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/Archive1

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive.jpg WARNING: Heroes Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive1 is an archive of past messages. New messages should be added to Heroes Wiki talk:Community Portal. Archive.jpg

Theories Tab

Originally proposed by ZyberGoat.

  • I think that's a pretty good idea. --Heroe
  • Not yet It would probably require more work than it would be used for, and they theories do not yet rival the lengths of the articles as they did on Lostpedia. ---- Ohmyn0.jpgOhmyn0talk.jpg 22:44, 16 November 2006 (EST)
  • It might not be a bad idea to do something similar with the episode-by-episode character histories, though. They're becoming somewhat cumbersome already ... just imagine what they'll look like after 22 episodes! Maybe we can move the episode-by-episode histories to a tab at the end of the season and leave a season one summary on the main article. As for the actual question, I agree with Ohmyno ... good idea, but premature at the moment.--Hardvice (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2006 (EST)
    • I think the Theories page is working well for now to serve a similar need. Perhaps in the future it could become unwieldy, but as of now, it is more than appropriate. --ZyberGoat 13:11, 5 December 2006 (EST)
  • I like the idea of a theories tab, as the show continues there will be a need for each page to have it's own theories. The php extention used on Lostpedia is avalible here, so it should be easy enough to put on this wiki.--Hiro 12:22, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
    • Looking at the growing theories pages, I think it's really time it's time we take some action to cut them down. We're only through one season and already our theories pages are bloated to the point of explosion. Adding fresh blood will only exacerbate the problem. I'm ready to try the theories tab that works so nicely for Lospedia. It means a lot of new pages and a lot of work, but I think it might be worth it, especially in the long run. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
      • There's another option... we could archive the theories applicable mainly to Season One.--MiamiVolts (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
        • Anything to break up those pages...but my concern is that many (or most) of the theories are not just about Season One, but are about a character in general. I'm just afraid that trying to pick a season to which to attribute a particular theory is going to get messy--especially if we have notes and cites from multiple seasons. I'd rather just see all the theories about Sylar at a page called "Sylar/Theories". A tab at the top wouldn't be necessary, but would be a cool added bonus. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
          • If that's the case, couldn't we convert Theories:Characters into a portal? I like that idea better than applying a tab.--MiamiVolts (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
            • Right, it'd probably be best to convert our theories pages we have now into portals. But the portals wouldn't actually house the theories, they would just give links to the subpages. As for at the top, I don't really care one way or another if we actually have a tab or if we just link directly from the base page. A tab at the top is fluff. It's the subpage I'm thinking is best (which would work with or without a tab). -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
              • Check out what I'm thinking of here. I guess if there's too many characters we could split the portals up into characters introduced in Season 1, characters introduced in Season 2, etc. That was what I'm thinking. Or we could just do a table containing the links, and that way we could fit all of the names on the same page.--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
                • I like the layout, but I think that the theories should apply to characters in general. So, for example, more theories come up for Claire in Season Two (like can she grow back limbs, i.e. toes?), they should be included with Season One theories that have yet to be answered. I agree though, that we should separate theories that probably won't be answered in Season Two, like theories on the Crane Boy. A subpage of theories would be sufficient, similar to Season One histories.--Bob 15:03, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
                  • With minor adjustments, that's exactly what I'm thinking, too. A table would work, but a portal is more dynamic and fits with the way the site is already organized. A tab on the base page would be an additional feature. I would put all theories about a person (or event or power or whatever) together on the same page. I would definitely not separate theories that "probably" won't be answered in Season Two. Separating a theory about the Crane boy because he probably won't show up again seems to be too speculative and subjective for me. Who's to say he won't return, or a piece of evidence won't be given that proves or disproves a theory? ... For me, the basic question is if there are any people who are opposed to breaking the behemoth theories pages into subpages. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
                    • Actually, upon closer inspection, I would do a slight switch. Rather than calling a page "Theories:Evolved Humans/Claire Bennet", I'd call it "Claire Bennet/Theories". I would make Claire the base page. That would avoid a lot of problems and make the switch a lot easier. If a person exhibits powers during the course of a season, his theory page wouldn't have to switch name. For example, instead of switching "Theories:Humans/Kaito Nakamura" to "Theories:Evolved Humans/Kaito Nakamura", he would just stay "Kaito Nakamura/Theories". The change to template:theories would also be minimal if it's a subpage of the character rather than a subpage of Theories:Evolved Humans. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
  • I didn't really followed the thread but I agree with Ryan. Having a subpage for each character's theorie sounds a good idea and easy to manipulate. (let's get back to the left of the page :) )-- Frenchflo.gif (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Theories Tab (Cont.)

