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/Archive0

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive.jpg WARNING: Heroes Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive0 is an archive of past messages. New messages should be added to Heroes Wiki talk:Community Portal. Archive.jpg

Red Link

  • I think leaving red ink isn't an entirely bad thing when writing an article since we can always check the list of "wanted articles" and people will always be checking up on them and adding stubs where needed. I'd personally suggest rewording "Either write an entire article, or a brief summary and add the "stubs" template to it" to make it clear that it's more of a suggestion than a rule. One nice thing about the "wanted articles" is that you get the number of pages requesting that article so it's possible to determine the saliency of the request. (Admin 02:25, 7 November 2006 (EST))
    • I agree. I'd rather have no article than a bad article in most cases. Also, there will be times when we just can't meaningfully add even a stub, like Charlie.--Hardvice(talk) 02:29, 7 November 2006 (EST)

In that case, It will be removed and replaced with Wikitext usage. ---- Ohmyn0.jpgOhmyn0talk.jpg 22:44, 16 November 2006 (EST)

Character Summary and Character History

The main character pages are getting quite long. I suggest we have 2 pages for each character: a Character Summary page, and a Character History page. (These don't need to be the actual names - it's just an idea.) This could be done so the main page is the summary (which would be a long summary, all important info, but not every detail), and there would be a tab or an achive for the in-depth history (which would include each episode's information for the character). This would mean a little more work when it comes to updating after a new episode, but it would make the site look so much cleaner. And the extra work would (hopefully) be absorbed by our growing community. Any thoughts? - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2006 (EST)

  • Oh hey. Read what I said two comments up. :) Seriously, though, I think what we should do is wait until the season ends, archive them to a new page, and add a season summary with a link to the full history. Then, next season we let them bloat up again and repeat. Each characrter's page will thus have a summary of past seasons and a detailed history for the current season.--Hardvice (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2006 (EST)
    • Good idea - I think we could wait till the end of the season to archive. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2006 (EST)

Full episodes at NBC

  • NBC's got all the episodes available to watch on their site at the moment, so I added links to all the episode articles for people who would like to watch them. Normally links would be best placed at the bottom of the article, but in this instance I think it would be good for people to see the links before they potentially read the synopsis, but after they read the summary so they know what the episode is about first, so I placed them at the top. Plus I think this will be a good thing to get people through the hiatus. If they come across an episode they haven't seen yet they can just click the link and watch the episode. If the episodes had been hosted by anyone other than NBC I wouldnt have added them, but since it's them I went for it. (Admin 18:47, 10 December 2006 (EST))
    • Thanks, what a great idea. Can't wait to go back and check out some old eps. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2006 (EST)

Real community portal

  • If people are interested, we could talk about making this a real community portal, divided up into sections like the Main Page is. Any ideas for what would be good to include? I'm thinking things like site news, maybe a link or section for general site suggestions, maybe "Heroes Wiki in the News" for announcements of notable mentions of this wiki in the media (podcasts, news articles, etc.). Admin

Number of Examples on Powers Pages

I thought it was about time to start a discussion here about the number of examples on the powers pages, before they all get deleted. Some have said a limit of 10, some 12, some other numbers. Any thoughts? My suggestion is no more than 12 dynamic examples.

I also think a link to a full list of examples would be a good idea, and would avoid wars about which examples are the most representative, or the most dynamic. Thoughts? - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2007 (EST)

  • More articles for Category:Lists with extraordinarily long names? My evil plan is working at last! I agree with archiving the full lists before we delete anything, but the length of the examples sections doesn't really bother me yet.--Hardvice (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2007 (EST)
  • I'm inclined to limit lists to ten (10) good examples. --Ted C 16:56, 3 January 2007 (EST)
    • I agree with both comments. 10-12 is pretty sufficient, and I don't think we have anything too much above 12 right now. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2007 (EST)
  • I agree with that too. As the show goes on, we couldput examples on a separate article. Like " Examples of space-time manipulation". Heroe 14:39, 6 January 2007 (EST)


As a reader of Lostpedia, I noticed that they've recently rolled out a new feature: theory tabs at the top of pages. Considering Heroes is still at a relatively young point and theories aren't quite as numerous, rampant, and developed as in Lost, I think that as time progresses, it could be a good idea. It could definitely help keep the pages less cluttered. Please discuss any thoughts on this article's discussion page. User:Ted C

