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.

Help talk:Sources

From Heroes Wiki
Revision as of 22:02, 22 February 2007 by imported>Admin (moving canon discussion)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Citing Graphic Novels

With the introduction of Wireless, Part 1, I am feeling like we need to set some guidelines for using the graphic novels as a source. Up to now, we've generally citing the GNs in the notes section, unless it's something so big that we'll put it in the main article space (read: "Character History" or "About") with a clear note that this is info from the GN. With Hana (and related characters), there's no way to do this. I put "Wireless, Part 1" as a subheading under "Character History", which sort of breaks tradition. My question is: how should we cite graphic novels? Personally, I think the articles (with a few exceptions) that already cite the GNs in the "Notes" section should remain as they are. But I think that if an important piece of history is revealed, the graphic novel should receive its own subheading. For instance, I think Eden's article should have a subheading called ===Life Before Eden===.

Thoughts? - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2006 (EST)

One thing I want to toss in. If we treat the graphic novels as canon then we may need to be careful. I suspect the comics exaggerate certain things. Like in Wireless, Part 1 I doubt Mr. Bennet actually kicked her down despite it being that way in the comic. Facts are easier to take, but actions could potentially get tricky. (Admin 23:19, 26 December 2006 (EST))
Or perhaps the disparity between a character's in an episode and in a graphic novel isn't really that important... maybe it's ok that they act differently in each medium... not sure what would be best in terms of documenting things here. (Admin 23:23, 26 December 2006 (EST))
I'd also say that the policy of clearly stating when information comes from a graphic novel serves the additional function of making things clearer for fans who don't read the comics. Rather than going "OMG I MISSED AN EPISODE", they can see right away that the info is from a comic. It's kind of awkward, true, but it's a big benefit. I'd say section headings are fine, but maybe we should make sure the section heading includes "(Graphic Novel)".--Hardvice (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2006 (EST)
I don't think the graphic novels should be treated as canon - I like the distinction of "near-canon". So far, the only cites on the site (heh) say the name of the GN, but most don't actually say "Graphic Novel". I think that's fine in the Notes. You're right, Hardvice, if a piece of info is so important that it is included in a subheading, the subheading should somehow distinguish itself by saying "Graphic Novel". I'll go ahead and change the few for Hana-related characters. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2006 (EST)

Have the writers at any point in an interview etc. directly stated whether or not the graphic novels are canon? I've been under the impression that they were, so I was wondering for what reason they are not considered fully canonical here. Branfish 03:06, 18 January 2007 (EST)

The writers/producers have not said anything about the canonical status of the GNs, as far as I'm aware. They have said things like "an extension of the show" and "provide more insight", but not they're canon. I'd say that's a pretty good indication that they can be trusted, but not yet considered canon - "near canon" is a good distinction. We include their information as fact in the articles, but we simply try to note that the info is coming from a graphic novel. That way a casual viewer not familiar with the GNs won't be confused or think that they've missed an episode. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2007 (EST)
The closest they've come is the Wizard interview with Aron Coleite this week (there's a link on Aron's page). He talks quite a bit about the novels, and basically says that they're intended to supplement the show, but they are careful not to put anything too necessary to the story in the novels for viewers who don't read them. I for one think that makes our policy the best option: as long as we're clear that the information comes from a graphic novel, then we, like the novels, are supplementing the full canon material from the episodes. Readers of the Wiki who don't read the novels can tell what information comes from them and what comes from the episodes, but the information is still available.--Hardvice (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Canon

OK, guys, let's talk this through more formally...I've read several discussions that touch on 'canon' in relation to specific areas, people, etc...Let's try to nail down a consistent approach.

Was talking on the Pam Green discussion about the 'deceased' thing. It was confirmed that Pan/Pam are the same person from two writers. The Interactive Map clearly shows deceased. Our Pam page shows the postit of that. The computer shot shows Pams name (not in red like other deceased folks), but it also covers up the deceased column.

Pam seems to be a good example, but there are others as well.

Stepping away from Pam, we have some pages that show good material, albeit for non-canon (or arguably canon) sources.

What is canon?

  • Are just screen caps from the TV episodes alone?
  • Are Q&A interviews from the writers, producers, directors, etc....?
  • Can the interactive map be?
  • Can the Graphic Novels be?
  • Can the unaired pilot be?
  • Can unaired scenes be?
  • Can Primatech data be?
  • Can Hiros Blog be?

There are probably other options out there besides these. My point is, do we have a strict 'canon' law to apply everything to, or should it be a little lax, and try to ecompass all of the reasonable sources (and we can determine what they are)?

Because at this point, if we removed or qualified all non-eposodic sources with 'possibly' or '????' or whatever, we would have tons of pages, paragraphs, pictures, etc.....that aren't 'official canon'.

For my opinion, I would like to see as much 'reasonable info' reflected from this fansite as is available. I would think at least each of the things above are all reasonable, for if we stick to a very strict canon, we should be consistent and remove a whole ton of stuff from the site.

If a new Heroes fan comes to this fansite, should they be able to find info on most stuff they would expect to be valid source material(from the sources above), or only episodic-sided and verifiable proof?

Your thoughts?

--HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Retrieved from "https://heroeswiki.ddns.net/index.php?title=Help_talk:Sources&oldid=502639"