  • Ok, so I changed my example to use the character as the base, but are you sure about this switch? Yes, it's one less thing to change, but we'll still have to modify the portal each time a character changes status and this will make it more difficult to determine which characters/items/etc. have theories.--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
    • Actually, you wouldn't change based on if they're an evolved human. By making one page that lists ALL theories based on individuals rather than a separate page for EH and humans (since you can see that they're an EH from the character page), this would be the easiest. In addition, it shortens the theories page, and keeps it localized. I like the idea, Ryan.--Bob 17:03, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
      • You confused me there, Bob. Ryan isn't suggestion to group together the EH and human portal, just to change the name of the subpage. There still needs to be seperate portals for EH and humans, since there's just too many character for a single portal. My comment was that the initial way I had my example, you could do a search for 'Theories:Evolved Humans/' and find all of the related theories subpages to ensure all of them are linked correctly. You can't do that if we use the character article for the base.--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
        • In the end, I don't really care what the portal looks like, whether it's all the theories on one page or separated, or whether it has images or is just a table. My biggest concern is that the theories are subpages of the character page, not the theories page. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
          • Another option, which kind of takes care of both problems, is to make "Theories" a namespace. I'd be fine with "Theories:Claire Bennet". Then, theories could be easily searched if needed; more importantly, the theories wouldn't be included in a normal search (kind of like spoilers). Admin? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
            • I like that idea, Ryan. Hope Admin agrees.--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
            • Bumping this page so Admin has a better chance of noticing it.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
              • Sounds reasonable. I can setup a "Theories" namespace. (Admin 00:54, 1 September 2007 (EDT))
                • Great. I've changed my example to use the "Theories:<Character/item/event>" format. Is it already setup?--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
                  • You'll know it's set up when Admin moves all the pages, deletes them, and moves them back. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
                    • Heh, nicely worded reminder there for Admin to rebuild the links table. ;)--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
                      • Oh, I didn't even think of it like that. I'm in no rush. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
                        • Bump to remind Admin to set up the theories namespace.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
                          • I'll try to get to it this week. (Admin 16:34, 10 September 2007 (EDT))
            • I like the idea a lot. Very much like a spoiler page. Just use the theories cat on the pages like a spoiler.--Bob 03:03, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
              • While we're at it, it'd also be nice to have a "Fan Creation" namespace so the fan creations don't get included in a general search. I don't know if we're heaping too much on your plate or not, Admin, so you choose what you're able to. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 05:40, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Web Episodes -- Nice, clear credits at last!

How sad is it that my first thought was "at last ... unobstructed credits!" In any case, from the aforementioned credits:

If we want to get really, really trivial:

This is everyone who is credited and doesn't currently have an article. Do with this what you will.--Hardvice (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2006 (EST)

  • Thanks Hardvice! I added a few red links for articles I think might have some merit in being written - ie, red links that already exist, people with more than one reference already, pictures of people, etc. I'm not quite ready to write them all yet, but I think we should keep them red and somebody will get around to them ... January 22 is a long time away! :) - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2006 (EST)
    • I took the liberty of red-linking all the actors just to see who has an article and who doesn't. - Cuardin 12:36, 14 January 2007 (EST)
      • I would hold off on red-linking unless we're sure we're going to write an article about that person. Some of the people are credited, but we don't even know who they are yet. ("Thanks, NBC, for such descriptive credits," he says sarcastically.) For instance, I have no idea who Adam Harrington (the paramedic in Hiros) is, and I really don't think he needs an article yet. Nor do I don't think we need to have a red link for the "Don't freak out!" cheerleader quite yet. Just my opinion. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Standardizing External Links