Another thought (and not one that I necessarily endorse) is to split the central theories page into a page for "Theories about Characters", "Theories about Powers", etc. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2007 (EST)
See Theories Tab

NBC's New HeroesWiki

Anyone else notice the new feature over on NBC's website? It's their own "HeroesWiki". :( --Yoshie 10:05, 22 January 2007 (EST)

No, I had not noticed.... browsing now, the page appears brand spanking new (given that the Main Page has only been referenced 61 times for me) and that all the content pages are empty. Hmm... --Orne 10:14, 22 January 2007 (EST)
It's not a big deal, really. It'll be interesting to see how theirs plays out, but their wiki is a few months late. I still think our site is and will remain the best. :) I think between here and Wikipedia most people interested in a Heroes wiki have already found a site that suits their needs. Their site is somewhat redundant. (Admin 10:19, 22 January 2007 (EST))
Has someone managed to create an account there? I just come to the log-in page, but never to the create account page. -- Cuardin 16:07, 24 January 2007 (EST)
You have to make a forum account - although I think it won't let you edit or create an article even if you are registered. --Joshtek 15:09, 25 January 2007 (EST)
Then what is the point????? -- Cuardin 01:35, 26 January 2007 (EST)
Probably to sue us into oblivion, but let's hope not. :) --Hardvice (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2007 (EST)
I dread the day we'll have to use that. The way it's formatted and the abundance of ads on the page make it really annoying. Could they really just shut this wiki down with a lawsuit? What they're offering to replace this is rather shoddy and disappointing. =( --ZachsMind 13:05, 1 February 2007 (EST)
I don't think that would ever be a genuine worry. We're a fansite, we don't refer to ourselves with any sort of "official" moniker, and everything we have here would constitute fair use (and anything that doesn't is taken care of very quickly). There's little grounds for a lawsuit and even less motivation. --ZyberGoat 13:15, 1 February 2007 (EST)
It's unlikely, but all fan content exists basically by the grace of the intellectual property owners. Having their own Wiki only helps inasmuch as they can claim we're a "replacement" for their content, which makes fair use a tougher defense to prove. But I was mostly kidding. Networks almost never go after fans, for obvious reasons. Remember the huge publicity hit Warner Bros. took when they tried to shut down all the Harry Potter sites right after they got the film rights? That said, some creators are more inclined to zealously protect their IP than others. That's why none of the fanfiction sites allow Anne Rice fan fiction -- she hates it and actually will sue, or at least will send nasty letters threatening to do so. But yeah, long story short I was mostly kidding. It's pretty unlikely NBC would try to dissuade fan sites for one of their few cash cows. More likely some marketing type told them it would be cool to add a Wiki along with their new multimedia push. That's backed up pretty well by their fundamental misunderstanding of how a Wiki works.--Hardvice (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2007 (EST)
Plus they have their own "official" message board and there are a bunch of other large Heroes message boards out there as well that they haven't put any pressure on. I agree with Hardvice that their PR people or the people they have running probably thought it would be a neat idea to start up an "official" one. It's not like we're making episodes available here and impacting their revenue or anything. Nor are we trying to make a profit off of their show, so they probably don't even care about us. :) In any event I wouldn't worry about it. (Admin 13:33, 1 February 2007 (EST))

Recent lack of commenting in the Summary

I just noticed we have a lot of new people who have contributed some great stuff, but they don't leave any comments in the summary fields, so chechangelogs become completely meaningless. Am I just being anally retentive or should some sort of educational drive be started? -- Cuardin 13:11, 28 January 2007 (EST)

