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 02:18, 28 April 2009 by imported>Skullman1392 (→Seasons vs. Volumes)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the community portal! Click here to add a new comment section.

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)
  • See Talk:Shockwave emission#Consensus Check for the piloting of this new method. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
    • I'm not sure if this was already discussed, but what about a hybrid consensus check? A merger of the one in testing and the usual one, so people can list both the ones they like and the ones they don't like, so we can see a "score" so to speak between names, striking out names cause one person didn't like it shifts the attention to newer names, I know it's good to direct discussion to newer names, but it kills any chance of a more thorough discussion on a name. What I'm putting forward is something in the lines of the windows7taskforce site system of promoting and demoting ideas for the OS. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 20:00, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Well, the whole point of the new consensus check was to limit discussion to just the reasons a name shouldn't be used. Adding what you suggest sort of defeats the purpose of that.--MiamiVolts (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
      • What I'd ultimately like to see is the discussion about names (which is the heart of the consensus check) in a separate section, maybe below the consensus check (which is what's evolving anyway). I'll also take this opportunity to reiterate that people should not be opposing names they merely don't like, but names that are speculative and outright wrong. Opposition should also not be based on the merits of other names, but on the name itself. For example, just because one name is the clear favorite does not make all the other names wrong, and those other names should not be opposed. Additionally, a name based on the possessor (like "Tom's ability" or "Matt's ability") is never wrong, and shouldn't even be thrown into the mix. The consensus is generally to discuss a descriptive name not given in a canon (or near-canon) source, not to discuss a name based on the possessor of the ability. And certainly, the possessor's name should never be opposed because it, by definition, cannot be wrong. It might not be the best name, but it's not wrong. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:07, 25 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)

  • As far as I can tell, there isn't a sign-up page yet. However, according to Tim Kring's video, it appears that it will be accessible before the Heroes for Autism Event (April 19th).--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Oh, made myself look like an idiot, but thanks anyway :) --IronyUTC CH 16:53, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

  • No, I think that's a reasonable reaction (to go look for the link when the video announcement is made asking for you to go look for it). I've made contact with someone about it, and I'll post here new information when I can.--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
    • Do you think it will be an America-only thing, I'm English so miss loads of this (if there is another world tour do you think there will be special events there and such) --IronyUTC CH 17:05, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
      • I think you'll just have to wait to find out about that. I do think it's possible that the cast/crew will attend conventions or other events out of the USA again, but that's just my opinion.--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Happy Easter

I'm going away for the next few days, so won't get a chance then. Just thought I'd wish all the HeroesWiki users a happy Easter, not just for those who are Christian, but for everyone. Happy Easter guys! -- Tristan0709 talk 01:39, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Appearances Trivia

Just wanted to bring something up. Lately, I've been adding to the trivia section of episodes something along the lines of "Nathan Petrelli and Matt Parkman do not appear in this episode" (in this case, for 2x10). They have been reverted, namely by Intuitive Empath, with his edit summaries claiming they are 'not really trivia'. I think it is an interesting piece of information that a character who appears in promotional material, and is billed as 'starring' in the opening credits, a main character, does not appear in an episode. However, all of these have been remove.d I'd like to bring this into a group, so it's not just me vs. IE. I personally believe this trivia should stay, but I'd like to know that people agree with me before I bring them back. -- Tristan0709 talk 02:51, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

  • I think it's interesting trivia for a separate page... not sure it's worth putting that info. on the episode pages themselves.--MiamiVolts (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
    • I think that if a character doesn't appear in an episode, the actor's name doesn't appear in the opening credits. -Radicell 04:18, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Yeah, but they do when they do appear. -- Tristan0709 talk 20:32, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
        • I think I see where Tristan are going with this. When an actor is credited in a particular episode, but his/her character does not appear in said episode, it is noteworthy. That info should be placed in notes and phrased like this example: "Adrian Pasdar was credited in this episode, but his character of Nathan Petrelli did not appear." --SacValleyDweller (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
          • As much as I wouldn't like to contradict someone agreeing with me, people are only credited when they do appear. The only exceptions are Simone in.....1x14, I think. And Mohinder whenever he narrates but doesn't appear. However, I think it's noteworthy that they are main cast but miss episodes. -- Tristan0709 talk 03:32, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
            • Exactly those exceptions are the ones I think are noteworthy. Something like "Nathan Petrelli does not appear in this episode" is a statement much less noteworthy, in my opinion, than something like "Jimmy Jean-Louis was credited for this episode, but did not appear" (which is true for one of the S3 episodes I think...The Second Coming perhaps). --Radicell 03:55, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Seasons vs. Volumes