I'm noticing that a lot of our "External Links" sections follow different formats. Some include the title of the page in the link, others the domain name, and still others don't really fall into a category. I think we need to standardize our links. I'm open to anything, but I suggest we include the title of the page inside the link, and then (if applicable), a hyphen and the domain name outside the link, along with an explanation if necessary. As well, I think all external links should be bulleted, even if there's only one (which I think we generally do already). For example:

Any other thoughts? Anybody want to take on the project of standardizing our links? - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2007 (EST)

  • This sounds like a good idea, I like your example, especially knowing which domain the link goes to.-- Hiro  talk  contribs  14:13, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
    • Thanks. I think at this point, now that we're almost at the one year mark and have 1,600+ articles, it might be best to take this as an ongoing project where we simply fix up the links sections when we see them, rather than trying to tackle every page in one shot. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

1000th user

  • I'm glad someone caught that. I've been watching and had a feeling it was going to happen on Tuesday, but I didn't have much time on Tuesday to check out the user count frequently. I can remember back when this wiki had only a handful of registered users and now it's grown tremendously. I must say I've been very impressed and think everyone here should be proud of the work they've done to help this site grow. I can only hope that one day we reach the ranks of the other greats like Lostpedia and Memory Alpha. :) (Admin 01:20, 7 March 2007 (EST))
    • I'm biased, but I'd say we're great already!! :) Disney42 01:22, 7 March 2007 (EST)
    • Incidentally, Fmobus is the 1000th user. (I'm sure Jameskysonlee, #962, is jealous.) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2007 (EST)
      • How many users are we now ? :) I assume we are about to have lot of new member with season two coming ! -- Frenchflo.gif (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
        • See Special:Statistics. About 2390 at the moment. Yeah, once Season Two starts things should start climbing quickly again. (Admin 09:36, 27 August 2007 (EDT))
          • Oh yeah; forgot this link :) Btw, as we are talking about stats; is there a simple way to reach this page ? I can't find a rapid link to it exept special/stats/for more stats see here.. -- Frenchflo.gif (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
            • You could bookmark it. Other than that it's also linked to on the "About Heroes Wiki" link at the bottom of the site. (Admin 09:44, 27 August 2007 (EDT))
            • We could also put a link to it on the Main Page, but I don't really see the point or the need, personally. I usually just type in "Heroes Wiki:Site Statistics". -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
              • Well I think this page is interesting and nicely done. So why is it so hard to find ? There is not reason. We probably should link it from the main page I agree ;) -- Frenchflo.gif (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
                • I like the page too, but I'm still not convinced it should go on the main page. However, I see two possibilities if we do decide to go ahead with it: either a link in template:mainwelcome or adding template:Heroes Wiki to the bottom of the Main Page...but I personally think the "About Heroes Wiki" is enough for anybody who is searching for information about Heroes Wiki.-- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
                  • Yeah, it's ok where it is. Metainformation about the wiki itself doesn't really need to be out on the main page or anything. Anyone interested in the information will check out "About Heroes Wiki" to learn more about the wiki itself and see the link there. (Admin 13:32, 27 August 2007 (EDT))
                    • Ok ok; too bad! :) -- Frenchflo.gif (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
                      • We'll definetely catch up to lostpedia and Memory Alpha. Heroes is beginning bigger than those shows and it has only been one year! Heroeswiki is also like the BEST source for HEroes info. Trust me. The Heroes wikia... eh. They are stuggling. This will definetely increase in popularity. Jason Garrick 15:52, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Order of Examples

