like the best. This, I believe, causes issues when we're looking for consensus. It means that technically, I'm standing in the way of some of those other names that might be okay with me--simply because I didn't put my name next to them.

I suggest that when we have a consensus check, rather than people putting their signatures (and comments) next to a proposed name that they like, I suggest we restructure it so people put their signatures and comments next to a proposed name that they don't like, or that they oppose for some reason. It's my belief that this will help us find consensus much more easily. Really, what we should be looking for is not which name people think is "the best" (I think opinions vary wildly), but which names are suitable, or which aren't suitable. I think this is where we'll have a lot more common ground in the wiki. Thoughts? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Personally, I don't agree. Using this system, we may discern what people don't want to use, but not what they do. If there are no comments for one option, does that make it the right name? We would be able to see that many people are against one name, this does not make them approve of the other. How about if people are against most of the names being used? For example, I don't like any of the names suggested for Matt's ability. Do I comment on the one I like least, all the ones I don't like, or none of them? I'm not a fan of the current system, but I can see flaws in this one too. -- Tristan0709 talk 02:07, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
    • In answer to your question "If there are no comments for one option, does that make it the right name?": if nobody opposes a name, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's the "right" name, but it's certainly a name that nobody opposes. On the other hand, under our current system, even if there's a name that's very good an most people agree with, unless every single person agrees that it's the best name, it won't be chosen as the name. But if we look for opposition instead, we're finding another aspect of consensus--that people don't oppose a name, rather than futilely trying to get everybody on board with one name. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
  • In Ryan's proposed reversed check, you would need to comment on all the ones you don't think are valid and explain why. Then, if more than one name is left with no comments, we can perform a standard consensus check for those names only. If people are against most of the names used, that's still fine. The problem we have with the current check system is people just pile up comments for a single name and then leave, thinking it is a kind of voting system, which it is not. That makes it very hard to debate them and impedes the process. I'm not sure whether this will help or not, but I'm for giving it a try.--MiamiVolts (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
    • Exactly, Miami. I really don't know what will come of it, but I think it's something we should at least try the next time a new power comes up, just to see if it works out. In my comments on ability pages, I always try to be very clear with comments like "I think XXX is the best name, but I'm not opposed to XXX or XXX." I think (I hope) that a new system of looking for opposition would help garner more sentiments like that--"I oppose XXX, but I don't oppose XXX or XXX". Additionally, I think it might really help broaden all of our minds to the fact that when deciding on a descriptive power name, there isn't just one acceptable name--I think that's a trap that a lot of people fall into (myself included). We get behind one name we think is perfect, and then oftentimes become blind to any other good suggestions. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

A little different approach to consider. What if we listed the suggested names in a table, and then allowed people to add their thoughts pro and con to that name, using the + and - symbols that we use on the theories pages? Kinda like the following hypothetical example:

Suggested Name WikiMember Notes
Matt Jr.'s Ability

HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

+ No obvious canon name has been given
+ In prior naming precidence, we use the character's name as the ability
- It sounds goofy, and is more of an ability placeholder than a useful ability name

Touch and Go MiamiVolts (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

+ Specific canon name given to reference the ability
+ matches previous similar naming precedence ala Bliss and horror
- It isn't an explanatory ability name

Activation

HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
MiamiVolts (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
Radicell (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

+ very descriptive and explanatory ability name

+ presents the true intent of the ability, albeit not the actual specified name
+ matches other standard naming conventions, and what one expects of an ability name
- not a direct canonical name

This way each prospective name is given it's own column, and anyone can list pros and cons to each prospective name with the + - feature, and can do multiple entries for multiple choices, and all relevant comments pro and con are listed with each choice. Thoughts? --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/3/2009 11:24 (EST)

Nice Table --HiroDynoSlayer

Maybe you could add another column for people to write why they dont like it and why they do? Gabriel Bishop 11:33, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