I've to say that I'm new to the wiki things and I first thought that only Admins could leave comments since I always see Hardvice leaving comments and not the others people. But since today I always leave a comment now and I agree that it should be almost mandatory before accepting an edit/new. (forgive my english :p )
It's not a huge problem, since all changes get reviewed anyway, but it is a good idea to add a summary (which reminds me, I need to turn the summary prompt back on in my preferences). But I went ahead and added a section about edit summaries to Template:Welcome. It's covered in more detail in Help:Editing.--Hardvice (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2007 (EST)
Would it be inappropriate to set that option on by default for new users? -- Cuardin 13:26, 28 January 2007 (EST)
I think it should be. I wouldn't have forget to add Summary the first time I posted here ! --FrenchFlo 13:33, 28 January 2007 (EST)
I'm not sure if it's possible. Admin will know. As for appropriate ... it's a little rude, but I guess Template:Welcome could be adjusted to tell people how to turn it off. I'm not sure how I feel about setting people's prefs for them, though.--Hardvice (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2007 (EST)
I don't follow how setting a preference would be rude. We give every user default settigs. In this case, the default happens to be that something is switched off. To change that default is no more rude than to not change it, no matter how I try to look at it. -- Cuardin 14:37, 28 January 2007 (EST)
It's potentially rude because it discourages people from editing freely. I wouldn't want someone to go to the trouble of writing a contribution, hitting save, and then have them not understand what the prompt is asking them for, get frustrated, and leave. When a user has turned on the setting, they know what to expect. When they haven't, a user who isn't familiar with Wikis might not understand why their edit wasn't accepted.--Hardvice (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2007 (EST)
Well, in that case, the problem is that the notice is far too tiny, contains far too much text and is almost completely impossible to see. The problem is not with the option itself. So the notice should be fixed, and the the option enabled. -- Cuardin 14:49, 28 January 2007 (EST)
I'm not sure how much control we have over the notice (most system messages can be changed, however), but even if it was in 100pt font in a flashing marquee, there will be some users who don't read it or don't understand it. Besides, it seems Wikis work better when people worry more about their own contributions and less about other people's contributions. There's nothing anyone can do that can't be changed.--Hardvice (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2007 (EST)
Well, I guess my programmer roots have their grip on me in this. Either way, Admin can rul either way. -- Cuardin 15:17, 28 January 2007 (EST)
I, for one, wouldn't want to have that notice enabled. I was clueless when I began wiki-ing. (I didn't even know you could edit an article. Please don't laugh.) It took me months before I knew anything about the process, and the edit summaries, believe it or not, were really scary to me. It would certainly be helpful if people commented on their edits, but certainly not necessary. I actually think it's sometimes nice to ignore the summaries - that way I check all edits, and don't gloss over it just because of the summary. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2007 (EST)
Change summaries are very helpful and should definitely be encouraged (and I have my prefs set to warn me when I forget to leave one), but they're not required. I think many people after being here a while start to not only get a feel for the article styles but also for the way things are handled here. I dont think we need to force summary warnings on by default, I think most people will start using them on their own. As an editor one can take advantage of summaries to help clarify the reasons or sources behind an edit. This can often help reduce the number of edits that end up being reverted, so in the end editors probably find it worthwhile to add summaries whenever possible. (Admin 18:18, 1 February 2007 (EST))

Hana and Ted, sittin' in a tree...

Neat preview. How do we deal with it? Do you think it's going to be from an episode (in which case we just wait) or is it actually "exclusive" (and then how do we chronicle it?)--Hardvice (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Of course, it's way to early (maybe only an hour, if we're lucky) to make a decision. But if it's never show on an episode, we could give it a name (I suggest something other than "Hana and Ted, sittin' in a tree..." hehe) and treat it like In His Own Image, or the GNs. Near canon. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Newbie Guide?

In writing the Glossary the thought occurred to me that maybe we should have a Newbie Guide prominently featured on the front page, for people who are new to the show and come here for info. I am thinking a simple page with links to the Episodes Portal, the Glossary and one or two more pages that help the beginner get started. Once you get into the wiki, moving around is pretty simple, but as a first-time viewer, the Main Page doesn't really lead te viewer straight into the heart of the Wiki. -- Cuardin 13:55, 29 January 2007 (EST)

  • Not a bad idea at all. We definitely want to link to it from Template:Welcome, since that's the one thing we can be reasonably sure all new accounts see.--Hardvice (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2007 (EST)
  • Though I'd call it something slightly less ... demeaning than "Newbie Guide". Maybe "Portal:New Users"? "Newbie" is kind of a)slangy and b)loaded.--Hardvice (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2007 (EST)
    • Good point. Feel free to rename it. And could someone with layout skills ake it not look completely and utterly boring like it does now... -- Cuardin 14:09, 29 January 2007 (EST)

Heroes Wiki takes off its training wheels

  • For the past couple weeks I've drastically scaled down (practically eliminated in fact) the amount of paid advertising for Heroes Wiki and I'm happy to say that we've been doing very well since then. We're past the point where we need paid advertising to spread the word about this site. We have a constant influx of new members and people enjoy this wiki so much that they're spreading the word to others who haven't heard about it so we have more new visitors all the time. In addition due to our popularity we're doing better in Google results which helps more people find the information they're looking for here on this wiki. I wanted to take a moment to once again thank all the editors who have made this wiki as great as it is. I also want to thank all the visitors who spread the word about the wiki and help make us even more popular. (Admin 15:46, 9 February 2007 (EST))