So I'm noticing that some of the examples on the powers pages are in chronological order, and some are in episodic order. On top of that, the galleries don't always match the order of the examples. We really should standardize this so they're all the same. Personally, I think if there is an episodic/GN cite, it doesn't need (and shouldn't be) in chronological order, but in episodic order. But that would mean a lot of changes, since it seems most are chronological. In the end, I don't really care which way they are, but they should be standard. Any thoughts? — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Aren't most examples in episodic order, and most galleries in chronological order? I thought that was how we were doing it, should that be the standard? -Lөvөl 17:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Without going through each one, here's what I found about the examples sections (I'm too lazy to do the galleries)...
    • These powers are listed by episodically:
      1. enhanced memory
      2. induced radioactivity
      3. invisibility (but not its examples)
      4. precognition (well, prophecy)
      5. space-time manipulation (and its examples)
      6. technopathy
    • These powers are listed chronologically:
      1. enhanced strength (and its examples)
      2. flight
      3. mental manipulation
      4. persuasion
      5. phasing
      6. pyrokinesis
      7. rapid cell regeneration (and its examples)
      8. telekinesis (and its examples)
      9. telepathy (and its examples)
    • I don't really care how it's done, but it should really be standardized. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
      • I'm resurrecting an old conversation. The more I think about it, the more I think the order of examples should be in episodic order. Almost the entire site is that way--those few pages that are in chronological order seem quite out of place on the wiki. But even more importantly, having the examples and images in episodic order makes the page easier to navigate, encourages newer users (or at least those not as familiar with Heroes) to contribute, and prevents arguments about potentially ambiguous flashbacks that don't exactly specify chronology when compared to previously established chronology. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
        • I think I got them all, but it'd be nice if somebody could go through the powers (and their examples) and double check. Funny--in the beginning of the season we were using a variety of ordering methods, but towards the end we started migrating towards using just episodic ordering. Guess it's meant to be. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Frequent Misconceptions

  • I was thinking about creating an article like "Frequent Misconceptions" or "FAQ" where we list common errors and misconceptions and provide the correct answers along with the proof. For instance the effect they use for Sylar's voice is being frequently confused with Eden's power of Persuasion so we could list that along with links and excerpts from the interview where the writers explicitly explain it. The criteria for inclusion might be a little different than most articles. We might have to rely mostly on direct answers from writers and other production staff in interviews rather than simply include evidence from the show itself (since in many instances the interpretation of the evidence from the show may be in question). Any comments? (Admin 11:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT))
    • I think that's a fine idea. Lostpedia has something very similar and I find it to be a very useful resource (as well as just a really good read). It would also be a good place to set a record straight without having to point a "frequently misconception-ed" user to a talk page--especially when a discussion has tangential information or a discussion is carried out on more than one page. Yeah, I'm all for it. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
      • Also agreed. I think y'all have a larger experience with these, but I think we would get a very large amount of input from other users (FrenchFlo, Heroe, etc) who run through the theories and character pages and knock out things like this. Great idea.--Bob 12:53, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
      • We should try to implement this before the next episode. After my fifth removal of Peter having mimicked abilities he didn't actually do in 20min, it gets a wee-bit old. With the hype of the next two being huge (especially the finale), it would be wise before the influx of contributors.--Bob 23:44, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
        • I'm not an admin (but hope to be) but I want to contribute anyway. I think something like that would be a good idea. It could also be a collection of unconfirmed rumors and Kristin Veitch spoilers. :) Heroe!(talk) (contribs) Random Page! 00:00, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Forgive me if I do this incorrectly - I've never contributed to a Wiki before, but I've been using this site extensively for information over season 1. I'm a frequent contributor to the usenet group, and we've compiled a FAQ. I think that this site might be a good place to store the FAQ, and it would serve well for this purpose. Let me know if it's appropriate or wanted here. Jewahe 12:49, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
      • Do you have the exact link to the FAQ? I tried finding it with the info you gave, but couldn't locate it. I'd like to see the FAQ before saying whether it belongs here or not, though it sounds like it'd probably be a pretty good fit for Heroes Wiki. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
        • I believe you can find a sample copy of it here. Looking over it briefly we would need to clean it up and change some things if we just made it a Heroes FAQ. Plus all the list info would have to be removed. There may be some speculation in there as well. On the other hand, if we had a fan-creation article called then the FAQ could be part of that article without having to be modified, but just as we don't create articles for individual fan sites I'm not sure we should be creating an article for individual mailing lists. (Admin 13:08, 11 July 2007 (EDT))
          • Thanks, Admin. The list is a good start. You're right, there's a lot of speculation and some stuff would have to be altered. But it's a good launching point. I wouldn't do an FAQ section for this site, and I wouldn't do a fan creation for, either. I'm all for a "frequent misconceptions" page, and using the FAQ list at as a starting point to give us ideas on what to include. I'll have to mull this one over. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
            • Forgive me, I didn't have access to the FAQ when I made my original post. The FAQ is posted to every Monday. I've made the most recent version of the FAQ available at I'm the person currently updating and posting it.Jewahe 15:03, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

How to submit 3D models?