I think I brought this up on Ryan's talk page a while ago, and now that we are coming up to a hiatus, I thought I'd bring it up again. On all pages here at the wiki, we sort things by volumes. character archives, characternav, actornav, the season pages, etc. However, the show is sorted by volumes instead. I know it would take a long time to change, but what do you guys think about changing our format to match Heroes? The finale is coming up, so archiving Volume Three and Volume Four information would be easy, and a simple move for the Volume One and Volume Two archives. Templates would need a bit of fiddling with, but after that there wouldn't be that much else to do. What do you guys think? -- Tristan0709 talk 20:32, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

  • The way I see it, the show is divided into seasons, and the seasons are divided into volumes, and those volumes are divided into episodes. That's how we have it on the wiki, so I think it's okay to leave it as-is.--MiamiVolts (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

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


Episodes

I like the idea of a heroes encyclopedia, but i dont like that if u just want a list of all the episodes, its not there. you get the list of all the episodes from three or four different portals. why cant there be one page that lists each episode title and what season they are in?--Iheartheroes (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

  • I think Category:Episodes is what you want. If you want to, you can add a formatted listing to that existing page, but the list is already there with episodes in order by season and airdate. PS: Please remember to add your signature when you add comments to talk pages either by typing --~~~~ after your comment or by clicking the java signature button after entering your comment to do that for you.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Mohinder's ability, David's ability, and Elephant Man's Ability

Ever since the formula there have been a range of abilities which are basically a mutation. I am raising the issue here because their talk pages don't get enough attention. What I am proposing is that these abilities go into a new, adjoined ability called something along the lines of Uncatalyzed Abilities or Mutated Abilities. My reasons for this are:

  1. Mohinder used the uncatalyzed formula, he became a half human - half bug.
  2. David Sullivan used the uncatalyzed formula, he became half human - half dog/wolf/bear things.
  3. Elephant man was treated with the uncatalyzed formula, he became half human - half elephant(?), mutated thing.

On top of this, in a recent interview, The Recruit, writers Jim Martin and Timm Keppler stated, "David was injected with an uncatalyzed strain ... had terrible mutated effects ... {talking about Davids ability} more of a severe rabies than anything else ...the bad serum turned people into "the elephant man" ... "Suresh" ... and some of it did this". With this information, as well as that of the basic reasoning that they are all the same I think that a new ability, called Uncatalyzed Abilities should be created and Mohinder's ability and David's ability should be deleted. (If the general consensus is against this, there is definitely grounds for the Elephant man to have an ability) --IronyUTC CH 13:50, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

  • I agree all three should be combined as they are all obviously side effects of the uncatalyzed formula. It would then get rid of three so and so's ability (which I like lol) since there will no likely be any no information or a consensus. So I believe this to be the best option. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 14:10, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

    • I agree with Irony that they should all be moved to "Uncatalysed Abilities" due to the 3 taking a formula that hasnt been catalysed and also becuase we cant deny that they certainly had "Abilities". So I also beilive this is the best option Gabriel Bishop 14:24, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
      • I agree with the above. It is just easier. --Linderman Mendez (Time for cookies and milk!) 14:28, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
        • Isn't calling it an "uncatalyzed ability" still calling it an ability? What Mohinder, Peter and Nathan now have are due to a perfected version of the mutation formula. David, Ryan, Mohinder, and the Elephant man were all mutated with imperfect versions of the formula. The blue girl and the steel-bending man in Iran were also mutated with oil-based formulas. I think if we go this route of splitting up the abilities into different categories, we should realize that some of people's abilities were caused by formulas, some where inherited, and some were evolved. Getting into which are which isn't necessarily easy to do without speculation some times.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
          • What we are saying is exactly that, it is still an ability but they are more mutations than abilties, so instead of having their own one, they are all grouped together --IronyUTC CH 16:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
            • Right. And I'm saying that's the wrong thing to do cause it adds too much speculation.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
              • This isnt speculation, they have all been injected with an uncataized version of the formula and all recieved add verse abilities. The perfected formula abilities work fine and we can to some degree name them. These abilities are not likely to be seen again and no more people are likly to be added to the list. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 16:19, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

            • I agree, but does David and Mohinders ability seem the same? The uncatalyzed formula just seems to give enhanced strength with side effects. I realise how speculative this is, but even the elephant man could of had it just his mutation was bigger muscles or something tht turned him into what he is. Its a long shot. And if the guy could bend steel could that not be related to muscles or strength as well? --345tom 16:21, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
          • Not really, for example if we were to do what you say every inherited ability would be in a category, every formulated ability and every uncatalyzed ability. What we are saying is to remove one of the groups (which is the only group which doesn't give abilities but gives more of a mutation which, in effect would hinder the gentic advancement of the species). Also, assuming that we are keeping it the way we are, we need to give the elephant man an ability, also (sorry I don't follow the iStoy but...) the blue girl and the steel bending man should --IronyUTC CH 16:23, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
          • We are simply adding these chracters saying that yes they did have a ability and they all had same one which is basically "Uncatylsed Ability" And also where's the speculation ? Gabriel Bishop 16:25, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://heroeswiki.ddns.net/index.php?title=Heroes_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal&oldid=433043"