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/Archive10

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive.jpg WARNING: Heroes Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive10 is an archive of past messages. New messages should be added to Heroes Wiki talk:Community Portal. Archive.jpg

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


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)
Sign with your arguments why a proposed name is appropriate
====Proposed name One====

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


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)


OK, on the Redemption sneak peek, it is Tracy not Barbara! Ali Larter said that Tracy Strauss will be appearing in the sneak peek to Volume 5 Redemption! In the Spoiler's section, Adrian(Nathan) and Greg(Matt) said that it was Tracy, who was the water-formed naked lady! Just trying to clear that you guys! It is a certain estranged triplet, her named is not Barbara nor Niki! It is Tracy! T-R-A-C-Y! What does that spell, water forming woman in the sneak peek of Redemption! Thank you!

Peace Out,

  • We don't update our wiki with spoiler information on the mainspace. --Crazylicious 18:08, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
  • I dont care! All I know that, it is Tracy, so when the season starts, all i will be doing is laughing!

--Pslover 6:32pm, 29 April 2009

Calling all strong editors!

As we enter the slower time of the summer hiatus, let's take the opportunity to get caught up on some clean up tasks. For your convenience, I've included a couple of links below to things that need to be done:

Media bar

I made a media bar template, Template:Mediabar, for where Heroes Wiki is in other media, and think it would be good to add it to the Main and Links pages under the "Heroes Wiki In Other Languages" section. It lists our digg, facebook, and twitter accounts, and our Wikipedia page. Since this is for more than one page, I'm posting the message here. You can see how it would look on the Links page here. If it's okay with everyone, I'll add it to those pages on Wednesday (May 6, 2009).--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

  • I think the media bar looks terrific. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
    • Thanks. I've added it to both the Links and Main Pages now.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

New Blog

I think we should replace the Beeman's blog link on the main page for Oliver Grigsby's blog and maybe even the one he'll do on 9thWonders about the gn's when it's ready. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 02:00, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

  • I like that idea. Let's see what comes of Ollie's blog, though, and see if it becomes as consistent as Greg's was (I have full confidence in will be, knowing how consistent Ollie). -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

Once again, I'm suggesting we replace the Beeman Blog link on the main page with Oliver Grigsby's Blog. Also, I think we should also include a link to his Q&A section at 9th Wonders (I saw you left a post Ryan). -- Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 04:11, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Improving the new concensus checks

I've noticed that on some pages (especially Talk:Matt's ability) many of the suggestions have the same verb but a different noun. If we split the consensus into a verb section and noun section we can half the number of suggestions and reduce the sizes of the lists. Verbs should be more important than nouns and there is no consensus on a noun, we don't use one. It might even streamline the process. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 01:38, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

  • I don't understand see verbs as any more or less important than nouns...perhaps you could clarify what you mean with an example.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
    • Sorry if I was confusing, I meant adjective. What I meant was like, e.g. we had inversion as the noun form of a verb and system, state and situation as adjectives. Each one had its own thread but most of the time the only thing opposed with it was the adjective. If the concensus was split we could reduce the number of same-verb or same-adjective suggestions. As for verbs more important than adjectives, most ability names are verb based nouns, like x manipulation, so they should be more important than the adjectives. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 02:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
      • I don't see splitting as helping anything. The entire meaning of a noun can change based on an adjective. Simple example: normal ice and dry ice; "dry" is an adjective, and it changes the meaning of the noun (dry ice isn't really ice).--MiamiVolts (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
        • But the nouns we use are noun forms of verbs, like manipulation, mimicry,generation, etc. There general meaning won't be changed by the adjective. Adding adjectives only add more detail. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 02:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
          • I think that's an over-generalization. Just cause a noun is a form of a verb doesn't make it any more or less important than its qualifying adjective.--MiamiVolts (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
            • But we can also have names like crumpling that don't have an adjective. It could have been object crumpling. They mean the same thing. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 02:33, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
              • Or a suggestion could have been reverse crumpling, which would mean the reverse process (un-crumpling or de-crumpling).--MiamiVolts (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Calling all Doctor Who fans

Here is a debate to join User:Obelisk52/Doctor Who Debate -- By Danko CH 13:58, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

2009 Comic Con

Is anybody planning to go to the 2009 Comic Con this summer? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

  • I wish, stupid England don't have this things :( --IronyUTC CH 14:59, 7 June 2009 (EDT)
    • I'm forwarding an e-mail here from House Petrelli, who is working with Heroes All Access:

There WILL be a Heroes panel at Comic-Con, as I am sure you all know. There will also be a line party, starting whenever people start to line up for the panel (and I say, the earlier the better). The line party will be hosted by Heroes All Access, and will have some special events at the party. Currently, we have some of the talent who will be dropping in and hanging out with the fans, and we'll be giving out goodies to members of All Access.