I'm an indie 3D modeler and I've modeled "Double Ascension" from Kirby Plaza. I'd like to CC license it and put it up for other fans to use as they wish. Is this wiki a good venue for that sort of thing?


  • I was wondering, are a number of people here going to Comic-Con? If so feel free to plug Heroes Wiki to other Heroes fans while you're there. :) I could even print up little advertisement business cards or make some free shirts to give out or something. hmmm.... :) (Admin 21:45, 27 May 2007 (EDT))
    • I'll really try, seeing how it's about 45 minutes away. :) --Heroe!(talk) (contribs) 21:53, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
    • If any of the Heroes cast or crew is there I'd love to get them a free t-shirt. haha. I'm welcome to suggestions for t-shirt designs. In the simplest form I'd just create black t-shirts and have printed on them "Are you on the wiki?" and include the address to the site. (Admin 21:57, 27 May 2007 (EDT))
    • Created a sample Heroes Wiki t-shirt. Ordered one for myself so I can see how they come out first. Anyone interested in free t-shirts? (Admin 23:54, 27 May 2007 (EDT))
      • Mhh, should I take the plane down to America to receive my free shirt ? Does it worth it ? Hehe! Have fun you %$@#! ! -- FrenchFlo (talk)        02:14, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
        • I won't be there, I'm potentially offering the free shirts to anyone regardless of whether they'll be there and perhaps some extras to people who will be there and want to give away a couple. Or maybe to the top 10-15 contributors here or something. Was just checking out what kind of interest there is. (Admin 02:24, 28 May 2007 (EDT))
          • Get me an extra one and I'll give it to Jason Badower before the Con. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
    • So anyone know for certain if they're going to Comic-Con yet? (Admin 21:47, 22 June 2007 (EDT))
      • Wearing mine right now in fact. :) I've ordered a whole bunch of them since I'm going to fly out to San Diego for the Saturday during Comic-Con when all the Heroes stuff is. I wonder what size t-shirt Tim Kring wears.... hmm. :) (Admin 17:03, 1 July 2007 (EDT))
      • Hmm... looks like the Heroes stuff at Comic-Con might be all on Saturday. Maybe I should fly over there and just go Saturday. hmmm. (Admin 19:17, 25 June 2007 (EDT))
      • I'm heading out there for the Heroes stuff on Saturday. Got a bunch of Heroes Wiki t-shirts. Gonna see if I can give them out to the cast. :) (Admin 23:59, 6 July 2007 (EDT))
        • Good luck and have fun -- the t-shirts look great, hopefully you'll have no problem. Take lots of pictures, too! :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
  • G4 will be broadcasting the San Diego Comic-Con on July 26 and 27 at 7pm ET.
  • Seat24F has posted a model of what the Heroes booth will look like, and lots of pictures of the lunchboxes they're giving out in hourly raffles: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
    • Man, I wish I had known the Saturday tickets would sell out online before the conference. :( (Admin 22:54, 24 July 2007 (EDT))
      • Yeah, that really sucks. I've actually read of the same thing happening to quite a few people. I even asked Jason Badower if he had an "in" to get any extra tickets, and he said it'd be tough. Ah well, there's always next year. I'll be shooting smaller for the con in Philly. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

A Global "To Do List" Page

I was thinking it would be a good thing to come up with a global 'to do list' page. I know that we have several of the regular contributors with 'wish lists' on their userpages, and there is the Requested Screen Captures page, and there might be some other similar isolated lists like this, but if we had one central point that all 'to do' and requested and wishlist stuff could be listed or linked from, it would probably help us be more productive. I know myself, I have free time when I would like to do more, but am not sure what is really needed. If we could have a "to do list" then it would allow anyone who is motivated, to have a focused jumping in point for getting things done.

