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.

Talk:Matt Parkman's team (explosion future)

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This image is not help:standard size for a character page. It needs to be so it can be included in the portal.--Hardvice (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

team from Walls

Once Walls, Part 2 comes out, I think we'll need a separate article for them. They're evolved humans versus the humans on the team in FYG.--Bob 14:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Agree. They're not necessarily the same group. However, I'd be more than willing to cut all the stuff from 5YG since there's nothing really terribly exciting about the dudes from DHS. A mere note on Department of Homeland Security would be sufficient, in my opinion. The team should probably refer to those people with the new powers from Walls. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Gotcha. Should probably hold off on redoing the article until Walls Pt 2 comes out so we can elaborate further on the characters.--Bob 23:47, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

The Haitian

Shouldn't the Haitian be listed as on the team? He's definately working WITH Parkman in FYG.--MiamiVolts (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

  • If the "team" is referring to the Department of Homeland Security, then yes, the Haitian should probably be included. It seems like a silly article, though, and I kind of thought the team referred to the group of weirdos that meet Future Peter and et al at the Moab Fed'l Pen. But maybe that's just me... — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
    • I'd suggest then that the title of this article be clarified, and there be a seperate Moab Pen. Response Team article. If and when we learn the complete nature of their relationship to Matt, then we could adjust things on both articles. Potentially, we could not only add that the Haitian worked for Matt in the alternate-future episode FYG, but also mention Matt's old police partner Tom McHenry, and his FBI collegue Audrey Hanson.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
      • Since we're not renaming this article, I added all of Matt's other teams that I could think of.--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
        • I think two separate articles will do fine. One for the present and one for the future.--Ice Vision 18:35, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Group

Well, I added to this page the category Category:Unnamed Groups but I'm not sure to understand how it works. First of all, I did because I realeasized that both Moab Penitentiary response team and Homeland Security are of course, Future Groups but also Named/Unnamed groups. The problem is, in the .. euh.. group-tree (?), Named, Unnamed and Future are at the same level.. The other problem is that we have a navbar that display this page as a Future Group, but know I added the Unnamed cat, shouldn't it appear in this line of the template too ? I need a small recap. :) -- FrenchFlo (talk)        16:58, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

  • I don't really see it as a problem, but I agree that we should probably include the future groups with the regular groups on the portal (not sure about the nav). Technically, though, I think we should add all of the group articles to the 'Groups' category the same way it's done for the 'Characters' category. I think that would be less confusing.
PS: It's being discussed on Category talk:Future Groups as to whether to delete the future category altogether, though I rather think we should keep it, add a past groups portal/category after past groups are introduced in Volume Two: Generations, and add all groups to the groups category.--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I agree, Flo, it seems odd to me that they would be included in a category, but not the corresponding portal or section on the navbar. However, it would seem even weirder to me to include them twice on the navbar or in both portals. However, I'm of the mind to delete the Future Groups category altogether. If there are more future groups, then we could re-add it. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Yeah, deleting the Future Groups cat seems good. We will just have to add somwhere in the group's page a note about the fact this is a future group. Things would be much easier. For now, it's pretty weird, especially the navbar in which we don't add future-named group as both future and named (and a duplicate on a navbar would make the navbar weird too). Just delete the Future Groups cat! -- FrenchFlo (talk)        07:41, 28 May 2007 (EDT)