Heroes All Access will also have live coverage of the line party, as well as event blogging.

Please pass this message on to your respective groups and websites. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or either of my Heroes All Access colleagues through the "Contact Us" link on the House Petrelli website.

Some addition information HeroesARG found from the 2009 Comi-con schedule that was posted:

<The panel> will be next door at the Hilton San Diego Bayfront, in the Indigo Room, on Saturday from 3:15 to 4:15.

They'll be exclusively showing the Volume 5: Redemption trailer.

Following the trailer, creator Tim Kring and cast members Jack Coleman, Masi Oka, Adrian Pasdar and Zachary Quinto, as well as guest stars Robert Knepper, Dawn Olivieri, Ray Park and Madeline Zima, will participate in a Q&A session.

I hope this info. helps those who are attending. Have fun!--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

  • According to a article, attendees to the Comic Con will include Jack Coleman, Masi Oka, Adrian Pasdar, Hayden Panettiere, Zachary Quinto, and Milo Ventimiglia, along with guest stars Robert Knepper, Dawn Olivieri, Ray Park, and Madeline Zima, and creator Tim Kring.--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2009 (EDT)
  • From Ollie Grigsby via HeroesARG, I also learned: There is a Heroes themed Nissan booth in the convention hall. This is where this year's Heroes Limited Edition Graphic Novel will be distributed from. This year's GN is Rebellion, Part 3: Family written by Oliver Grigsby and drawn by Jason Badower. There will also be a Heroes themed Sprint tent outside at Hilton Gaslamp Quarter Hotel (at K & 4th street) with possible giveaways. Tent is rumored to be "Carnival" themed, due to the new organization in the upcoming Heroes season.--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2009 (EDT)
  • More things I learned: The line party has been canceled due to scheduling conflicts. However, on Friday, July 20th, House Petrelli has organized a party at the House of Blues, nearby the Comic Con. See details at the House Petrelli website. Confirmed attendees include artist Jason Badower, writer Oliver Grigsby, actor David H. Lawrence (Eric Doyle), music composer Lisa Coleman, actress Ginger Pauley (Mrs. Shaw), and prop master James Clark. Free entry for Heroes All Access Members. $10 entry for others.--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2009 (EDT)
  • A few new updates:
    1. According to PR Newswire, you can enter for a daily drawing at the Nissan Heroes Booth (#4029) to win a Nissan Cube. Just scan your badge at the booth each day (Thursday-Sunday) for a chance to enter. The Cubes have been personally stylized by artist Peter Steigerwald.
    2. Nissan Street Teams in Heroes-inspired cubes will also be driving around in downtown San Diego to create buzz and excitement around the Comic-Con activities, so keep a lookout. I guess Peter Steigerwald painted on each of the cars... that's amazing, imho. If anyone can grab some photos, that would be cool for the comic-con article (or for Peter's page, if we decide to move them there). I found a photo of one of them, but there should be at least 3 more. :)
    3. According to TV Overmind, Sprint is sponsoring a carnival tent outside the Gaslamp Hilton for Heroes-related activities. According to the article, "there will be games, food, a bungee trampoline and many more goodies! Visitors will also see exclusive footage and photos from the new season unveiled there."--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2009 (EDT)
    • Another update: According to Oliver Grigsby's blog, "Attack of the Show"'s Blair Butler will be hosting the Comic-Con panel on Saturday.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2009 (EDT)

Adding "Death circumstances" or something like that to all dead character articles

Hello, i have a suggestion involving a new section to dead character articles called something like "Death circumstances". I already suggested it in Ryangibsonstewart's talk page, here, I will copy paste my suggestion here also. It doesn't involve the infobox but a subsection.