What do you guys think? (I am posting this here, since we don't seem to have a general 'suggestions page' either....) --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 06/22/2007 12:44 (EST)

  • Have you checked out Current events? I think that's being used for what you're asking for, but perhaps it needs to be expanded to cover more of the current todo items. Also for general suggestions you can use the talk page for the community portal, though a lot of people do leave general suggestions here on the main page. (Admin 13:16, 22 June 2007 (EDT))
    • Right. There's also a general to do list (and its sister). If you're looking for something to do, the site needs a blue paint job to cover up some of those red spots that keep creeping up. :) I wouldn't mind having our current events page a bit more useful--it'd be cool to talk about ideas that people have on their individual to do lists. That said, I will still keep my own to do list because it is sort of a dumping ground for things that I might want to revisit one day. I don't look at it all that often because I find that there's almost always something to do without having to consult a list, but I'm on the site a lot more frequently than most I think, so I probably have a pretty good lay of the land. But if somebody wants to fix up our current events or community portal, I think it's a great idea. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Wikis about Heroes are popular!

Entertainment Weekly has a wiki for Heroes: EW's Heroes Fan Wiki. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Everyone just loves Heroes. :) I showed Genesis to a friend of mine last nite (since NBC has all of Season One on their site at the moment) and he thought Heroes was such a neat show that we ended up watching 2 more episodes despite it being late. He called it like "crack". :) (Admin 22:44, 12 July 2007 (EDT))

"Create Your Own Comic Book" winner

NBC held a contest to create your own comic book based on Heroes characters. Andrew Chandler's comic won (it's a pretty fun read). Should we write an article on it? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

NBC videos

Just to let everybody know, the full episodes will only be available on NBC until this Friday, August 3rd. After that, I believe they will only be available on DVD. Watch 'em while you can! -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Deleted Scenes

The upcoming Season One DVD will reportedly have 50 deleted scenes. Very cool--that's an average of about two scenes per episode, though I'm sure they won't be divided that evenly. Additionally, NBC is actually releasing some of the scenes on YouTube. I think we should make some mention of these scenes on the episode pages (a brief description), and provide links to the scenes if they exist on YouTube or other sites. I did this for Fallout (take a look). If the scene is significant (for instance, a uniformed cop gets frozen in a cut scene from One Giant Leap), it should probably still be mentioned in more detail in the Notes or Trivia section. Anyway, I'm open to suggestions about how this should be laid out, or linked, or if we should include them at all. Let me know what you think. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Okay, so with the release of today's DVD and its accompanying 50 deleted scenes, we need to talk about where those scenes belong when it comes to canon. Before today, our main deleted scenes have come from pictures on NBC. We've been relegating deleted scenes exclusively to the Notes sections, as far as I can tell. There are a few exceptions to that (see Cryokinesis#Examples), but the fact that they're from an unaired scene is still pretty clearly marked. I would suggest we continue doing the same for the deleted scenes. For instance, I don't think we should actually list D.L. as an occupant in the Moab Federal Penitentiary, but rather mention it in the Notes, since, well, he never actually was a occupant there (the scene was deleted and never aired, right?) The other suggestion I had above was to create a section on episode pages for deleted scenes, which could work, but would only apply to episode pages, and not regular pages... Does anybody have any other thoughts? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

I think maybe we should adopt a similar style to that of Lostpedia. Make a separate page on the wiki for each season's deleted scenes, detail them,. maybe even throw in some transcriptions. Feel free to flesh out this idea. --Aero Zeppelin 20:48, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

  • I definitely do not like the idea of transcriptions. For copyright reasons, we really don't have any transcriptions anywhere on this site in the first place (memorable quotes is pushing it for me). But I don't mind a separate page. However I'm not sure it's necessary when a regular section will do. But that's just me. Maybe people feel they should be separated. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