Digg Heroes Wiki

  • I see our newest episode page is listed on Digg, but we're going to need more votes for the article to be pushed up to the surface. If you have a Digg account, please go here and Digg the article so that it gets pushed up. :) (Admin 01:32, 13 February 2007 (EST))


What's the policy on copyright here? Personally I think it's a very bad idea to lift text from other websites as that isn't fair use. MatthewFenton 09:18, 27 February 2007 (EST)

  • It's definitely against policy and seems rather pointless to me when a link to the other website will do just fine. I notice you found some copyrighted info that had just been lifted from other sites, thank you for removing it. (Admin 09:45, 27 February 2007 (EST))

Non wiki related show discussion?

Is there a specific place to discuss the show (ie a specific episode, or a character/actor) when it's not really fact based.. more like just what you thought of the episode or acting or whatever? I see a little of it on the talk pages for the episodes but I was thinking it would be cool if there was a community portal section where we could chat about the show on a more social level without cluttering the talk pages for editors. Maybe something similar to the forums Wikipedia calls the "village pump" ? --Frantik (Talk) 23:24, 27 February 2007 (EST)

  • Sounds like an interesting idea. Got any suggestions for a name for the area? Like "The Heroes Wiki Campfire" or something else that indicates an informal group discussion. Also suggestions for how to organize the sections? For starters there could be an Episodes section where the discussions are broken out by episode. Perhaps a character's section where they're broken out by character/actor as well? --The preceding unsigned comment was left by User:Admin at 05:53, 28 February 2007
    • I can't think of a name off the top my head but I agree we should have an episode section and a characters section where each ep and character has their own page.. plus maybe another general discussion area? --Frantik (Talk) 01:56, 28 February 2007 (EST)
      • Couldn't it just be part of the talk page for the episode? Or if we want it separated, couldn't we do something like [[Talk:Episode:Company Man/Discussion]]? — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2007 (EST)
        • The talk pages seem to be how it's done right now, though there's not a lot of that type of discussion going on. I like the sub page idea.. and then perhaps we could have an index here in the community portal. Regardless of what methods are used, the main objectives would be a) letting people know there is an option to discuss topics not directly related to the blog, b) making the discussion easy to find, and c) making it easier to know when people have replied. --Frantik (Talk) 18:41, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Car (disambig)

Shouldn't we create this page as a disambig for all cars list in the show ? Move this post to the talk page when create/delete this page if usefull/useless. --FrenchFlo(talk)(contribs) 18:27, 6 March 2007 (EST)

  • I don't think it's necessary. As far as I know, there's only two cars that have articles: the Cadillac and the Nissan Versa. Maybe I'm overlooking something, but I don't think necessitates a disambig page. But if you think it's necessary, then there's nothing stopping you from creating the page. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2007 (EST)


In the newest issue (March 16) of Entertainment Weekly, they confirm that the episode that will be airing on April 23rd is called .07%. Frustratingly, it's not online. Ugh. But the article has some really good teases and spoilers. :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)

  • If that's the prevalence of evolved humans in the population, then there should be about 4,686,575 evolved humans on the planet. That's an awful lot of brains for Sylar to chow down on, no?--Hardvice (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2007 (EST)
    • ...unless it's the percentage of brain power Mohinder was using when he agreed to go exhaust the list -- with freakin' Sylar. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2007 (EST) Heroes Wiki

I see that has set up their own wiki for Heroes. They even seem to have gotten some of our definitions of powers, such as Intuitive aptitude and Electronic data transception.

  • It's been around for a while now (since the first hiatus, IIRC) and is still mostly content-free. And yeah, there are even some pages that seem to have been cut-n-pasted straight from us. LOL.--Hardvice (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)


I just noticed we're at 8,000 total pages. Wow. And we just passed the 1,500 mark for registered users. Impressive. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)


I'm assuming it goes without saying that we will be including Heroes: Origins information on the site? We'll have to see once the episodes start airing, but I would guess we'll treat them a lot like the graphic novels, with their own pages and with individual character pages for those featured. Cool, I'm excited. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Gives us something to do during the summer!--Bob 17:13, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I'd assume so. And probably the same for "Inside Heroes", which I guess will be part of Heroes 360.--Hardvice (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2007 (EDT)