"I think the death of characters is very important, i suggest putting the episode/season, location, killer/cause and appearances after death. People killed by Sylar would be linked to the articles Victims of Sylar and so forth... The reason is that a main character's death is somewhat important in the storyline, and people who search the cause of death have to search the whole article and often its not in the last episode the character is seen( example: Linderman). Also, this section appearing in the list at the top will immediately inform the user that the character IS dead. Characters that come back from the dead like Claire are included. Tell me if its a good ideea. - Discipol"

Characters who dies involve complex circumstances, some characters died many times and if you look at articles from the mothership wikipedia you will see a section about death/murder, here are some examples Rasputin, Hitler, Theodore Roosevelt and many more if not all. Some very important ones have even their own articles about their death, like Hitler.

Yay or nay it :D - Discipol

  • This is a great idea, I think it should be added, and I would be willing to work on some of them when I have time :D --Skullman1392 11:50, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
    • Yep, I like it, I do think this could go in danfer or going overboard, like Sylar has died a few times, I'm not going to count how many times Claire has died, so mabye like "Permanent Death Circumstances" so for Adam Monroe it would be Arthur removing his power, not Hiro blowing him him up in Volume Two --IronyUTC CH 12:03, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
      • Permanent Death Circumstances will likely contain more minor characters than major ones. I vote on "Death Circumstances" to be added to all dead character articles, the infobox information that the character is dead can remain the same. Also, lets include characters who died in possible futures like future Daphne. Indeed Claire's will be a big one. We just need an admin of heroeswiki to give us green ^^ - Discipol
        • Question: What about faked deathes? (example: Matt and Daphne, also Ando in Vol. 3) would that be included for characters still living? What about ones who are already dead? --Skullman1392 03:02, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Lets keep the * to one :D Yes, faked deaths seem ok, they aren't more real than future death that never happen. Characters who are already dead? most of them where alive when the show started, and characters who died in the past but are show how they dies, yes. Basically, anyone who died (especially main cast, lets start updating strongly there first) needs something like that since they all died either as a victim(example: Sylar's victims), a hero sacrificing himself(example: Nikky) or a villain defeated(example: Arthur). The section would container data(in no particular order): killer, episode, item/power used, last words, witnesses, natural causes or not, and anything you could think of that is relevant. The guys with the cloning powers, each clone would be mentioned there with the big finish for Julien Dumont :D Still waiting for that admin green light :P - Discipol
  • I don't understand why you need it. Death circumstances are already described in every dead character's article. See here, here or here. -- Altes 03:41, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
  • As I said in the original posts some characters that die don't stay dead :D like Claire, or appear later on like Usuntu or Linderman THUS the deaths will not appear in the last episode on the page. A wikipedia standard is isolation of a person's death as it is very important. Many characters who died in weird circumstances (like Tracy) came back even tho everyone thought them to be dead or filled pages of speculation talk. Information of a death or dead-then-back-to-life could span in pieces across episodes and such a subsection will concentrate it into a nice piece of clear information.

If you think this is unnecessary, then Sylar's victims article is also unnecessary since the characters have a "killed by Sylar" status in their articles and yet it exists :P Discipol

  • Sylar's case is special, he's a Psycho Killer after all))) besides, there are also Arthur's victims, Noah's victims and Danko's victims articles. What I don't understand is why you want a section about death circumstances, since they are already described. -- Altes 08:18, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
  • I think we need this but maybe just simply deceased = suicide etc and a link to an article that exists e.g. deceased = murder. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 09:10, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

  • Whatever the name is of the article, you need to have a clear view of it. Lets do it :D Discipol


Please add your signature to this petition in an attempt to convince Irony not to leave, thanks.-- By Danko CH 16:57, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

why is he leaving? --Skullman1392 00:41, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Cockney Heroes Competition Two

As you may know, a group of Heroes-Wiki-Users are writing a fan fiction called. We are happy to announce a second Cockney Heroes competition. In this competition you will have to create a character and an ability. If you have not been reading Cockney Heroes, a portal of all of the episodes are here and there is a series similar to the graphic novels for Cockney Heroes, here. We would like you to try out as we think that you would be a great inspiration for the team :) Thank You, we hope very much that you will enter If you need to know anything see here, we will try to respond as soon as possible. --IronyUTC CH 18:01, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