I simply feel they should be separated to keep canon confusions to a minimum. Make the episode a hub for canon information and other related observations, and have the Deleted Scenes page cover the questionable canon, rather than blend the two together. Just seems more logical that way, to me at least. --Aero Zeppelin 23:15, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Well then the bigger issue is where do deleted scenes fall in canon? I don't mind mentioning them on the powers pages, character pages, etc., but the mentions should be in the Notes. I don't think there'd be anything confusing about that, so long as it's clearly marked "In a deleted scene", or something similar. Putting the incidents on a separate page seems odd to me, especially since there's only a handful per episode. They don't need to be their own section, necessarily, but I'm not sure why they'd need to be on a different page. I mean, many of our notes are written from a real-world perspective, and often talk in depth about things that are not canon. Since deleted scenes fall somewhere in the middle, I think they should really stay on the same page. For me it's more of a question of having their own section or just residing in the Notes section. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
    • I think that you're correct in that they should stay in the Notes sections. Whenever we have conflicting information (i.e. something from the GN isn't right compared to the episodes aired) or something not confirmed (i.e. something from Heroes 360), we generally keep it in the notes section. It allows us to document it, but reserve its information in some notation.--Bob 00:54, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
      • I agree about just adding notes and making it clear that it's not canon, but I also wouldn't mind a page with actual straight-up summaries of the deleted scenes, like we have for the episodes proper. And then just link to it from the episode page.--Leshia 00:56, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
        • I'm assuming you're talking about a page that describes all deleted scenes (maybe from a season or something?) rather than a page about just deleted scenes from, say, Genesis? Yeah, I wouldn't mind that, that's not a bad idea. But I still think (and I believe most people who have replied are agreeing) the deleted scenes should stay somewhere on the page, preferably in the Notes. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
          • I would like to make a suggestion on how to handle this. Since the Episode pages themselves are already established, (but we also don't want to overbloat them), I think the cleanest approach to handling deleted scenes would be like this.

            Create a page that is linked to off of the episodic page, similar to the 'images from Genesis' section that each page has; but it would be something like: 'deleted scenes from Genesis'. The new spawned page would be setup in two sections, one for listing video-links, and the other, of the screen-cap pictures from the deleted scenes, similar to how the regular 'images from'....pages work. Doing it in this manner, would allow all episodic pages presently, and in future season box-sets, to be layed out in a similar manner; and also keep from over-bloating the original episodic page with alot of extra deleted stuff. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 08/29/2007 11:22 (EST)

            • Personally, I don't think deleted scenes should go on a separate page. The only reason images are kept somewhere else is because they technically belong to a category, and because there are so many that it'd be silly to host them on the regular episode pages. I think deleted scenes should, in most cases, be kept in the notes. If something from a deleted scene is to be included somewhere else (like an Examples section on a powers page or in a Gallery), it should be clearly noted that it's coming from a deleted scene. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
              • Maybe we could create subpages? For example, Moab Federal Penitentiary/deleted scenes? --Hero!(talk)(contribs) 19:36, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
                • Well, I have some reservations about doing it that way, simply because deleted scenes don't always fit neatly into one subject, and some subjects would seem silly with just one scene. For instance, I don't think "The Symbol/Deleted scenes" would be very useful just to house one picture. So far, we've been generally been putting the content of the scenes (or at least the notable parts) in the Notes sections of appropriate pages. There are some exceptions of course, but they're always labeled very clearly. Characters who appear only in deleted scenes also have (or will have) their own pages. I think doing it that way has been working pretty well so far. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Credit on Fan Creations