  • I think that is already being done with the + and - . -- Tristan0709 talk 00:22, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
  • The trouble with using the above theory-type approach would be that the opinions are not tied directly to a person. So if you disagree with something, it's not easy to tell who is supporting what. In order for consensus to occur, people have to be capable of shifting positions they are tied to.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Ya know... I like Ryan's idea. I think a lot of people get fixated on their own personal preferences without really focusing on the positives and negatives of other peoples' suggestions. I think Ryan's idea shifts the focus onto determining why a particular name is or is not acceptable which could be more productive. While I think we have to watch our for instances where people may not even comment on a particular name (which may make it seem like there's implied concensus for it) I think it could be a better approach than we currently use. (Admin 01:06, 4 April 2009 (EDT))
    • It's definitely not a perfect solution...but I think it's worth a shot on the next ability that needs a descriptive name. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
      • But it's so negative. Ha, just kidding. I think it's a different approach, and could help (sort of a process of elimination). I still think, however, there should be a place to weigh the merits of names as well. Is there a way to combine your suggestion with the current process? If we could brainstorm a solution that combines proper dissent with affirming points, this would provide the best means of healthy debate within the consensus. I like big words.--Bob (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
        • Absolutely. In an ideal world, a discussion alone would qualify as a consensus check. However, we tend to naturally gravitate towards the "voting" system. That system has its merits, and I don't think we should totally shun it. I just think we need to restructure it so we can shift our views and so users can think more broadly about names of powers. Yes, I definitely think we can--and should--incorporate discussion with the consensus check. I'm not sure exactly the best way to do that, though, other than maybe just having the discussion in a section before the check...or, as we've been doing more recently, encouraging users to add a comment when they place their signature under a suggested power name. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
  • How bout in the consensus checks we do this:
==Consensus Check==

===Proposed Names===
Vote on all names that you would find acceptable. please vote for at least two and list

how strongly you favor the choice
(proposals listed, at Heading 4 with sigs)
===Merits===
Sign with your arguments why a proposed name is appropriate
====Proposed name One====

===De-merits===
Sign with your arguments why a proposed name is not appropriate
====Proposed name One====

This incorporates some of those Ideas, no? --SacValleyDweller (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

  • No, not good, SVD. We shouldn't be "voting" on names as that is not the desire of consensus (if we want to switch to voting, that is a different discussion). If the discussion only comes up with descriptive names, then we could do a "demerit check" where people add comments to which of those names are not appropriate as Ryan suggested. If more than one is left uncommented after some time (a few days/week), then we would have a normal consensus check to decide between those with no comments (or those with few comments assuming all of them get comments).--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
    • The way I see it, the biggest problem with the consensus is that one dissenting vote negates the change. Voting doesn't really work, because it relies on the principle that unanimous votes = consensus. Consensus should be a general understanding by the active contributors on what is fact, and how it applies to that particular article. Voting doesn't accurately portray concepts, because many people favor multiple aspects of "nominations" in voting. The whole consensus check concept is flawed to me, because it doesn't really work. The problem is people don't read the discussion pages, and try to rename something immediately without explaining themselves.--Bob (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
      • I agree with you, Bob, the system is flawed. Voting doesn't work, and the consensus check as we've been doing it doesn't always work either. I don't think the system described above is perfect either, but I think it might *hopefully* help with the dissenting vote aspect. I've noticed that on "smaller" issues, I seem to find consensus a lot easier if I ask "Any objections?" rather than "What does everybody else think?" That's kind of what I'm hoping happens with consensus checks. I'm not sure it'll work perfectly (IS there a "perfect" system?), but I think it'll be better. I dunno...I think it's worth a shot the next time the issue comes up when we have to decide on a descriptive ability name... -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
      • I agree that the current system has too many flaws in it. Back when Electric Manipulation was called Lightning we had a 17 people who argued for it being EM and only 3 for keeping it at lightning, and it wasn't moved. I realize that consensus and voting are different, but there really does need to be a drawn line somewhere. If a power isn't explicitly named there will always be at least one person who come up with an unpopular name that nobody else agrees with, but since the proposed name no longer has 100% support it doesn't go anywhere. I think whatever new system we use, we need to implement common sense into it. We can't please everybody, but we should try to please as many people as we can.--Piemanmoo 16:48, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
        • Great reply Pie...most people would probably agree with you. Common sense can rarely find a 100% concensus. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 04/6/2009 17:35 (EST)
          • Consensus has never been about pleasing everyone 100%. It's about coming to a conclusion based on 100% of any valid objections. I don't think a person stating they don't like a name based on how it sounds is a valid objection/reason, nor has that been our problem. PS: Moving to a majority decision instead of a consensus may not be a bad idea, but it's a separate discussion. Please make a separate thread for it and move your comments there. Thanks.--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Urgent Help Needed Please

Can somebody please give me a link to the sign-up page of Heroes All Access, I can't find it anywhere, it would be much appreciated :) --IronyUTC CH 16:30, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://heroeswiki.ddns.net/index.php?title=Heroes_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal&oldid=432998"