NBC's New McDonald's Partnership

This is not necessarily Heroes news, so I thought it worth mentioning here since it will probably be. :) McDonald's and NBC have announced a co-promotion for a new Monopoly game (aka McMillions) beginning 10/6/2009. Stars from NBC primetime shows, probably including Heroes will be throwing dice for 29 consecutive days during nightly ads. The ads, entitled "$1 Million Dollar Dice Roll", will air during the Jay Leno Show, Sunday Night Football, and other NBC primetime programs. The MONOPOLY Game at McDonald's is open to residents of the U.S., Canada, Guam and Saipan. The online Game will only be open to residents of the U.S. and Canada. For complete details and official games rules, visit beginning Sept. 22. For more details, see also news articles from Anderson Vision, Radio Business Report and USA Today; the McDonald's pdf press release; and the 2009 McDonald's Monopoly webpage ( (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2009 (EDT)


Hi Guys,

can anyone tell me please which season/episode matt parkman and angela petrelli have a conversation about saving the world. basically matt is saying that he wants to save the world but he cant and angela tells him thats exactly what her generation tried to do in their time but how eventually they realised that it could not be done? any pointers would be helpfull as i dont have enough time to watch all episodes to find this scene and hopefully all you heores fans with agreater knowledge out there could tell me where, i'm using it for a lesson (if i can find it!) and it will give a really powerfull parallel for it?

cheers--Simon60watts (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

  • I think it might be one of episodes where Matt and Angela are in the police station in Season Two. You can get a list of those episodes at Angela Petrelli/Season Two, and then search the transcripts. Hope that helps some, as I don't recall that exact exchange.--MiamiVolts (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

Flashback pics on character articles

Since this change affects a quite a few page, I figure I'll present this first. I think it would be a good idea, and present a more informative page, to have an images of characters that have had [actors portray them] in flashback state, images of minors at younger ages, and other characters if there is an significant difference in appearence from intro to present on the bottom of the infobox, or at the very least inserted the standard way just below the box. I got this idea from Memory Alpha character articles like this one. If you read this, please post a yes/no/indifferent vote, thanks! --SacValleyDweller (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

  • I think we're already doing this by having a gallery on the character page and by adding photos next to the summaries. Charles Deveaux is a good example. I don't think all the images need to be in the infobox.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

Inconsitency: Telepathic specters VS Illusions and Shapeshifts. Help?

I never was quite clear why Maury's use telepathic specters of D.L. in Out of Time and Linderman during Volume Three are listed as part of the character history of those characters, yet Candice's various illusions (Niki and Claire in .07% for example) and Sylar's Shapeshifts (Sandra in Turn and Face the Strange for example) are listed on Candice and sylar's respective history pages. These abilities, used in these ways, achieve the same effect. Why are they chronicled differently here? --SacValleyDweller (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

  • I'm not sure if this is the entire or main reason... But from what I recall, for Maury's specters, they were originally presented with a POV as though they were returning characters and not specters. Not sure if that helps.--MiamiVolts (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
    • I think it's because while Maury's ability allows him to create illusions of those people, Candice and Sylar's abilities allow them to actually become and impersonate people. --Radicell 06:08, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
    • But since we know that the specters are indeed Maury and not DL and Linderman, should they not now go on Maury's page? Subsequent developments not withstanding, this is exactly like Rebel in Cold Snap. Before that Ep, Rebel was thought to be a new character. In Cold Snap, Micah was reveled to be Rebel, and all of Rebel's history up to that point was put on Micah's page and Rebel redirected to him. We should now in kind put Linderman's Volume Three history on Maury's page and other instances of telepathic specters. --SacValleyDweller (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
      • It's different. On Maury's page, we do have sections saying that he creates illusions of DL and Linderman. However, on DL and Linderman's page, we must have sections saying that Maury had created illusions of them. This is different from Candice and Sylar's powers, where we'd simply add sections to their pages, and not the pages of the people they impersonate. This is again, because while Candice and Sylar use their powers to impersonate an individual, Maury simply creates illusions of the individual while he himself watches from a distance. --Radicell 01:05, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