The issue came up of giving credit to people who begin fan creations. As far as I can tell, we have three fan creations (Sarmy, fan powers, and The Marked) that mention creators names in some form or another, the most severe being fan powers. Personally, I feel we should not include the names of people who begin something, since almost no contribution, phenomenon, or other kind of creation related to Heroes is the work of one person, or should have a few people singled out. For instance, just because somebody begins a fan power and assigns their name to it, does that mean that nobody else can edit it? Just because somebody coined the term "Marked", does that imply that it was completely their invention? If we single out a few key members of Sarmy, does the exclusion of other members seem fair? I would find it offensive to see a Wikipedia article about Heroes Wiki, for instance, single out just a few key contributors, when even people that make one or two edits, or just visit the site, have a hand in creating our community. I think the best solution is to take out creators' names altogether. But I'd like to know what others think about it. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Agreed. I never really understood why people want "credit" for something that relies upon the creativity of others (in this instance, the writing staff of Heroes). Needless to say, this isn't really the place for doing this. For me, the whole fan creation aspect of this site is something I don't really contribute to, but I can understand its purpose. That being said, I think looking at the history tab is enough to find who contributed to the page.--Bob 15:52, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
    • Hmm. I kind of agree with Bob, only differing in that I'd go further and restrict all of the fan creations to user subpages such that there can be no complaints of favoritism...--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
  • I think when we document fan-created groups if there is a clearly-defined originator(s) then I don't see a problem stating that the group was founded or created by that person(s). I do see it as a relatively significant piece of information regarding the group. To take the wikipedia article example, for instance, I wouldn't find it inappropriate for it to mention when Heroes Wiki was started and that I setup the site. I hope that's not my vanity, but if you take the Wikipedia article on Lostpedia for instance it does discuss the founder even though many many more people were probably more instrumental in making that site what it is today. The fan powers are a different case because there we're crediting the information on the wiki to a specific person which I don't feel is really appropriate. For instance, while I wrote the bulk of the episode summaries for the first season so far, they were improved, edited, and corrected by a number of people over time. So the information itself is a collaborative effort, though we do credit the writers and directors of each episode even though many many more people are involved in their creation. In the same way it seems appropriate to allow the primary founders of a fan-created group to include information about the founding. (Admin 21:37, 9 August 2007 (EDT))

Heroeswiki Forum

The Heroes Wiki has been up since October and I think there should be a forum for its users to discuss the show. Are there any plans for one? -- Citizen 20:10, 9 August 2007

  • No, I don't plan on adding a forum. There are a number of good forums out there already (like and I don't really think we need yet another Heroes forum. :) The others are well-established anyway and not only would it most likely be mostly inactive, but it would also take time away from working on the wiki. Also I figure we should stick to what we do best which is running a wiki, not a forum. If anything in the future we may see an expansion of the Community Portal to support more informal discussions about the episodes/characters, but personally I'd rather just direct people over to a forum like where most of the other posters are already anyway. (Admin 21:16, 9 August 2007 (EDT))
    • Or you could join some of us on the IMDb forum. ;)--MiamiVolts (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
      • For sure. There's only so many times you can play mafia before you want new blood.--Leshia 00:43, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Interview images

I added some images to Interview:Joe Kelly and Interview:Kotzebue brothers. I thought it might spruce up the pages a bit, though I'm not tied to them. I didn't think they looked all that great on the left so I aligned them all on the right. I'm not tied to any style, though, nor to having the images at all. I thought I'd get some feedback, though. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Normally, I'm for alternating left-right to give the page balance, but it looks good this way.--Bob 01:30, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
    • Yeah, me too, normally. But I guess because the pages aren't in narrative formats (like episode summaries and character histories), the left-right didn't look quite right. Not bad, just not right. (Or is it left?) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Micah Gunnell

Paul from 3 Heroes Podcast is doing an interview with Micah Gunnell next week. He and I have been coordinating some of our interviews, and I told him I'd let everybody here know that they can submit questions, and I'll pass them along to him. (I will also probably be joining 3 Heroes as a guest host in the next week or two.) Anyway, if you have any questions for Paul to ask Micah Gunnell, go ahead and post them below. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Hope this one is not too late. It might already be in the list to ask, but I thought I might point out that Micah is not a very common name. Does Gunnell think that Micah Hawkins/Sanders was named after him? Is that why he got to color the graphic novel Bully?--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
    • Oh, sorry, yeah, it's too late. I think Paul's interview was yesterday. I'll double check with him, though. I read somewhere about the origin of Micah's name, and it wasn't from Micah Gunnell. (It was Biblical, I think.) However, that may be why he drew Bully, but I doubt it. With Micah's track record, he was doing just about every other one at that point... -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2007 (EDT)