Adam/Peter's Cells

I have some confusion about the location of Peter and Adam's cells in the Company building. Some places on the wiki say that their cells are on level 2 while others say they are on level 5. I suspect they probably were not on level 5, because it probably would have been a lot noisier when Elle walked through. Is there any information on their canon location or is it just speculation? In any case, there is a discrepancy that needs to be corrected. --Nogard 05:32, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

Fixing issue of uncategorized images

Most of the uncategorized files on the wiki are the result of people not bothering to write anything in the upload form when they upload. This results in other editors having to "clean up" after these uploaders. Now, it should be possible to implement a feature to disallow the uploading of an image unless it has at least one category assigned to it. The way this would work is, when the "Upload" button is clicked, the system checks if the the image has been assigned a category; if yes, it uploads it; if not, it prompts the user to add a category. I had previously suggested this on MiamiVolts's talk page, but I'll say it here to gather opinions. So what does everyone think about this? After all, it would not make things too difficult for the uploader, since all images need categories in the first place. --Radicell 00:58, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

  • I think that's a fine idea. Is it possible? Can MediaWiki support that? Would the category have to be explicit, or would it recognize that some categories are added through templates such as template:image-screenshot? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2009 (EDT)
    • Apparently, it'll need a "server extension" to be written that'll take a while; that's why I'm trying to see if people would actually support such a change. Regarding the categories assigned through templates: currently, on an existing image page, all the categories are displayed at the bottom regardless of how they've been assigned (explicitly or through templates). So, the ideal situation would probably be for the system to see all the categories (regardless of how they've been assigned). --Radicell 11:06, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

Contest. Join?

Hey! I have my own contest and wanted to know if anyone wanted to enter. Well, you guys would have to read the episode summaries first.......But no worries, enter here! :) :) :) --Kyle Stevens 23:40, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

Hey! Look at This!

Hey there, people of Heroes Wiki! I have fininshed PART ONE of my series - Heroes: TCS! Read it and please leave me comments on the Heroes: TCS talk page. :) :) :) :) :) :) --Kyle Stevens 17:16, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

Thanks, Tom!

Tom Inkel tweeted today that he's leaving NBC in three weeks. I assume that means he's gone beginning the week of the premiere. He's the main writer for the iStory, digital writer for Heroes, and helps to create/manage the Heroes: Survival role-playing game. Next week's iStory chapter will be written by someone else. I think he's done an amazing job, and will be missed. I hope he'll get called back for future projects. If you want to join in publicly showing your support for his work, you can post in the related 9th Wonders thread, or post here and I'll post a link at 9th Wonders to here.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

Chronicles Competition

Hello Heroes fans! I, Josh Korolenko, along with my brother AJ, have started our own fan series that tells the stories of people with extraordinary abilities who also have to deal with what happens on the canon show. The first season/volume, entitled Villains, focused on a group of Company agents dealing with the mass outbreak from Level 5. Volume Two, Hunted, will focus on these same agents as they deal with becoming the targets of the government. We are currently holding a competition to have fans create their own characters/abilities to be placed in Chronicles! If you are interested follow the link above or if you have questions, contact me or Aj! :) Be a Hero. Josh KorolenkoUTChronicles

Heroes Legends Competition

Hey my fellow HW wiki-ers, Catalyst here! If you have been reading, and liking my series, Heroes Legends, come and enter the competition I am now holding. If you haven't been reading my series, that's ok, you can still enter, because, heck, you just might win. But anyway...Enter your character and if he/she is an evolved human, and see if you win the prize to have your entry star in the series! Be the hero, be the villain, be in the series. Besides, even if you don't win in the top three, your character will still make an appearance either way! If you have any questions at all, don't hesitate to ask on the series talk page, feel free to ask anything. Good luck to all that will enter the competition and thanks for reading this message! Smile.jpg --Catalyst · Talk · HL 19:40, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

GB's petition

  • I had previously, regretably created a petition to persuade GB not to leave, however I've since come to my senses and have put it up for deletion, rather than 'spamming' and deleting the links to the page on your various talk pages, I'm asking if you can delete the messages, removing links to the page, thank you-- By Danko CH 06:02, 18 August 2009 (EDT)